Box 3.5: Democracy, rights, and hunting

Example from Garner, Ferdinand & Lawson: Introduction to Politics

One fascinating example of the potential conflict between the application of majoritarianism and the protection of rights is the debate about hunting. After a protracted parliamentary campaign dating back to the late 1940s (for a timeline see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1846577.stm), the election of Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997 made it more likely that legislation would be passed, and an issue which had previously been monopolized by relatively small but highly-motivated interest groups (see pages 283-4 for a discussion of such groups) began to be debated more widely in and out of parliament (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/449139.stm).

In September 2004 a bill to ban the use of dogs to hunt foxes and other mammals passed the House of Commons, on a free vote. Most, but not all, Labour MPs voted in favour of the ban; the overwhelming majority of Conservatives opposed it. Despite repeated attempts by the House of Lords to block the legislation, in November 2004 it was deemed to have been passed under the terms of the Parliament Act of 1949, which gives the Lords only a delaying power. The ban came into effect in February 2005.

The hunting community in Britain has used a variety of arguments to oppose restrictions on what it regards as a traditional rural pastime, but one recent strategy has been to cite the ideals of liberalism and the protection of individual rights.  Here it has been argued that, despite the fact that hunting has been regularly opposed by a majority of British people in opinion polls (but see, for example, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article515036.ece) and a majority of MPs in the House of Commons, this still does not justify a ban because it is illegitimate for a majority to impose its own moral views on the minority (see pages 85-7 for a discussion of majority rule). To take such an action is held by some critics to be a serious infringement of rights.

In the case of hunting the democratic dilemma is particularly acute. In part, this is because the issue is very complex, but also because the minority claims that its interests are under attack from a majority which has very little to lose. Thus, supporters of hunting claim that foxes are predators who regularly kill chickens and thus present a direct threat to the rural economy (ironically, of course, 'battery chickens' are far less vulnerable than fowl which are allowed free range, but since they are usually kept in less humane conditions animal rights groups are fiercely opposed to such intensive farming methods). On this view, even though city-dwellers depend on the countryside for much of their food they are unlikely to understand the real challenges facing the rural community; it is thus easy for them to say that they dislike hunting without it being an issue which could possibly affect the way they vote in general elections. In the eyes of the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance (www.countryside-alliance.org/), the use of public opinion polls to back the hunting ban is highly problematic, since the people who are qualified to speak about all aspects of the subject are easily outnumbered by those who feel that they are in a position to let misplaced compassion dictate their opinions.

However, the rights defence of hunting has not been successful despite the hunting community's attempt to undermine the legislative ban by appealing for a review of the legislation under the terms of the 1998 Human Rights Act (see http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article2963379.ece). Of course,  the hunting community fails to take into account the interests of the animals being hunted (see page 111 for a discussion of this issue). If we add that to the equation, then the moral legitimacy of the 'right' to hunting becomes less clear-cut. The abolition of pursuits such as bear baiting (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting) and dog fighting (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1326343.stm) in an earlier era, and the existence of more general laws making it an offence to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals (see www.newc.co.uk/issues/) is testament to this concern for animals which has been used to override an alleged human right. The fact that some humans seem to take pleasure in the suffering of the foxes makes this practice more emotive than other issues concerning animal welfare. As the BBC economics editor Evan Davis suggested as the hunting ban came into force (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4279317.stm), an undue focus on foxes might blind people to other animal rights issues (for example, during the protracted public debate over hunting, there were very few mentions of hares which were also subjected to terrible suffering in the name of 'sport'. The controversy also raises awkward questions about contrasting political cultures (see Chapter 13), since the UK which had outlawed hunting with dogs was an EU partner of a country which continued to showcase the more barbaric activity of bull-fighting as a tourist attraction – not least to Britons who were now expected to deplore all manifestations of animal cruelty at home (www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbdBUvzb6yI (warning: this clip contains scenes which many will find upsetting)). Indeed, even in parts of Britain blood-sports remained part of the tourist industry, notably in the cases of deer-stalking (www.basc.org.uk/content/deerstalking) and grouse-shooting (www.ruralsports.co.uk/game-and-grouse-shooting.html),  neither of which are defensible on a consistent application of the principles which led to the banning of hunting with dogs. Most notoriously, the ban excluded angling, which can only be defended by people who think that fish are insentient beings, but which was popular among working class people who have traditionally given crucial support to the Labour Party. A small but determined group now campaigns to get rid of this anomaly (see, for example, www.anti-angling-sabs.co.uk/).

The hunting ban has produced some odd results. For example, organisations like the League Against Cruel Sports, which were once associated with illegal attempts to sabotage hunts, and were described as 'thugs, wreckers and bullies' by the Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard have now established a hotline to make sure that this particular law is strictly enforced (see www.league.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=1735). In turn, supporters of hunting – once seen as bastions of 'the establishment' - have resorted to direct action to publicise their case. In September 2002 a mass demonstration was held in London (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm) to protest against the threat of a ban. As many of 400,000 people marched, bringing Westminster to a halt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274358.stm). Two years later, while MPs were reaching the close of their debates, five pro-hunting protestors managed to breach parliamentary security (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm), even though this had been tightened in the wake of terrorist threats.

As predicted the ban has proved very difficult to uphold, mainly because a successful prosecution depends on proving that someone has gone out with the intention of breaking the law (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm). In theory, hunters can claim that they have set out to follow an artificial scent, rather than a real fox (the practice known as 'drag hunting'), but then find their dogs 'accidentally' stumbling upon and killing a live animal. For some anti-hunt protestors, the passage of legislation has made little difference (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJowswsos0; www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ErYdoKECc). From this perspective it can be argued that even well-intentioned legislation which does not command substantial support from the affected community (as opposed to the nation as a whole) might result not in the extirpation of a distasteful activity, but rather in undermining the key liberal democratic concept of the rule of law (page 187 for a further discussion) amongst a substantial section of the population.

For a more light-hearted look at this very serious subject see http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ6vXq0Btbs