The BBC is reporting that Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, is launching a campaign to boost support for retaining the ban on fox hunting. David Cameron has pledged to give MPs a free vote on repealing this ban. The likelihood is that a Tory majority after the next election would see the ban abolished and it would become legal to hunt foxes with hounds once again.
As you may have guessed from the title of this post, I am in favour of retaining the ban. I accept that it is not a perfect piece of legislation, and that very few people who break this law are brought to trial. But that is not an argument to get rid of the ban; it is an argument to improve it.
Fox hunting is a bloodsport. It is brutal and barbaric. There should be no place for it in Britain and it’s one issue where I think the Tories have got it completely wrong.
I’ve discussed this several times with pro-hunting people. Their arguments in favour usually revolve around the tradition of the hunt, the social aspect of it and the need to keep the fox population low to avoid them killing farmers’ hens and other poultry. Let me deal with these arguments one at a time, because they are all ridiculous.
Firstly, tradition. I may be conservative, but I do not accept that tradition alone makes something inherently good. Yes, many hunts have long histories and they do form a traditional part of life in many rural areas. But does that alone make them acceptable? Of course not. Things have to be judged by their virtues, as well as their place in history. As far as I’m concerned, fox hunting has no virtue.
Secondly, it’s defenders point to the social element. No-one can deny that it is a thoroughly social ‘sport’. For many people, I would guess, this is the main reason for going to hunts. But again, that is absolutely no argument in favour of animal cruelty.
Thirdly, the foxes-as-pests argument. Foxes break into chicken coops and sheds, and kill all the poultry in them. All true. But, yet again, no argument in favour of using hounds to hunt them down and rip them to pieces. Are they really saying that humans – a species that has put men on the Moon and split the atom – can’t stop foxes from getting into chicken sheds? Get real.
Of course, there is another argument: that fox hunting really isn’t that cruel at all. The hounds only catch up with the sick or old foxes, which are going to die soon anyway. Another ridiculous argument. The idea of killing any animal purely for sport is morally wrong. Trying to rationalise it as some form of mercy kill does not change that.
Fox hunting is on the same level as bear baiting and cock fighting. They are all cruel and unnecessary, and none of them should be legal. You don’t hear calls to reintroduce cock fights or bear baiting, do you? And neither should we bring back fox hunting.
And as for the Countryside Alliance’s argument that the ban should be repealed because it’s ‘illiberal’…I hardly know where to start. Clearly individual freedom is more important to them than animal welfare. Do they class the bans on other blood sports as illiberal also? How about laws prohibiting the mistreatment of pets or farm animals? How far are they prepared to go? Should we repeal them all? I think not.
I applaud Hilary Benn’s effort and I hope that this leads to a strengthening of the anti-hunt movement. Perhaps then – if Cameron wins and calls a free vote – public pressure might lead to the retention of this legislation.
I’ll just leave with with one last thought. I’ve already said that fox hunting is on the same level as bear baiting and cock fights. But this isn’t entirely true. The other two blood sports – which were banned ages ago – were mainly enjoyed by the working classes. Fox hunting – which was only banned recently, and might be legalised again very soon – has traditionally been a form of entertainment for a privileged, well-connected rural elite. Coincidence?
