That's a bit of a no-brainer. Their 'way of life' involves torturing animals. Duh. Perhaps while we're at it we could explain to paedophile's why we feel a need to destroy their way of life too? You've been watching too much telly. I live in a rural community, and I've never so much as met a single person who goes hunting or feels that hunting is vital to the local economy. Are you suggesting that people won't drink unless they've seen a bit of blood first? Oh please! Your comedy routine is just killing me! Of course, land owners will put hunting before huge financial gain! How obvious! Makes you wonder why governments ever needed to protect land by creating a green belt in the first place, eh? You seem to have some fantasy ideal of rural life that has no connection with reality. Well that one's simple. Hunting is being used as the rallying point for a broad range of issues affecting the rural community. If you seriously think 400,000 people have a direct or even indirect interest in hunting, you've not got a clue. The march wasn't a pro-hunting march - it was an anti-government march.
Oh, and another thing.... This is exactly what it's about. All the other issues being dragged into the debate are intended to detract attention from the only real issue here..... hunting is an outdated and barbaric activity that derives pleasure from the suffering of another living creature. Pretending that it's about anything else is a disgrace.
Couldn't have put it better myself Dok... What gets me is the pleasure that people derive from it. What is wrong with drag hunting anyway? Another hypocritical fact is that in some areas they will actually breed foxes to hunt. What a way to control a population, dontcha think! Sorry, i'm a bit late into this conversation, so probably everything i've said has already been mentioned - it's just a strong issue for me so i fancied saying my piece. It's depressing at my college. It's an agricultural college, so there's a big split down the middle of people who are anti or pro. The sad thing is that anybody who is anti hunting is too scared to say, because it is one of the root causes of all the violence and fights at my college. I walk across my campus, and in so many of the windows they have "fight prejudice, fight the ban" posters up... I want to do a sign saying "For fox sake, give it a rest..." These people are looking for anything to make it hard to ban hunting. If they place the blame on prejudice it is far harder for a ban to come through. I'm rambling... sorrie... xxx
Yeah, violence breeds violence. This is yet another disturbing aspect of hunting - it dehumanises people. Having met many people directly involved with hunting through my involvement with animal rights many years ago, I can state categorically that they're some of the most vicious and unpleasant people that I've ever encountered. Their casual, off-hand attitude to violence and their willingness to lash out at people was disgusting.
From what I know it is the animal rights people who are the most violent. They send death threats to scientific research laboritries and attack the homes and cars of people who work there. They caused the only arrests on the otherwise peaceful 400,000 strong pro hunt march. I would doubt very much that many hunt followers have convictions for violence. Another thing it will cost 2 million pounds a year to enforce a ban on hunting, taking away police resources from fighting serious crime. The debate in Parliament to ban hunting has also wasted valuable Parlaimentary time which should have been used to sort out serious issues that effect everyone like the state of National Health Service, housing, education and crime.
And I suppose your facts originate from the Daily Mail? http://www.crueltyexposed.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=39&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 http://www.keeponfighting.net/gallery/slideshow.php?set_albumName=20030717-Jonathan_Broise http://pages.zdnet.com/hrthompson/leagueagainstcruelsportswarwickshiregroup/id47.html
Met 'em. Worked with 'em. Their not. Sorry to piss on your fireworks. You're really scraping the barrel now, aren't you? "We can't make hunting illegal in case people break the law". Get fucking real. That's not an argument - it's a joke. Actually, animal welfare legislation in general is quite expensive to enforce, so let's ban the lot of it, eh? Pathetic. "Let's not outlaw cruelty because we're too busy"? Genius! You should debate for Britain. Really. Of course, the legislation would've been passed years ago if the pro-hunt lobby hadn't been so busy trying to obstruct the legislation, thus wasting all the valuable parliamentary time that you're apparently so bothered about. Don't you have anything better to do with your time that defend barbaric cruelty?
No it is a valid argument! I suppose people like you also critise people like Tony Martin for taking the law into their own hands? How hypocritical. Don't you see if police resources are targetted at fighting real crime then people wont need to take the law into there own hands! The extra two million a year which will be spent on enforcing a hunt ban could be spent on making rural communities safer. It is a question of priorities. No one likes the idea of foxes being killed, but if its a choice between banning a cruel sport and having a safer community they I choose a safer community. Again it is a question of priorities! If its a case of Parliament spending ages and ages debating a hunt ban or debating issues which of more concern, such as how to combat the hospital superbug which kills PEOPLE then I choose the latter.
