I am writing an important letter to William Hague on his proposed inquiry into torture (via my MP to make sure an FCO bureaucrat does not bury it). I am marshalling my evidence but trying to keep it short, plain and unemotional.
So no energy or time for significant blogging today. Some thoughts to keep people going.
I am staunchly against fox-hunting. In my youth I was in the Hunt Saboteurs Association and remember great fun laying aniseed trails to disrupt otter hunts somewhere near Kings Lynn. I would happily do that again. I supported the ban on fox-hunting.
But I have changed my mind. I still strongly oppose fox-hunting, but I no longer think it should be illegal. New Labour changed my mind. They opened my eyes to the dangers of authoritarianism and the criminalisation of numerous activities. The mind that will ban protest outside parliament and make it illegal to photograph a policeman or railway station, is a mind seeking to abuse the power of the state.
New Labour convinced me that excessive state power is a real evil to weigh in the balance when considering how to deal with any issue. I consider fox hunting an ill, but state interference a greater ill. Any liberal should believe that the state should interfere in liberty as a last resort.
Other forms of social sanction can and should be deployed against fox hunters. Social disapprobation, ridicule, protest, peaceful disruption. But is the crushing hand of the state really required? No, I don’t think it is.
The same goes in my view for the smoking ban. I don’t smoke and hate cigarette smoke, But should it be illegal in pubs and restaurants, which are private property? No.
Lights blue touchpaper and goes back to his letter to William Hague…
I’m somewhat ambivalent on the subject of fox hunting, inasmuch as I don’t see much difference between hunting foxes and hunting other animals. Both should be regulated, certainly, and require licensing. I think excessively cruel treatment of the animals should be prohibited and fines should be imposed upon violators.
I also think that, in the past, farmers have been too quick to blame predators and insufficiently flexible in their farming methods to accommodate those creatures who were, after all, generally there before the farmers were. So just because foxes are a ‘pest’ does not give people licence to kill them indiscriminately; there needs to be an attempt at accommodation. If such is made, and a case can still be made for killing the creatures, then a licence could be issued.
But regarding the smoking ban: I’m sorry, but that law has to stand. Eliminating smoking in public places has made it possible for me and my family to actually go out and eat, drink, and be entertained, and not feel as though I want to vomit all over my table, or have to strip to the skin and put all of my clothing in the wash when I return home. There is no equivalent hardship imposed on those who smoke; sorry, I really don’t care if you have to go outside to kill yourself. And there is, of course, the health and safety issue.
The idea of having a separate smoking (or non-smoking) section is a fine one, but in practice this is nonsense. The smoking area is typically open to the rest of the establishment, and the smoke fills the place. The only way it could be effective would be to have the smoking area hermetically sealed off, with separate ventilation.
The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Your right to light up a fag ends when the waste products drift into my lungs. Perhaps If a cigarette could be invented whose byproduct was heavier than air so that it drifted onto the floor and could somehow be hoovered up, then I wouldn’t care.
If you want to smoke in a pub, I assume you won’t mind if I walk over and hurl a gutful of sick onto you.
NomadUK
Diabolical post. NO-ONE is suggesting you have to suffer the smoke of others.
Some smoke-licensed pubs would solve the issue (with staff who smoke), or a heavily ventilated separate room.
You, of course, wouldn’t bother going to such establishments, but would have the run of all the others.. At least you would still have a choice.
What about the environ mentalists? I’ve never seen or met a true one yet. Whats that a brand new car, that really helps the environment. Comments not in any way related to the fox story incase anyone gets the howitzers out.
wow what hypocracy you state in your article that new labour went a step too far when it stopped protests in and around parliament etc ,how about the protests by the countryside alliance then were they acceptable or otis ferry and his chums bringing parliament to a halt when they broke into the chamber was that ok or perhaps you suffer that rare political disease selected amnesia only remembering what you want to ,i will agree with the ban on smokeing the minute they pass into law a total ban on drinking and driveing its quite simple if you drive dont drink alcohol or is that a problem ,yes it is isnt it the countryside alliance backed the torys by financeing seats where a candidate from any of the main partys was anti hunting and i know of at least one brewery shepherd and neame that backs the torys
Liberty is not at risk. It is not a person’s basic human right to hunt and I really find this utterly ridiculous to suggest this when there are people being executed for being homosexuals in Iran, China is allowing total fascism to control, Mugabe is having opposition killed in an instant. You are not hard done by if a past time you enjoy is made illegal because it is found to be cruel. Absolutely ridiculous argument. Fox Hunting SHOULD be banned, and the very fact that people have continued despite its illegality just proves that these people believe they are above the law and our ridiculous new PM suggesting that because people have broken the law it doesn’t work. Does that mean because I chose to break the law and steal someone’s car, or set my dog on another dog, it will be made legal again because I have chosen to break the law and therefore the law hasn’t worked. You strengthen laws, not allow them to wither away because you don’t agree with them. Why should people who support the ban have to suffer the arrogance and ignorance of those who have broken the law? What about the rights of animals? what about the rights of those living in the country who hate hunting and have been subjected to misery at the hands of hunters? Liberty is never at risk over this issue.
