Thursday, November 18, 2004
Banning Barbarism

I see the Olde Country is finally coming to grips with outlawing hunting with dogs. The elected representatives’ will on the matter is long overdue, but it is still disturbing that the ban is likely to be enforced using the ‘Parliament Act’, not something it was necessarily designed for. It seems the cruel rural pursuits of the wealthy are going to be more difficult to stifle than the cruel working class fetishes of dog and cock fighting. And despite what Mr Blair may think, there is no ‘third way’; a licensed hunt would be every bit as unjustified as any other. Both would end in the unnecessarily brutal death of an animal.

Earlier attempts by the Lower House to ban hunting in 2000-01 fell prey to the worst flaws of the UK Parliamentary system. The lack of any fixed term allowed a nervous Prime Minister to evade confronting the Lords and the rural bourgeoisie. The government knew the Bill would never pass muster in the Upper House and so it could avoid the issue altogether. It also allowed the executive branch of government to blatantly ignore the will of the legislature by not devoting Parliamentary time for its resolution.

Additionally, having an unelected Upper House still containing hereditary Lords who did not reflect public opinion (I cannot think superlatives enough to describe such an arcane system, so I will not bother trying) allowed the elected chamber’s will to be thwarted time and time again. But it seems that this time, Tony Banks et al will get their way.

Arguments for opposing the ban (or for supporting for the status quo) fall into two categories. There is the ‘moral’ argument – that the majority (“townies”, always) should not interfere with the legitimate pursuits of the minority (“countryfolk”) and the ‘rational’ – that fox hunting is, in fact, good. Both are deeply flawed.

The beady gaze of the state should rightly stay well clear of legislating against the activities of section of society that has no impact on the rest of us; this is the foundation upon which British Liberalism has been built. Paradoxically, it has been keenly adopted in UK Conservatism, a political philosophy that makes firm commitments to certain moral issues. Although it is doubtful that traditional supporters of hunting are of the same constituency as those who would naturally support gay-marriage or private drug use, it is on this doctrine that many ‘Pros’ base their argument.

But when a section of society is acting with cruel impunity, impinging on the health and welfare of an animal, for no other purpose than for pleasure, then it is right and fair that the people, through the institutions of a democratic state, intervene to prevent it. If outlawing badger baiting or cruelty to children is pandering to the nanny state, then long live the nanny state!

What is at stake, is where individuals judge the boundaries of their ‘moral community’ to be. For Pros, it the protection of rights and obligations should not extend beyond the human species and so the democratic state’s responsibility should not extend to protecting animals from cruelty, inflicted by humans.

But accusing Pros of championing cruelty to animals is likely to be met with derision. They all ride horses and own hounds of which they are probably deeply fond. This incoherence is the deep flaw in the Pro's argument. It is about impuning Nature – of assuming that the life of a wild animal is valued less than one bred for domesticity. However, the democratic state has already legislated that cruelty to some animals is inadmissible, but yet it remains acceptable to be cruel to a fox and to take its life in brutal manner, not for food or protection, but for pleasure. Just do not harm "Apples" the pony.

It is patently clear that the reason why fox hunting has not been consigned to our barbaric past is the continued existence of an unelected, Tory, unrepresentative and rural dominated House of Lords. Undoubtedly, for the 'Antis', part of the desire for a ban is mischievously based on some kind of misguided class envy – it is just a good old case of toff-bashing. And it is true, many fox-hunters are toffs and horse riding has long been imbued with class-war imagery. Even our language is peppered with such revolutionary metaphor – “get off your high horse!”

But this is only part of the story. People who continue to support fox hunting make themselves such easy targets by putting forward such manifestly ludicrous ‘rational’ arguments for its continuation. Pros almost willingly present themselves as some kind of dimwitted pseudo-aristocrats, bred stupid by the rampant inbreeding that all townies know happens in the countryside. The uncompromising faith in their arguments is akin to that of the Flat Earth Society – clinging unashamedly to an absurd dogma, whilst the rest of us look on, with an almost quaint, but patronising, curiosity.

Arguing that fox-hunting is some kind of ‘natural’ check on fox numbers, or that it is the most efficient or humane way of killing a fox is just plain dumb. How is deploying human reared hounds ‘natural’ and please, please, please someone tell me how driving two dozen gas-guzzling horse boxes along winding country lanes is more ‘efficient’ than hiring a lone marksman with a high velocity rifle? Fox numbers will naturally check themselves, in accordance to the availability of food (from both farms and the environment) and the idea that 'Nature', or what is left of it in the UK, must be persistently ‘managed’ smacks of anthropocentric arrogance.

Protecting rural industries is always is important, but to not push on with the banning of a barbaric pursuit through fear of the loss of a handful of jobs, is akin to worrying about what is going to happen to all the dealers when we crack down on drug taking.

Given that the arguments to support the continuation of fox-hunting are ludicrous beyond serious consideration, the Pro's bitterness must be a result of a more disturbing schism. They don't just see this as the tyranny of the majority, but as part of a fractious and deepening rural-urban divide; the mass urban liberal lumpenbourgeoisie dictating to a rural minority. Fox-hunting is merely a skirmish in the wider conflict.

It is this divisive rural–urban facet that has given the fox-hunting debate its zeal. For townies, there are no worse victims than rural dwellers, always carping on about something. It is either permanently raining too much, or raining too little, petrol is too expensive or farmgate prices are too low. And for countryfolk, townies will never appreciate the intricacies and special requirements of country life. Lack of empathy pervades the issue.

But this is a serious divide, and one that the Islington Party is well advised to recognise. It is a scandalous that so much Parliamentary time has been wasted in pursuing this legislation, when politicians could have been knuckling down on the grander issues of the day. But before the Pros get on their high horse (that metaphor, again), this also reflects poorly on those who continue to vehemently support cruelty to animals. They should have seen the writing on the wall for their vindictive pastime many years ago, and should not have been wasting our time since.

Peripheral arguments over policing the ban are legitimate, but it is doubtful that any large hunt – resplendent in bright red coats, with bugles, hounds and hunt followers - will be that difficult to dob-in. Whilst it is likely that an illegal core of barbarians will continue to hunt with dogs, even this will soon loose its appeal once ‘the Hunt’ is reduced to the simple act of killing of animals.

The Countryside Alliance will try hard to pin this ban on Government and the Tories will also attempt to earn political capital out of the kafuffle. But it is a free vote. It was only Government policy to force a vote on the future of hunting, not to support a ban or otherwise. It is also unlikely that a ban will hurt Labour much anyway. The Shires have long been Tory.

Banning fox hunting will only push them further beyond Labour’s reach, exacerbating the alienation. But the Countryside Alliance is houndnig the wrong bogeyman. It is not Labour per se that is destroying the countryside, for the Tories made a sufficient mess themselves. It is the rampant operation of the free market that is decimating rural incomes, sky-rocketing village house prices and generating rural traffic congestion. The Countryside Alliance would do well to let fox hunting go (it just has to go) and focus its energy on supporting a rural future of more humane pursuits.

---