NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are fox hunters in Britain bothering to fight to carry on foxhinting? It's been approved of by Parliament, the Supreme Court has denied the claims of the foxhunters that the Parliament Act is unlawful, and yet still the foxhunters refuse to give in. I myself don't really care whether foxes get killed or not, but why are the foxhunters making the sort of fuss as if the right to foxhunt was as important as the right to free speech? They tred to take it to the Lords, with the only effect that this is another nail in the Lords coffin, as everyone can see how powerless and useless they are, and how concerned only with issues that bother them they are.

A little thing like defending what you believe in.
If you genuinely believed that some activity of yours was beneficial to your environment, had no reall alternative, and was part of the traditional culture of the land where you lived, you would fight for it. If not then you could not claim to have believed in the activity to start with.
I may, or may not, agree with the cause of the foxhunters, but I do admire any group that manages to oppose the apthetic norms of our current society.

Its the same reason people speed in Britian so much. There is very little policing towards it (Although with speeding that is changing with more cameras and other things). Stoping hunts is not high on the police's adgenda list. They have more important things to do.

A little thing like defending what you believe in.
If you genuinely believed that some activity of yours was beneficial to your environment, had no reall alternative, and was part of the traditional culture of the land where you lived, you would fight for it. If not then you could not claim to have believed in the activity to start with.
I may, or may not, agree with the cause of the foxhunters, but I do admire any group that manages to oppose the apthetic norms of our current society.

But don't you think some of them are taking it too far? Several farmers at least threatened to (I don't know if they carried out their threats) remove water pipes and telephone cables that ran through their lands in protest. Is it really worth being able to foxhunt if to protest about its illegalality you have to cut off someone's water?

But don't you think some of them are taking it too far? Several farmers at least threatened to (I don't know if they carried out their threats) remove water pipes and telephone cables that ran through their lands in protest. Is it really worth being able to foxhunt if to protest about its illegalality you have to cut off someone's water?

It is a question of the right to use your land as you see fit. If the government are not going to allow these farmers to use their land as they wish to, then why should the farmers let others use it.

If you liked singing Nat King Cole songs at the top of your voice in your own shower. Which I seriously doubt is the case, by the way. Then the government banned you from singing, you would have three choices.
1. Meekly shut up and never again let rip with the old vocal cords.
2. Break the law and keep on singing
3. Find some means of protest against this restriction on your liberty that would draw attention to it.

Of these three options, the third is the way a member of a democratic society should go. The UK is democratic (sort of), and as such the farmers, by making this protest, are only doing the right thing.

You don't like it. Do you think that they do not have the right to protest ovewr an action that they did not like?

It is a question of the right to use your land as you see fit. If the government are not going to allow these farmers to use their land as they wish to, then why should the farmers let others use it.

If you liked singing Nat King Cole songs at the top of your voice in your own shower. Which I seriously doubt is the case, by the way. Then the government banned you from singing, you would have three choices.
1. Meekly shut up and never again let rip with the old vocal cords.
2. Break the law and keep on singing
3. Find some means of protest against this restriction on your liberty that would draw attention to it.

Of these three options, the third is the way a member of a democratic society should go. The UK is democratic (sort of), and as such the farmers, by making this protest, are only doing the right thing.

You don't like it. Do you think that they do not have the right to protest ovewr an action that they did not like?

I'm not denying that the farmers have the right to cut off water, but that doesn't mean they have to exercise it. And actually, the farmers don't have the right to do anything they like on their land, they still have to be within the law. A farmer doesn't have the right to kill someone on his land, because it is the law. If the government also decides it is against the law to kill a fox using hounds then it doesn't matter that the farmers are on their own lands.
I am not denying anyone the right to protest, I am just saying that in this case they are not going to get anywhere.

Why are fox hunters in Britain bothering to fight to carry on foxhinting? It's been approved of by Parliament, the Supreme Court has denied the claims of the foxhunters that the Parliament Act is unlawful, and yet still the foxhunters refuse to give in. I myself don't really care whether foxes get killed or not, but why are the foxhunters making the sort of fuss as if the right to foxhunt was as important as the right to free speech? They tred to take it to the Lords, with the only effect that this is another nail in the Lords coffin, as everyone can see how powerless and useless they are, and how concerned only with issues that bother them they are.

Because it's their right to carry on protesting it and trying to get it overturned, which, incidentally, is the whole point of having a right to free speech.

It's only just gone through parliament relatively speaking and these things can take years to be sorted out once and for all, if ever.