NEWS: Hunters Prepare for Court Battle

The court battle to reverse the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales gets underway today. The Countryside Alliance will argue that the use of the 1949 Parliament Act, which allows the lower house to bypass the upper house, is invalid and therefore so is any legislation passed by using this Act. In a separate case, individual huntspeople are claiming an infringement of their human rights.



The ban was due to take effect on February 18th; it seems clear now that this will be at least somewhat delayed. Some in the Countryside Alliance are now wondering if the court case was such a good idea, the question being: is a short stay of execution (pardon the pun) worth giving Tony Blair and his cronies a "pre-election gift"? Certainly Labour would like nothing better than to see this contentious issue "disappear" for a few months, and this is now the most likely outcome.

I do believe that the Parliament Act is flawed; there seems little point in having two houses if one house has the power to force legislation through on its own. It's hard to imagine any court having the cojones to strike it down, though, as the ramifications will go far beyond this single issue.

As for fox hunting itself: I fully support it. Nothing against foxes (although one did kill - not eat, mind you, just kill - most of our chickens last year), but then this isn't about foxes, it's really a question of "class warfare", and about people who have nothing better to do than to try and impose their warped moral judgements on others. This ban won't save a single fox; foxes will still need to be controlled, and will continue to be controlled using a variety of legal, even less humane methods.

Related News Links:
news.telegraph.co.uk
www.countryside-alliance.org
www.league.uk.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Britain Outlaws Fox Hunting
Britain to ban hunting

That law is political correctness and class warfare gone amuk. I can't believe any law that could have ever been passed in Britain, hopefully the courts can overturn it.

It's not "class warfare" but it is interesting that you think it is. You're sad people.

I think you're right that banning the hunt will do nothing to change the killing of foxes. The number of foxes killed during the hunt is probably very low, compared with other horrible fates they face.

As for the morals of the hunt, while I personally wouldn't go on one, it would be quite hypocritical of me to judge those who do. You see, I come from the land of leg-hold traps and baby-seal clubbing, and until I can get my govt to do something about that, I have no right to judge your adopted countries traditions.

How's that for diplomatic, eh?

Originally posted by malcr
It's not "class warfare" but it is interesting that you think it is. You're sad people.

Would you care to in any way qualify, back up, or in any way justify that, or are you just into name calling?

Sad people, imho, are those with nothing better to do than to pass judgement on others and attempt to impose their will on them.

There may, in fact, be a few anti-hunt people who really believe that they're "saving foxes", but most know better.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
The court battle to reverse the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales gets underway today. The Countryside Alliance will argue that the use of the 1949 Parliament Act, which allows the lower house to bypass the upper house, is invalid

What other legislation would this effect?

djohnsto77
That law is political correctness and class warfare gone amuk.

Not permiting people to use ravenous dogs to tear apart game animals is too pc?

Yes nygdan it is too PC.
Not to mention the fact that the foxes are shot not "torn to pieces by ravenous dogs"
Hunting dogs are not used for the actuall killing the humans do that. The dogs are only used for the tracking, cornering, or retreiving of animals.
Dogs have been used to hunt for longer than humans have had cities or laws.
They were first domesticted by our nomadic ancestors.
To you brits you have my most heartfelt sympathies.

Originally posted by Nygdan
What other legislation would this effect?

This link lists the other times it has been used ( 1991: War Crimes Act;1999: European Parliamentary Elections Act; 2000: Sexual Offences Amendment Act; 2004: Hunting Bill).

Not permiting people to use ravenous dogs to tear apart game animals is too pc?

As already mentioned, it isn't actually like that.

If anyone really wanted to "save foxes", the law would have to prohibit all forms of hunting, trapping, shooting, poisoning. Then, just to be fair, ALL forms of hunting/controlling ALL animals would have to be outlawed. Fishing, too.

