Desperate measures - 'UK foxhunters should be protected ethnic minority'

[Fred66]

I really don't think you can liken hunters to the Travelling community, the latter of which have been a distinctive ethnic group in the UK and Ireland for a very, very long time. They're not just people choosing to live in caravans. Obviously some people from other backgrounds do choose to live full time in vehicles (my ex lived in a bus for ten years), but they'd be the first to tell you that they're not Travellers.

The hunt lobby's arrogance makes me want to throw objects at my computer screen and is sort of insulting to actual minority groups. A hobby does not equal 'protected belief system.' A bunch of toffs whining because the majority of the British public has turned against their hobby doesn't equal that, either. And of course, they trot out the old 'we are the stewards of the countryside' BS. Yes, tell that to the other farmers and horse owners who seem to have constant issues with hunts damaging their land and distressing their animals.

I think that this what they are looking to test in the court.

You have your view which from the your terminology is biased against the hunting community and it might well be that the courts uphold your view.

However similarly to there being more to being a traveller than living in a caravan there is more to the hunting community than it being a hobby. To some it is a hobby but to others it’s a fundamental part of who and what they are and it’s distressing to many that this may soon come to an end. I am not talking about illegal hunting but about the currently legal activities of hunting.

 

[PurpleSpots]

I think that this what they are looking to test in the court.

You have your view which from the your terminology is biased against the hunting community and it might well be that the courts uphold your view.

However similarly to there being more to being a traveller than living in a caravan there is more to the hunting community than it being a hobby. To some it is a hobby but to others it’s a fundamental part of who and what they are and it’s distressing to many that this may soon come to an end. I am not talking about illegal hunting but about the currently legal activities of hunting.

The trouble with that though is that many hunts and people associated with them have not only been partaking in 'legal hunting'.

Are we to apply the same rules to those who make money from dog fighting, for example, if any of them claim that it's part of their way of life and income?

 

[canteron]

It will be interesting to see who will get themselves organised enough to legally challenge their argument. It takes money and legal intelligence, not emotion, to put the counter argument.

 

[Jambarissa]

I think it is very likely that pro hunting could be ruled a protected belief. It just needs to meet grainger criteria (very likely) and be worthy of respect in a democratic society (questionable) .


If/when they get protected belief status then they can start petitioning the government, claiming the ban is discrimination against their belief.

I'm sure the hunting lobby has plenty of people well qualified to argue the case, and enough funding to get it to court. It won't be quick though, not in before more bans are imposed and possibly the hunting economy dismantled.

 

[Fred66]

The trouble with that though is that many hunts and people associated with them have not only been partaking in 'legal hunting'.

Are we to apply the same rules to those who make money from dog fighting, for example, if any of them claim that it's part of their way of life and income?

If people are participating in activities that are illegal at this time then I don’t believe the argument can be made retrospectively to reintroduce them as a protected group. However the fact that some people from a protected group act outside the law doesn’t mean that the whole group are, nor that this can be used to disband them.

 

[PurpleSpots]

If people are participating in activities that are illegal at this time then I don’t believe the argument can be made retrospectively to reintroduce them as a protected group. However the fact that some people from a protected group act outside the law doesn’t mean that the whole group are, nor that this can be used to disband them.

That's a fair point. But the article in question has quotes from Hunting Kind actively supporting hunting as it was, and upholding its humane nature and the need for it to be reinstated/continue, rather than arguing for the continuation of the current 'legal hunting' I think?

 

[skinnydipper]

I don't think it is humane to chase a terrified animal to the point of exhaustion and then ripped apart by hounds

 

[blitznbobs]

If people are participating in activities that are illegal at this time then I don’t believe the argument can be made retrospectively to reintroduce them as a protected group. However the fact that some people from a protected group act outside the law doesn’t mean that the whole group are, nor that this can be used to disband them.

This isn’t true. Drug use and whale hunting are examples of illegal activities that have been allowed in protected groups…

 

[Tiddlypom]

Trail hunting’s days are done. It served a purpose for pro hunt enabling much full fat illegal hunting to go on under the smokescreen, but there’s no point carrying on with that pretence any more since Labour got in. Trail hunting is a busted flush.

All pro hunt have got to lose now is the rather large sum of money required to try to get this protected characteristic wheeze through the courts in the hope of hunting eventually becoming legal again. It’s boom or bust.

It’s a mockery of what the Equalities Act was set up for, but pro hunt don’t care about that, or how they will be perceived for trying this legal wangle to enable them to continue to get their kicks.

I used to hunt long before the ban, and the writing was on the wall for hunting many, many years ago. It’s not as if the ban was a shock, sensitivities have changed and hunting has had its time. Pro hunt need to suck that up and get on with their lives.

