Advertisement

Comment: Fox hunting is ugly, but so is banning it

It has been four years since the government implemented a ban on foxhunting. And it is just one year until a general election which, if the Tories get in, will prompt a vote in parliament on repealing that law. Whatever you do, foxhunting never goes away as an issue.

David Cameron's decision to allow a free vote on the Hunting Act if the Conservatives attain power was a perfectly sensible thing to do, politically speaking. A solid little minority of his party's natural supporters will vote on this issue alone, while a much larger subsection will be relieved to know he's on their side of the fence. Back when he was busy trying to hug hoodies, it was the kind of policy which reassured Tories he was still one of them.

But his decision to only allow a limited amount of time for the debate - sold to me by a Tory official as a reflection of how much time the Commons has already spent debating the issue - reflects his discomfort with the subject.

Tony Blair had the same aversion. Labour entered power with a promise to ban hunting. It finally got round to it in 2004, seven years later, and even then after some very sustained lobbying by animal rights groups.

Both men hate it because the topic is so fraught with danger. The issues it raises - class, animal rights, rural identity, freedom from Westminster - tend to provoke such heated argument it's difficult to keep the debate moving in the direction you want it to go. It's of no use to a politician at all, who always wants to know what he gets out of speaking out on something. Push ahead with your animal rights agenda and suddenly you're accused of class war. Act to save the unique identity of rural England and find your views set alongside images of cute animals being brutally killed.

But somewhere around the cacophony of argument which surrounded the Act was a civil liberties argument, and it got thoroughly lost amongst all the noise.

I should preface the following comments (and ensure I make no friends at all) by saying the following: I fundamentally don't understand fox hunting. In a perfect example of the deranged manner in which government's talk, the Burn's report said the practise "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". I'd say that the chase physically exhausts and genuinely terrifies the animal, before it is savagely torn to pieces by hounds. The concept that someone would enjoy this is contrary to my definition of a well-rounded human being. If foxes need to be shot, let them be shot, but there seems something inherently wrong with humans savouring the unnecessary trauma of animals.

And yet, the ban of fox hunting was a trivial and simple minded encroachment on the rights and freedoms of British citizens. There is only one fact which needs mentioning: no humans were hurt in the hunt. The principles of liberalism do not extend to animals. Our system is (theoretically) based on allowing people to do as they choose, unless their behaviour affects someone else. It is the basis of Christianity ('do unto others') and Kantian moral philosophy, on which so much of our culture and political legitimacy rests.

If we expand this equation to animals we find ourselves in very dodgy territory indeed. Is eating meat OK? How about Halal meat, the practise of killing according to Islamic rules which got Ken Livingstone into such hot water when he challenged it during his stint as London mayor? Or neutering cats? Did the cat ask to be neutered? Would it wish to be? Certainly not. We neuter cats for the practicalities of human life, not theirs. The basic tenets of liberalism simply won't expand to include animals, nor should they. Does that mean that the cruel neglect of pets should be legal too? I'm afraid it may do. Living with your principles requires hard choices, and so does legislating for them.

This was a civil liberties issue, and, as it has done throughout New Labour's time in power, Britain fell firmly on the side of authoritarianism. Seventy per cent of the population didn't like what was going on, and so the government banned it under pressure. It was, as John Stuart Mill might have said, the tyranny of the majority.

And that remains true even if the minority are engaged in an activity you find intolerable. The Tories are within their rights (just) by having a vote on repeal, but they should give it the time it deserves. These are important issues which deserve to be fully resolved.

Ian Dunt