And while you're at it, consider this: there is one category covering millions of animals that have much shorter, much more miserable lives than your average fox. (And they have NO chance of "getting away"...) I'm talking, of course, about the animals that end up on your dinner plate. Are any of these less deserving of a quality life than a fox is?

Of course, if everyone did go vegetarian, then millions of food source animals would have to be put down, as they make lousy pets.

Where does it end?

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye

Originally posted by Nygdan
What other legislation would this effect?

This link lists the other times it has been used ( 1991: War Crimes Act;1999: European Parliamentary Elections Act; 2000: Sexual Offences Amendment Act; 2004: Hunting Bill).

So, assuming that the current claim against the 1949 Parliament Act is upheld, and unless it's specific and limited application in this single case is deemed unlawful, then it follows that it is illogical, unlawful even at that stage, to allow these other Acts to remain in place, as they were introduced under the same [now flawed] legislation. Good luck unravelling these Act's and the assortment of schedules that follow them.

Does the model of the upper house actually contribute to the prized possession of a modern democracy in it's current form anyway ? Maybe not. That all legislation set by the administration of the day should receive due scrutiny is absolute beyond any question whatsoever, but should the second chamber not also be fully elected ?

I personally believe that this case will fail (on legislative grounds, not ethics), and I also believe that it will further expedite the end of the upper house in it's current form: which is somewhat ironic as the connection between members within it, who would have denied this Bill's progress to the statute books and those who wish to pursue such 'sports' is very often close.

This issue has reached the point it has, simply because the Hunting Act casts a long shadow over the upper house and darkens it in a way that few, if any other bits of legislation could do.

I would say that using the Parliament Act to pass the Hunting Bill is the beginning of the move towards a modern democracy where both houses are fully elected and can said to be representative of the people, and that in doing so, the ideals of democracy will be advanced in this country not weakened as some have suggested by the application of the brute force passing of a relatively minor bit of legislation.

Class war ? Hell yeah, but this is the twenty-first century, not some imagine Arcadian idyll picture postcard version of Ye Olde England, where privilege and servitude (and pointless barbaric blood 'sports') are the order of the day.




"Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."

Originally posted by 0951
Class war ? Hell yeah, but this is the twenty-first century, not some imagine Arcadian idyll picture postcard version of Ye Olde England, where privilege and servitude (and pointless barbaric blood 'sports') are the order of the day.

I didn't bother quoting your whole post, as I can't find much to disagree with; the House of Lords is probably past its sell-by date, in its current form anyway. I think that's a bit of a shame, since once you have a fully elected upper house, you'll be even further down the road towards a US-style government. Maybe Tony Blair can be the first President.

As for the rest:

What does the century have to do with it? I class that as one of those statements that sounds good but means nothing.

This has not a thing to do with privilege and servitude.

"Blood sport" is a term designed specifically to conjure up an image that has no grounding in reality. (It really gets the liberal left into a tizzy, though, which is of course the intent.)

All forms of hunting (to include fishing) are "blood sports". That's the part that gets to me: I don't really care about fox hunting, per se, I just have an automatic, inbred aversion to the idea of waging a misguided class war against just one type. And I really object to the idea of legislating morality, especially considering that 59% of the populace opposed the ban. (And within that remaining 41%, I'll wager that a solid majority don't care one way or the other...)

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye

[...]

As for the rest:

What does the century have to do with it? I class that as one of those statements that sounds good but means nothing.

For me this is about a progressive and developing modern democracy, a living administrative system of governance that is flexible and fully able to respond to the [evolving] society that consents to it's existence - essentially, I used it here as idea's formed in one time don't necessarily translate very well into another - much like the cessation of the divine right of kings or the assumed rights of hereditary peers - that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
This has not a thing to do with privilege and servitude.