 

[Fred66]

That's a fair point. But the article in question has quotes from Hunting Kind actively supporting hunting as it was, and upholding its humane nature and the need for it to be reinstated/continue, rather than arguing for the continuation of the current 'legal hunting' I think?

I am not party to what the legal argument will be. I imagine the first step would be getting it acknowledged as a protected group. IF they are successful in that then the next step would be to look at what type of hunting.
Currently trail hunting is legal and if they are successful in their aim then the probability is that the abolition of trail hunting would be parked pending any appeal by the government against the protected status.
IF hunting is affirmed as a protected group then the ban on trail hunting would be off the table. Its also possible that they may try to repeal the ban on hunting, but I imagine that would be the final step and a long way down the line.

 

[Fred66]

This isn’t true. Drug use and whale hunting are examples of illegal activities that have been allowed in protected groups…

UK examples please.

 

[paddy555]

let's just the the govt. do a better job this time around. If they had done a better job last time it would be long gone.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Maybe they should apply for an 'endangered species' status instead

 

[Clodagh]

Trail hunting’s days are done. It served a purpose for pro hunt enabling much full fat illegal hunting to go on under the smokescreen, but there’s no point carrying on with that pretence any more since Labour got in. Trail hunting is a busted flush.

All pro hunt have got to lose now is the rather large sum of money required to try to get this protected characteristic wheeze through the courts in the hope of hunting eventually becoming legal again. It’s boom or bust.

It’s a mockery of what the Equalities Act was set up for, but pro hunt don’t care about that, or how they will be perceived for trying this legal wangle to enable them to continue to get their kicks.

I used to hunt long before the ban, and the writing was on the wall for hunting many, many years ago. It’s not as if the ban was a shock, sensitivities have changed and hunting has had its time. Pro hunt need to suck that up and get on with their lives.

I think you are completely missing the point about what hunting means to people. It’s not just an out dated hobby. But it is one of those things that is very hard to verbalise.
Hunts are really trying now to trail hunt correctly going forwards, and good luck to them with this legislation.
Hunting causes a lot less misery than traveller camps.

 

[palo1]

I really don't think you can liken hunters to the Travelling community, the latter of which have been a distinctive ethnic group in the UK and Ireland for a very, very long time. They're not just people choosing to live in caravans. Obviously some people from other backgrounds do choose to live full time in vehicles (my ex lived in a bus for ten years), but they'd be the first to tell you that they're not Travellers.

The hunt lobby's arrogance makes me want to throw objects at my computer screen and is sort of insulting to actual minority groups. A hobby does not equal 'protected belief system.' A bunch of toffs whining because the majority of the British public has turned against their hobby doesn't equal that, either. And of course, they trot out the old 'we are the stewards of the countryside' BS. Yes, tell that to the other farmers and horse owners who seem to have constant issues with hunts damaging their land and distressing their animals.

The trope of hunting people as a bunch of toffs is way off the mark - there were and continue to be hunts that are fundamentally working class in the original sense, like The Banwen Miners Hunt (now bloodhounding) and The Sennybridge Farmers Hunt (a bunch of miners and Welsh hill farmers are about as far from being toffs as you can get) as well as a great many others in the West Country and Northern England. The history of most hunts is publicly available for anyone to access.

Having made an academic and professional career in the area of minority groups it is disappointing that so many people have such a poor grasp of democratic principles and processes. Prejudice - against travellers, against vegans and many other groups of people is alive and well in the UK but thankfully democracy is based on a degree of objective judgement and legal precedent, rather than just what suits those who can shout loudest.

 

[palo1]

UK examples please.

It was legal, before the allowance for personal use, for Rastafarians to possess and use marijuana. I do not think there is a whale hunting equivalent in the UK but there is a Scottish precedent for hunting young sea birds.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I lived and breathed hunting as a teenager.

But I’m flexible enough to recognise and respect the widespread antagonism to hunting, and that it was always going to go.

Hunting completely blew its reprieve when the Hunting Act came into effect. It could have made trail hunting work if it had tried to stick to the Act, rather than widely and blatantly carrying on with illegal full fat hunting.

 

[palo1]

It was legal, before the allowance for personal use, for Rastafarians to possess and use marijuana. I do not think there is a whale hunting equivalent in the UK but there is a Scottish precedent for hunting young sea birds.

In addition to this, even in a secular society such as ours the right to have ritual slaughter of animals trumps other animal welfare and abbatoir legislation. The UK takes the legal notion of a 'belief' very seriously in fact.

 

[palo1]

'It's a mockery of what the Equalities Act was set up for'...

