So, that’s it for the fox hunters

I didn’t know that the vote on fox hunting was about to be taken yesterday until yesterday morning - it’s been debated for years, particularly since the Blair government took power in 1997. (Under the old government, it was pretty much unthinkable - a lot of Tories actually partake in the sport themselves.) The Countryside Alliance staged a huge last-ditch protest in an apparent attempt to stave off the ban.

I didn’t realise the issues surrounding hunting were so complicated. I’m not entirely convinced one way or another; on one hand, the distress caused to the fox by the long chase, the savagery of the kill (being eaten by big dogs), and the smearing of blood over the children present, all makes a big case for blood-thirst and cruelty. On the other hand, if they don’t hunt, they will have to shoot, or trap, or poison, all of which may result in more cruelty. I’m not sure if farmers here have access to firearms other than shotguns, which are not good for shooting foxes at a long distance. And the other methods could result in other animals getting killed (and animals often avoid traps when they smell blood on them).

There’s also a big class issue here. It’s said that fox hunting dates from the Norman conquest, after which the aristocracy designated huge areas of the country as “forests” - that is, their hunting grounds. George Monbiot makes that argument here. Apparently love of hunting is instilled in the upper classes at public schools like Monbiot’s own at Stowe in Buckinghamshire, and the only working-class aspect of it is the “running down”, in which “the fit young men of the village work out where the horses are going and, taking short cuts, try to get there before them. This way you could enjoy the thrill of the chase without the expense of owning a horse. The hunters tolerated us, but that was all”. I don’t think Monbiot’s argument suffices as a reason to ban hunting altogether; the fact that hunts trample across people’s land and kill animals other than foxes - like people’s cats - may well be.

Also, I notice the “mind your own business” card being played here a lot. “This is a country issue, you are town people who don’t know how things work. Mind your own business!” This is a common dead-end argument which is often deployed when the arguer realises he is defending the indefensible. It was used in the USA to defend slavery and later the “Jim Crow” system; it has been used to defend female genital mutilation in Africa, and is used by feminists demanding free abortions on demand, especially against men who dare to have an opinion on the issue (other than that it should be free, and available on demand). A hunt supporter was interviewed on the Jon Gaunt show and made the case much more effectively without resorting to this gambit.

One last thing: if you want us to be sympathetic to your cause, please don’t make our life difficult so that you can make your views known. I was driving along the M25 motorway (the ring road round the outside of London) and had to make a detour because I’d heard of traffic disruption at a major junction on the east side of town. I don’t see why our lives should suffer just so you can demand your entertainment.

Possibly Related Posts:

• So much for “war on the NIMBYs”
• Desperate Tories, shameless lies
• It’s Islamophobia, thank you
• Seething with anger
• Rochdale and Rishi Sunak’s hunt for ‘extremists’