Hmm, my directly observed experience directed this comment - I have recently spoken with people who regard, (or at least appear to regard, from their use of language) themselves as much a 'possession' - a chattel even, of the hunt as were the hounds, or the land upon which the hunt takes place - and that sounds much like servitude. Not that these people were ignorant of that fact, indeed they appeared to regard it as the natural order of things ... and this was from a position of unmistakable neutrality by the way, not as a supporter, nor saboteur.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
"Blood sport" is a term designed specifically to conjure up an image that has no grounding in reality. (It really gets the liberal left into a tizzy, though, which is of course the intent.)

Quite, that's why I used it, although I'd disagree that it has no grounding in reality. That point has been well enough argued elsewhere, this post is more around the effects upon democracy, so we'll set that aside in this discussion. Perhaps it's use in my original post was ill-judged as it introduced the 'other' argument into this one. Mea culpa.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
All forms of hunting (to include fishing) are "blood sports". That's the part that gets to me: I don't really care about fox hunting, per se, I just have an automatic, inbred aversion to the idea of waging a misguided class war against just one type. And I really object to the idea of legislating morality, especially considering that 59% of the populace opposed the ban. (And within that remaining 41%, I'll wager that a solid majority don't care one way or the other...)

This is true enough about the other forms of hunting. The class war thing is more about the restoration of equality within society, and not under some misguided socialist / Marxist principles, but on the basis of natural justice.

As to legislating morality, why then do any laws exist really - are not child abuse, rape and murder not morally repellent ? of course they are, so we legislate against them ... and ok, I know this will present an obvious counter arguement about questions of degree, (in that some people will feel that hunting cannot be compared to child abuse and such) - but the principle remains surely - laws are nothing more than 'enforced' social moral ethics ?

Originally posted by 0951
For me this is about a progressive and developing modern democracy...

I'm all for that...BUT, why does it automatically follow that you can't have a progressive democracy that includes fox hunting? After all, had it gone to a referrendum, the bill would almost certainly have been defeated. You should be cautious about holding up this fiasco as a shining example of democracy in action.

Hmm, my directly observed experience directed this comment - I have recently spoken with people who regard, (or at least appear to regard, from their use of language) themselves as much a 'possession' - a chattel even...

This is at odds with my extensive direct experience, albeit only with one Hunt (Hunt as in the group of people not as in a specific event). It's hard to imagine a more varied group...most are of course "country" people, but they are from all walks of country life, and there is no impression of any being or feeling like "chattel". As for the land, the Hunt must always get permission from the land owners prior to crossing.

The class war thing is more about the restoration of equality within society, and not under some misguided socialist / Marxist principles, but on the basis of natural justice.

All very admirable, but I still fail to see where it fits within the context of this argument. In terms of "natural justice", if there were true natural justice then the fox would still have natural predators left in the countryside. OK, I know that's not what you meant...in my view, a big piece of natrural justice is the idea of leaving people to get on with their lives, in their own way, as much as humanly possible.

As to legislating morality, why then do any laws exist really - are not child abuse, rape and murder not morally repellent ? of course they are, so we legislate against them ... and ok, I know this will present an obvious counter arguement about questions of degree, (in that some people will feel that hunting cannot be compared to child abuse and such) - but the principle remains surely - laws are nothing more than 'enforced' social moral ethics ?

Yes, but the difference is one of degree and consensus. Clearly 99.9999% of people abhor child abuse, therefore you get very wide agreement that there needs to be a law against it. Such a consensus doesn't exist in relation to fox hunting. This is really about a small group of Labour back-benchers with an axe to grind forcing their leadership into a corner. As I said before, none of this has a damn thing to do with foxes.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Hunting dogs are not used for the actuall killing the humans do that. The dogs are only used for the tracking, cornering, or retreiving of animals.

They do not attack the foxes, only corner them? If so then I tend to agree that there is nothing especialy in human about it. I suppose one could argue that being pursued by dogs in itself is 'cruel', but I think thats a bit of a stretch.

azeari
lists the other times it has been used

Hmm, seems like it'd effect lots of other important legislation. I'd think that they'd have to be thrown out too.