Craig
You’ve got the balance right where Nu Labour got it so badly wrong. Parliamentarians have a lot of calls on their attention, from providing good national government to fighting to correct individual injustices. The time even to discuss fox-hunting in Parliament is when you’ve dealt with torture, made sure that taxes are fair, supported the poor and disadvantaged at home and abroad (mainly in areas where we carry historic responsabilities).
And let’s not have MPs discuss fox-hunting until they have discussed battery-chickens and pig-factories.
What ho! Top hole, old chap! None of this “unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable” nonsense.
I’m also quite keen on bear-baiting. If only those zanuenulibourbliar fascists hadn’t stopped me.
Doesn’t relative sentience come into it. A bear is an intelligent mammal that should only be killed as a necessity, where as j c @ 3:27pm is obviously finding the greasy pole of evolution a little to slippery to master.
A strange thing happened the other day. I was enjoying an afternoon tea in a friend’s back garden. Her house is opposite Crystal Palace Park.
There was an almighty noise as about a dozen crows appeared over the roof from the direction of the park.
They were literally hunting a heron. The hapless creature flew into a large oak at the end of the garden. The crows kept squawking and taking it in turns to dive and peck at the heron. Within seconds the heron took off again in the direction of the park pursued by the murderous crows.
I still feel shocked and sickened but nature can be brutal.
However, to manipulate nature in the form of fox hunting or bull fighting is sick.
I used to ride a lot and went on one hunt – to try and understand the pro-hunt’s perspective. The riding was magnificent and wild but a drag hunt would have been every bit as exciting. Although I was told beforehand that it’s quite unusual that a fox is cught and killed, sure enough our hunt killed a young male.
I felt sorry for the heron and impotent that I couldn’t come to its aid but the fox was different. It was cruelly frightened out of its wits and savagely killed for “sport”.
No Craig, I disagree with you on hunting but you are spot on regarding smoking. Tolerance, compassion and freedom to choose how we live are needed more than ever.
O/T:
@j_c and @HeidiC – paragraphing is still legal, you’ll be thrilled to know!
🙂
Don’t agree at all on this Craig.
Badger baiting and dog fighting are illegal and fox hunting should stay illegal for the same reasons – they’re all massively cruel and totally unnecessary.
Why should aristocrats’ and gamekeepers be allowed to be cruel to animals any more than city dwellers or the less well off?
Craig wrote “I don’t smoke and hate cigarette smoke, But should it be illegal in pubs and restaurants, which are private property? No.”
The staff in most of them would disagree – and at least half the people who go to them. Before the ban they were left with no choice but to get lung problems and often lung cancer from cigarette smoke.
People can still smoke outside or in their own homes, where it doesn’t affect other people, if they want to.
I suggest that you put it very strongly to William Hague that it would be outrageous if any leading politician (Blair, Straw, Hoon, Miliband etc.) called to give evidence to the judicial enquiry into complicity in torture was offered immunity to subsequent prosecution.
Duncan,
Do you think it is right that a private members club for smokers (employing only smokers) should be illegal?
As to smoke affecting others:
(Quote from Appeals Court Ruling Striking Down EPA Report.) “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun…. EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA’s conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, EPA produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer.”
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/support/smoking/part1/#ixzz0oaCXnS2K
Here in the Westcountry as far as I know not a single hunt has closed or a single beagle been put down as a result of the hunting ban, despite the scaremongering of the CA etc. before the law was passed. Hunts seem to get by perfectly well chasing a drag – or killing foxes by circumventing the ban, as the legislation was very badly worded.
I agree that Labour banned it for internal party political reasons, HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that it was the wrong decision.
