AS I WAS SAYING
Abattoir, yes, hunting field, no: what New Labour hypocrisy!
PEREGRINE WORSTHORNE
My main purpose in writing a column — apart from the money — is to help me to come to conclusions, to make up my mind. If I feel quite certain about what I think about something, there is no fun to be had in writing about it. Just as it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, so it is bet- ter to start a column without quite knowing where the train of argument is going to end up — better not only because the author has to stay awake but, much more impor- tantly, so has the reader. If the columnist thinks something is too obvious for words, he obviously should not write about it. He should write only on subjects about which he feels in doubt. That is why columnar omniscience bores so quickly. An ounce of doubt is better than a hundredweight of certainty.
For all these reasons, I have hitherto abstained from broaching the subject of whether or not to ban fox-hunting. In my view there is no case, absolutely none at all, for banning fox-hunting. It is as simple as that. End of story, or rather end of column. I don't think I have ever felt so absolutely negative about any subject on the political agenda before. Without exception I have always been able to see a bit of both points of view; been able, that is, to see that there are good arguments on either side. Although myself an ardent monarchist, I can see the point of republicanism; although in favour of preserving the heredi- tary element in the House of Lords, I can see the point of abolition; although in favour of staying in the European Union, I can see the point of coming out; although myself finding no difficulty in justifying capital punishment, I can see why others do. Likewise in earlier days with such vexed topics as nationalisation, planning, equality, nuclear disarmament and even commu- nism. One could not resist arguing against them, not because the case in favour was so weak but because it was so strong. The pro- tagonists of these causes were worthy oppo- nents with whom it was a joy to do battle.
Not so the hunt saboteurs. Because they don't have two reasons to rub together, there is no chance of a debate with them setting the flames of genuine controversy alight. They have feelings, sentiments, emo- tions but all so obviously misdirected as to make the job of rebuttal a boring waste of time. Such a dismissive attitude, of course, would be entirely inappropriate if levelled against animal rights campaigners in gener- al, since they are saying something which most certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. They are saying, if I understand them rightly, that the old Christian justification for exploiting animals — that God's cre- ation made man dependent on them for his survival — no longer applies. Just as the invention of machines in the 18th century invalidated this justification for enslaving and killing blacks, so the invention of artifi- cial foods in the 20th, it is argued, has invalidated it for enslaving and killing ani- mals. We may like to eat animals, but no longer have to for survival. In other words, they argue, we are in the midst of another great shift in public perception which will sooner or later make the sight of carcasses of meat on sale in marketplaces as unac- ceptable to the civilised conscience as nowadays would be the sight, once so com- mon, of slaves on sale.
For serious animal rights protesters to home in on the meat trade does indeed make a lot of sense. Therein the true hor- ror lies. Unless and until mankind can be converted en masse to vegetarianism there will be no serious diminution in the exploitation of animals. Compared with the cold-blooded, Auschwitz-scale, scientifical- ly organised mass destruction of the abat- toir, all other forms of cruelty to animals fade into insignificance, most of all fox- hunting. A ban on fox-hunting, therefore, is a frivolous irrelevance, rather as if William Wilberforce, instead of throwing all his weight into banning the slave trade, had concentrated instead on banning the sale of golliwogs.
Three statistics will suffice. 1) Fewer foxes get torn to pieces by hounds every year than get smashed to pieces by motor cars. 2) More hounds will die by being put down if hunting is banned than foxes will die if hunting is not banned. 3) More ani- mals are slaughtered every minute of the It's just like Britain — a change of government but no change of policies.' day in Britain's abattoirs than have been killed in the chase during the last hundred years. No thoughtful animal rights cam- paigner gives a damn about fox-hunting, which comes so far down on the scale of cruelty to animals as to be scarcely worth noticing. Bear-baiting was another matter. I can certainly see the case against that. Enjoyment of cruelty was of its essence. Its whole raison d'être was to satisfy the specta- tor's bloodlust. That is very far from true of fox-hunters, who are just as likely to kill themselves as the fox; so far as that lot of sportsmen is concerned, courage rather than cruelty would seem to be the defining characteristic.
So why is New Labour proposing to abol- ish fox-hunting? There is no good reason. How can it possibly make sense to tolerate the ugly, automated horrors of the abattoir without flinching and then to turn away in disgust from an activity which the natural world has always pursued on its own with- out man's bidding, and will always continue to pursue, presumably with God's approval? Almost every day I watch our dogs chase, catch and gobble up a rabbit. They try sometimes to do the same to a fox, but seldom succeed. It doesn't shock me. That is how God ordained it to be. Yet when humans in pink coats, riding horses elevate this primitive, instinctive force of nature into a civilised ceremony, refine this brutish canine hurly-burly into something very near a work of art — which has been extolled for its beauty in paint and verse since time immemorial — the philistines, posing as philanthropists, want to put an end to it. Nothing is going to stop animals killing each other or humans eating ani- mals, and just as the culinary art makes the best of the second bad job, the sport of hunting makes the best of the first.
In short, there are no respectable reasons for this proposed ban, only base political ones. If New Labour bans this admirable sport it will be for the same reason which perennially tempts the Conservative party to restore capital punishment: to please the ignorant, vengeful, narrow-minded preju- dices of its most illiberal supporters. I still cannot believe that Mr Blair will stoop so low. Some social goods can justify interfer- ing with individual liberties, but the welfare of foxes is not one of them. New Labour is proposing a gratuitously illiberal act. More than enough said. When one is lost for words, it is best to shut up.
Previous page