@Tiddlypom - I think you are wrong here as the protection of identified minority groups in our democracy is exactly what the EA was created for. Whether or not hunting groups will meet the threshold for protection under this act is yet to be seen but many, many people decried the protected characteristic of ethical veganism before the legal precedent was set. Just because you find a belief offensive, does not mean it cannot be protected under the EA. I'm not sure, for example, how I feel about the protection of Druidism under the law as to me, that is an entirely modern, contrived and muddled load of stone botherers, who may be responsible for damaging or desecrating historic sites of worship and/or burial, but Druidism has met the threshold for protection. Apologies for any upset my views may give to any practising druids; I would still absolutely support the protection of those beliefs and practices in spite of my own feelings.

In any case, even with protection under the act the UK has good form for discrimination so those folk who don't like something or a group of people with protected beliefs or characteristics, will probably be quite free to continue to discriminate in a number of ways...

 

[paddy555]

I think you are completely missing the point about what hunting means to people. It’s not just an out dated hobby. But it is one of those things that is very hard to verbalise.
Hunts are really trying now to trail hunt correctly going forwards, and good luck to them with this legislation.
Hunting causes a lot less misery than traveller camps.

why trying now? unless I have missed something they have surely had since the ban to trail hunt correctly and that was 20 odd years ago.

there are lots of hobbies that mean a lot to people. Hunting is no different. People are not going to die if hunting was totally banned forever. They are not a minority group needing protection they are simply people enjoying their hobby. No more, no less.

Hunting completely blew its reprieve when the Hunting Act came into effect. It could have made trail hunting work if it had tried to stick to the Act, rather than widely and blatantly carrying on with illegal full fat hunting.

can you, Clodagh or Palo explain TP's quote above. It seems to me and I guess many others that they have simply caused their own problem. Our hunt hunts fox. I'm afraid I shan't feel in the slightest sorry for them if they lose their outdated hobby. They could just trail hunt.

 

[palo1]

why trying now? unless I have missed something they have surely had since the ban to trail hunt correctly and that was 20 odd years ago.

there are lots of hobbies that mean a lot to people. Hunting is no different. People are not going to die if hunting was totally banned forever. They are not a minority group needing protection they are simply people enjoying their hobby. No more, no less.

can you, Clodagh or Palo explain TP's quote above. It seems to me and I guess many others that they have simply caused their own problem. Our hunt hunts fox. I'm afraid I shan't feel in the slightest sorry for them if they lose their outdated hobby. They could just trail hunt.

That isnt how the EA works! No one would die if ethical veganism had no protection, nor if halal slaughter had no legal protection, nor the wearing of a turban...well, you get the idea. Protection under the EA is not determined by medical, life or death criteria but about cultural, physical or religious beliefs and practices.

 

[Caol Ila]

Hey, if this actually goes anywhere, it sets a nice precedent for legalising weed.

 

[palo1]

Hey, if this actually goes anywhere, it sets a nice precedent for legalising weed.

Well it's not currently criminalized for personal use and never was for Rastafarians. You have options...

 

[blitznbobs]

Hey, if this actually goes anywhere, it sets a nice precedent for legalising weed.

Weed will be legalised fairly soon I am sure

 

[palo1]

Weed will be legalised fairly soon I am sure

Quite likely, in spite of the enormous damage it can do individually and in the wider societal sense, but not as much damage as entirely legal alcohol of course!

 

[Roasted Chestnuts]

So if am on the receiving end of negativity for my beliefs that I’m a pink spotted purple hippopotamus I can appeal for this too then

If this gets taken up then it’s going to blast the door wide open makes for interesting watching with the popcorn if nothing else. The world has all gone a bit mad

 

[palo1]

So if am on the receiving end of negativity for my beliefs that I’m a pink spotted purple hippopotamus I can appeal for this too then

If this gets taken up then it’s going to blast the door wide open makes for interesting watching with the popcorn if nothing else. The world has all gone a bit mad

Well, I think that is exactly what many legal people thought about the ethical vegan precedent and, in fact, that opened the door for the potential for belief based hunting to make a case. Druidism and other belief based practices in their turn paved the way too. It's a funny old world...

 

[webble]

Maybe they should apply for an 'endangered species' status instead

Some sort of appeal under the mental health act would be as appropriate

 

[Miss_Millie]

Should we also bring back public executions? Because that used to be considered a fun day out within the last century. Societal values change (for the better); hunting will soon become a relic of the past.

 

[blitznbobs]

Quite likely, in spite of the enormous damage it can do individually and in the wider societal sense, but not as much damage as entirely legal alcohol of course!

And not as much as the criminal activity in drugs as a whole… legalise the lot and get rid of a huge amount of organised crime over night… it’s a double edged sword either way but criminalising drugs doesn’t stop their usage and causes massive amounts of damage.