What, not passing laws in case people break them? Yeah, ok Sherlock. You mean for shooting someone in the back with a shotgun? Hmmmm. Oh please. What bullshit. If everything's about priorities, then I assume you donate all your income to starving children in the third world? I've never heard anyone argue that a moral law shouldn't be passed because it's too expensive to enforce. That's the most ridiculous line of reasoning I've ever heard. Like I said, why don't we revoke all animal welfare legislation on the grounds that it's too expensive and use the money on 'real' issues? You seem to be arguing that we should allow a bunch of undemocratic thugs to dictate the law to us by threatening to break it, thus overturning the will of the people and the will of our elected government. Genius! The reason this has occupied so much parliamentary time is because of the undemocratic activities of pro-hunt MPs who've attempted to block the will of the vast majority of parliament at every stage. So again, your argument would seem to be that we should allow the will of the people and of our elected government to be dictated to us by the activities of a bunch of undemocratic bully boys. You're gonna scrape right through the bottom of the barrel at this rate.
Oh but it has been said many times before. The best example being complaints about police persecuting motorists for minor offences, while fighting serious crime is neglected. Or the famous case of Brian Paddick police commander of Brixton anouncing his officers would no longer be arresting cannabis users to free up police resources to fight more serious crime. And there are many outdated ancient laws which are not enforced anymore because of the fact that it would be a waste of resources.
The difference being that nobody is suggesting that these 'minor offences' should be removed from the statute book. And are you now comparing the torture of an animal to a minor motoring offence? Again, there's a crucial difference. The government has already signalled that it doesn't believe cannabis to be a real issue, and it's also a victimless crime. So now you're comparing rolling a joint to torturing and killing an animal? No, they're not enforced because they're out of date. Resources has nothing to do with it. The lack of a law tackling hunting is considered to be out of date, which is why (thankfully) one is finally being introduced.
It just shows how their violence is thoroughly ingrained and not restricted towards animals alone. It dosn;t shock me that a group of people that can act barbarically towards animals can also act the same way towards human beings. Very sad
The thing I don't understand is why do hunt sabs go in small groups sabbing? That is asking for trouble when you are massively outnumbered. Far better to just hit a few hunts across the country in large numbers than to spread yourselves thinly trying to stop dozens of hunts at once. That is rubbish, not all hunt people are that violent. For example the late Princess of Wales Diana Spencer came from a privilaged family which probably went hunting yet she was as gentle and compasionate as can be. There are violent people everywhere not just in hunting circles. Far more violence goes on in and around city centre pubs and clubs on a weekend.
It's a peaceful yet direct action. Why should they expect to need to have numbers to protect themselves from assault? They aren't going there to be violent.
Because the type of action - disrupting a sport is obviously going to make some people very angry. That should be obvious.
I don't see taking a life as a sport, but anyway.... It isn't obvious to me why they should get violent, angry maybe, but not violent. If someone disrupted something I was doing I wouldn't physically attack them for it. It seems to me their demonstrated violence towards animals shows a disregard for life in general. Is it the way you would react? With violence I mean...
Some fox hunters are as passionate about their sport as some football fans. That is why many of them react so violently towards sabs. You might not consider what they are doing as a sport but they do and many are easily aggrivated and provoked into violent reaction.
Don't dismiss my opinion as rubbish and please don't post-edit your posts mate, it's not fair when trying to debate Of corse there is violence outside of hunts, that goes without saying... that dosn't dismiss my point that violence and disregard of animal life can be linked to violence and disregard towards human life. Yes, there is violence outside pubs... and? I'm not disagreeing and I fully understand that people get passionate and violent defending sport (shame they don't get as passionate defending peace and liberty ) You keep making strange comparisons... playing football / taking a life? Are you saying hunters are like football hooligans? But you said: I don't think anyone should have to expect violence for standing up for what they believe in... yeh we do get it for sure, but I don;t see it as asking for trouble... we don't deserve it and there is no defense for it.
I don't think people like Ottis Ferry would agree with you there who has built a career around fox hunting. Many people in the hunting community don't see killing foxes as cruel as the fox itself is a predator and is also hunted in its natural state by other predators. They see hunting as natural. They don't see it as cruel as they believe the fox is killed by a swift bite to the neck in which many cases it is. They also see it as fair as the fox has chance of escape. Many of those people are also commpassionate towards animals like their hounds and their horses which they spend a great deal of time and energy tending to. Many of those same people would also consider anti-hunters hypocritical unless they were vegan and they would have strong point. As a lot of animal suffering goes into the production of leather, meat, eggs, fish and milk.