I still think it’s a barbaric activity (I won’t dignify it with the term “sport”) that appeals to an atavistic cruel streak in some people, as well as giving the opportunity for some slightly thrilling and dangerous riding. So I hope the new Government doesn’t find legislative time to put forward a bill to repeal the ban, which I believe will be a free vote? It might not even pass as very few Labour or LDs will support repeal, and some Tories are anti-hunting too. Could be close if it ever goes to the vote…
Rural pubs have been hit by the smoking ban. I don’t smoke myself and agree it should be prohibited in food areas and where children are present. But if a pub has two separate bars (maybe with 2 doors between them) I see no reason why one could permit smoking, at the discretion of the licensee. A single-clause (or at least very short) bill could change that.
It is doubtful whether the Millibands have ever seen either a dead Iraqui child or a dead fox. On what basis do they prefer to ban fox hunting?
.
We have general laws prohibiting cruelty to animals. I’ve never quite understood why we needed any special laws to cover fox and stag hunting. These practices are undoubtedly cruel, and engaged in purely for fun. If it is youths on a council estate hunting cats with air rifles they will be prosecuted. Why should the rich be allowed their ‘fun’?
If we allow deer hunting, why not allow dog fighting, cock fighting, bear baiting? Deer hunting has survived solely because it is the pastime of the rich.
I can see where Craig is coming from, but just because Labour passed a load of bad laws does not mean we should undo all of them.
Maybe we need law reform and simplification in this area. All unnecessary suffering caused to animals should be illegal.
Phil – very true – you could ban fox hunting just by enforcing the laws against cruelty to animals that existed long before the bill to ban fox hunting – which was as party political on the Labour leadership’s part as the Conservative opposition to it is.
Smoking ban in Ireland was based on the carcinogenic properties of the smoke and was really a subset of safety in the workplace legislation.
That has led to its own problems in prisons and hospitals, given the addictive nature of smoking.
No perfect solution. But smoking is in a category of its own in this area.
Polo – Carcinogenic properties?
I bet you haven’t even read Sir Richard Doll’s original research on primary smoke.
You say smoking is in a category of its own. Epidemiology cites many factors with higher risks than SHS like milk.
Please, do some research before repeating such nonsense.
Craig your obsession with the Labour Party is addling your mind. Technicolour hit the nail on the head above. Let’s bring back bear baiting, cockfighting and badger baiting while we are at it shall we? To suggest that it is more illiberal to ban these things than to allow them is just STUPID and I am sure you know it. You really are scraping the barrel in your attempts to support this fragile coalition, and selling out all your past principles in the process. There is no such thing as pure liberty. Your liberty to shout fire in a cinema, or to torture animals must be curtailed in any decent society.
As for banning protest outside Parliament I seem to recall that there has been a permanent protest encampment there for the past decade. Perhaps you would tell us how many countries in the world would have permitted such a thing?
@eddie agrees with @technicolour – my, my! Things +are+ strange in a coalition world.
Not sure about that bit about ‘permitting’ the peace protest, though. The govt won the right to apply their anti-protest legislation retrospectively upon Brian Haw from the High Court, and officers came in the dead of night to take away most of his posters and placards. That is an attack on the freedom to protest, however you dress it up. Ditto the special permissions now required to hold a protest in Parliament Square Mile (“permission must be granted but restrictions may be placed on the size, duration (etc ad nauseum) of the demonstration”).
Jon
Technicolour is one of the very few who speaks sense here. The freedom to protest is one thing. What about my freedom to walk around London without having to view the eyesore created by that damaged man? It’s a minority sport and one that says more about his self obsession and attention seeking than any legitimate right to protest. The British state is probably one of the most tolerant in the world of such behaviour.
@ Craig.
Re: your May 21, 2010 2:09 PM post.
It’s surprizing how you lapse into the kind of ad hominem behaviour that others (previously governmental and civil servants under that last govt) falsely buffeted you with on occasions.
Turn a blind eye to the high degree of British pro-Zionism and pro-NWO forces if you will {Is Camerons advocy of a NWO incidental to you?}, but please, avoid giving false summations of those that don’t. Your responses to my recent criticisms of this new govt which now contains a weak LD element have not been to your credit.
Re: Norman Baker. Time will tell whether he’s an embarrassment e.g. If he no longer talks about the extraordinary MURDER (murder being Bakers conclusion) of a top British Weapons Inspector on British soil, involving a wholly dodgy autopsy and inquiry – then he’d likely be silent on instruction.
