My new friend

[Ereiam_jh]

My new friend Mr 'AnimalRightsMalta' has a message for those nasty, smelly unwashed hunt sabs from NELS (http://pub32.bravenet.com/guestbook/2727728196):

http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/nels.html

"Any hunt sab who agrees with a law which requires the killing of non-terminally injured deer has no idea on animal rights. "

THAT is the true animal rights position. The Hunting Act is a load of bollocks.

Everyone is perfectly within their rights to break it whenever they like.

Bad laws mean good crime.

 

[Jerome]

I must warn you that your post contravenes the Prevention of Boredom Act 2005.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Well it takes a long time and a lot of effort to get antis to admit that the hunting Act is an unjust law. So far I've managed three.

If antis were not so hypocritical as to refuse to admit what is blatantly self evident then it might not go on so long.

Do you want to be next Jerome?

 

[flying_change]

"Well it takes a long time and a lot of effort to get antis to admit that the hunting Act is an unjust law. So far I've managed three."

You're not counting me, I hope ?

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No, there's Peter Bunce who's said the law contains an anomally, Endy ditto (later retracted) and the geezer from Malta.

You just don't have clue what the law is.

 

[flying_change]

Gasp ! I've read the act from end to end.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Maybe but you still can't say if it bans chasing or flushing out wild mammals with dogs.

At least you're honest about it RS.

I find Endy's attitude that he should be able to break the law because he is so terribly terribly good to be rather despicable.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

My Maltese friends latest posting. He seems to be coming down on the side Endy's now retracted position that everyone can break the law.

http://pub32.bravenet.com/guestbook/2727728196

I'm a little worried about the "where immoral acts" bit. Does that mean he can break into my place on a saturday night...

"Giles, I tend to agree that immoral laws should be broken, and in this, I agree with you. By immoral laws I mean laws which are discriminatory towards innocent victims, especially where the laws in question support the said victims. The law as you describe it (I do not know all the details) is an immoral law, since it demands the killing of non-terminally injured deer. I totally support civil disobedience in the case of unjust laws.

The law of course is not perfect, and what would you expect from someone who kills innocent Iraqis just to please a US president and share the spoils. But this is off topic, and so I will say no more.

Likewise, trespassing on land where immoral acts (like taking lives of innocents such as deer) takes place, is a similar case of justified civil disobedience. One is not entitled to do anything one wants on his property. An example would be that one is not entitled to hold human slaves on his property. So I think you will agree that the property being one's own does not entitle one to do anything one likes on it, and there may be cases where trespassing on another's land to prevent a breach of rights of others is both necessary and justified. Of course it always depends on the case in question, and the people engaging in civil disobedience do so at their own risk.

I hope this makes the matter clear. Sometimes people who are anti-hunting are so passionate about it that they do not see the bigger picture, and actually see a defeat as a victory. A case in point is a law which demands that non-terminally injured deer be shot. "

 

[Jerome]

"Maltese friend" or you?