Then, just to be fair, ALL forms of hunting/controlling

I agree, but, I have to say, I remain rather incredulous that hunting dogs do nothing but bark at foxes on these hunts. Of course, I've never witnessed one. Is it that the fox is usually shot, and only sometimes the dogs get to them first? Seems like these must be well bred dogs that are able to control themselves like that.

since once you have a fully elected upper house,

Why maintain two houses anyway? They used to be lords and what not part of the actual system. Similarly, senators in the US used to be appointed by state governors. THe lords represented an important part of the system, the royals of various types that were part of the country. The senators, similarly, represented the interests of the states themselves, rather than the citizens directly (more or less anyway).

With the (hypothetical) elimination of lordliness (or whathaveyou) as a qualification of membership in the House of Lords, would the state also maintain the existence of these dukes, barons, earls, etc etc? Might it not just abolish the whole system, outside of the actual ruling royalty?

That might not be the best idea, no? The Lords were a check on the powers of the Regals, and British Laws still requires the (inexplicit) approval of the Monarch to come into effect. Removing the lords would, in a way, remove this check, and also put the monarchy and citizenry at odds directly, what with the power structures that support the lords being removed/abolished (of course, i realize that 'lords' aren't waddling around opulent castles sending their vassals on quests,buggering their housemaids and opressing their landed serfs)

It might result in the weird situation of the Monarchy not approving the measure and trying to protect the lords.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by Nygdan]

Here is a link to the lastest story. High Court judges are due to make their ruling today regarding the Countryside Alliance's challenge to the government's use of the Parliament Act.

There are signs that the CA is less than confident of victory. (Did they really think any judge would dare to overturn an act of Parliament?)

Also, the BBC has obtained documents via the Freedom of Information Act suggesting that police may not crack down very hard on illegal hunts, regardless of what happens in court. This is hardly surprising; a force that is so short-staffed that it can't even respond to real criminal activity in a timely manner is hardly going to be able to chase around the countryside after people on horseback. And to further complicate matters, it will remain perfectly legal for groups of people to ride their horses around, to exercise their dogs, and to hold "drag" hunts; it will be difficult to tell - and to prove - exactly what people are up to.

This just in: the High Court has upheld the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales.

No surprise, really, as the case revolved around the way the ban was legislated rather than the ban itself.

The Countryside Alliance has already started the appeal process.

Sad people, imho, are those with nothing better to do than to pass judgement on others and attempt to impose their will on them.

Here is something often said by those who do the same thing on other issues, like drugs. What kind of world would it be if nobody said, this is acceptable and this is not acceptable ?
Imagine a world where folk are free to rape your sister, burn down your house, and kill your dog, because nobody wanted to "impose their will on others".
Thats what is called "Law", laws are made for reasons, many are pointless, useless laws, granted, but many more are not.
A law is a guide for the intelligent, and a burden for fools. They are there to bring barbarians into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if nessesary.
I will not comment on my veiw of this particular law, I just wished to make a point. Thanks.

Originally posted by instar
Here is something often said by those who do the same thing on other issues, like drugs. What kind of world would it be if nobody said, this is acceptable and this is not acceptable ?
Imagine a world where folk are free to rape your sister, burn down your house, and kill your dog, because nobody wanted to "impose their will on others".
Thats what is called "Law", laws are made for reasons, many are pointless, useless laws, granted, but many more are not.
A law is a guide for the intelligent, and a burden for fools. They are there to bring barbarians into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if nessesary.
I will not comment on my veiw of this particular law, I just wished to make a point. Thanks.

Like someone mentioned before, it's a question of degree. Of course we need laws, and yes often those laws reflect the morality of the majority. This issue just doesn't fit into that box, though; it's the (questionable) morality of a vocal minority interfering with the lives of ordinary decent people.

And, once again, even if it were otherwise, even if a majority were against hunting with dogs, it would still be wrong to single out just this one form of hunting.