Do you know when the LD’s will re-pursue the Dr. David Kelly issue? and the 7/7 bombings? Lets see what the LD’s do about torture, rendition, ‘black sites’ and illegal wars of aggression as well. I think you know I have a strong point about all my points of late, whether you will openly admit to the fact or not.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The LD’s hold on power isn’t absolute.
Lwtc247,
yesterday’s BBC News UK front page was about new investigation into the 7/7 bombings, with three pages linked from there, including that the intelligence agencies misled MPs. Here’s one I just found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8696179.stm
So, should the state not pass laws making racism illegal, Craig? Or racial discrimination? Or gay-bashing? Or……..
Oh, you know: lots of instances. An actual legal ban is often a necessary foundation for getting rid of foul evils that come easily, and perennially, to some people — as long as they’re legally permissible.
Solidarity with a fellow sab, by the way Craig. Good man you!
OK – can’t resist.
But frankly I’m weary as hell with the sheer purblind bloody ignorance on display over hunting. I had five solid years trying to combat it in an official capacity – seemingly to avail whatsoever.
The plain unarguable fact is that on aggregate there is a lot more fox suffering as result of the ban than there was or would be without it. Hunts used to account for a high proportion of road traffic and shot gun wounded foxes which produce the overwhelming majority of premature wildlife death anyway (but that’s OK it was an accident eh?); but no longer. They now have extended deaths from gangrene and starvation. It is plain ignorance and a warped sense of what they believe (quite falsely) motivates those who follow hounds, that drives people like Craig and it says a lot more about their own mindsets than ever it does about those they so sanctimoniously disapprove of. Its peoples’ behaviour in other words and to hell with genuine wildlife welfare about which they know diddly-squat, much less care a toss.
Pissing in the wind I know but just remember the so called ban on FOX hunting does not contain the word fox at all. It is the ‘Wild Mammals (hunting with dogs) Act, and it makes hunting squirrels, mice, moles etc equally illegal. Rats and rabbits are somehow exempt – not cuddly enough I guess.
ScouseBilly – go and talk to your doctor or pretty much any doctor or healthcare professional – inhaling cigarette smoke causes lung diseases – it’s a fact, no matter what tobbacco firms’ lawyers or pub landlord associations’ lawyers try to argue.
Roy Castle never smoked a single cigarette – but died of lung cancer after playing in clubs where lots of people people did for decades. He’s one of millions who died due to inhaling smoke from other peoples’ cigarettes indoors.
Thanks for that Clark.
I have been following events in the Corporate press that you mentioned. I should perhaps have qualified more about what government action I’m looking for such as abolishing the Inquiries Act(2005) and establishing a proper independent public inquiry, rather than this bumfluff that’s going on now to solidify the narrative but give MI5 a public-pacifying slap on the wrist to lay the matter to rest. EVERY aspect of 7/7 needs to be fully and properly investigated including forcing Putrid Peter Power (Terror Pinp) to divulge the 7/7 information no government figure used the means at its dispoasal to expose his exact role. This extends to Zionist Prof. Ehud Keinan who “identified” TATP as the explosive used and who illegally smuggled explosives through an American airport onto planes in complete secrecy until he decided to brag about it http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2033.cfm (and as luck would have it he was able to promoted his device after the underpants bomber AND when Technion ?” Israel Institute of Technology apparently showed no interest in helping him to commercialize the research. Hummmm. Seems like these supposedly ‘Muslim’ terrorists want to help the good professor make a few bob, but he’s not been that successful so far. I think the helpful Muslims and TATP’s everywhere reports will perhaps change that)
If after an honest and fully independent public inquiry the official narrative of that day is established then fine; nobody could dispute that.
The BBC hasn’t been on about David Kelly though, has it?
And smoking should be allowed but only in open i.e. outdoors designatied areas i.e. not outside doorways or toilets.
Fox hunting like all these sadistic blood-“sports” should be banned. Pest control – if foxes are causing such a problem – shouldn’t involve traeing up public lands and ripping some beast to shreads and smearing it’s blood (or drinking it) afterwars. Do yourselves a favour, go find some woman whose on her period and use that instead you sickos.
I agree no more paliamanetary time to fox hunting so keep it the way it is… (supposedly)banned!
Nobody seems concerned with torts and lawsuits – including class actions – but surely they become possible once the medical evidence of lung cancer is common knowledge.
Re: the ‘Fox’ hunting…it does seem hypocritical when hunting humans is a government activity so long as it is done safely abroad.