Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
this is a C&P from middle way group ..
The Hunting Bill and the Northern Ireland Assembly
On the 15th December 2010, the Northern Ireland Assembly debated a Hunting Bill. The measure was heavily defeated. The circumstances in which this debate took place and the manner in which the pro-hunting case was argued is worth noting and could have a bearing on repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 currently in force in England and Wales.
The Hunting Bill
The Bill was almost an exact copy of the Hunting Act as passed by the Westminster government in 2004. It was introduced by Northern Irelands only Green Party MLA, Brian Wilson.
Background
The Hunting Act 2004 does not extend to Northern Ireland and various forms of hunting continue as before.
Further, the current law in Northern Ireland differs from that on the UK mainland. In 1972, the Welfare of Animals (NI) Act made it an offence to be cruel to any animal, wild included. This differs from the law in the rest of the UK, where wild mammals have a degree of protection from cruelty, but not a law that provides general protection from unnecessary suffering. (The relevant clauses in the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) are attached).
The Debate
As far as the very few MLAs who supported the Bill were concerned, their arguments relied on the same tired old phrases,
fox-hunting, stag-hunting and hare-coursing have no place in civilised society.
Hunting with dogs is inherently cruel. People who hunt
do so for pleasure, and, therefore, take pleasure in cruelty.
Badger-baiting is rightly banned, but the equally cruel practice of fox-hunting is still lawful. It is time to put that right.
However, there are two striking points about this debate.
The first is that the cruelty issue, instead of being avoided, was faced full on. The literature that was circulated prior to the vote obviously made an impact on the MLAs, allowing them to use clear and factual arguments that were used to good effect. The MLAs opposed to the Bill were well briefed, enabling them to counter accusations of cruelty and also to challenge unsubstantiated comments such as, All the evidence shows that foxes experience extreme trauma during the chase. Brian Wilson, in attempting to answer MLAs who queried this point, made an incorrect statement about research that supposedly took place in Oxford, I think, seven or eight years ago. To our knowledge no such research exists.
Mr Wilson was pressurised further after he had said that there were more humane ways of controlling foxes. He was asked time after time by MLAs to name these methods, but was unable to do so.
In referring to Northern Irelands existing animal protection law, one MLA stated that we have good law. This was a point that was missed on Mr Wilson, who appears not to have read the Welfare of Animals Act, as he stated that hunting was exempt from its scope. Hunting is not exempt if unnecessary suffering can be proven. References to the Burns Report and the change of mind of former LACS directors were made.
The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management was quoted and the natural chase argument used, The evidence that I am going to present is from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, because I want to work on the basis of veterinary expertise. That evidence states that the most humane way to deal with a fox those are not my words, they are the words of the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management is to allow the natural hunt.
Other aspects of the hunting argument were also used, such as bad law and the recent comments of Tony Blair, but the cruelty issue was at the core of the argument against this Bill and MLAs. In arguing this line, it not only prevented another piece of flawed legislation, but showed that pro-hunting politicians are indeed concerned about animal suffering.
The second point about the debate is that the MLAs arguing against the Bill spanned the political spectrum, unlike the numerous debates on hunting at Westminster. Indeed, the only other Member who supported the Bill came from the Alliance Party. Surprising, given Northern Irelands troubled past in which the political parties often reflected deeper animosity. It would seem that many MLAs are not willing to use hunting as a political football, as MPs at Westminster clearly did (and still will do) with regard to the Hunting Act.
Repeal of the Hunting Act
The principle contained in the Northern Ireland law is at the heart of Lord Donoughues Bill. While it is only right that the drafting of this Bill must be seriously scrutinised, the fact that it properly addresses the issue of genuine cruelty (in whatever activity), has a working model in one part of the UK and now shows that it can prevent prejudiced or ignorant Bills from becoming law must surely mean that Lord Donoughues Bill should form part of any repeal package.
Of course, addressing the West Lothian question is important and will, if successful, alter the numbers for and against repeal. However, even when repeal is achieved, there would need to be some further legislation to consolidate the legal position of hunting with hounds for the future and remove it from the political agenda. This constitutional change is now publicly linked with repeal (thanks to the Sunday Telegraph- 2nd January 2011), but that will not help those Conservative (and other) MPs in seats where the perception is that hunting is wrong and should remain illegal. They need something more.
The Sunday Telegraph also carried a revealing quote from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said, Tell me how to do it and I will do it. Surely the Northern Ireland debate has done just that?
JB 6-1-11
The Hunting Bill and the Northern Ireland Assembly
On the 15th December 2010, the Northern Ireland Assembly debated a Hunting Bill. The measure was heavily defeated. The circumstances in which this debate took place and the manner in which the pro-hunting case was argued is worth noting and could have a bearing on repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 currently in force in England and Wales.
The Hunting Bill
The Bill was almost an exact copy of the Hunting Act as passed by the Westminster government in 2004. It was introduced by Northern Irelands only Green Party MLA, Brian Wilson.
Background
The Hunting Act 2004 does not extend to Northern Ireland and various forms of hunting continue as before.
Further, the current law in Northern Ireland differs from that on the UK mainland. In 1972, the Welfare of Animals (NI) Act made it an offence to be cruel to any animal, wild included. This differs from the law in the rest of the UK, where wild mammals have a degree of protection from cruelty, but not a law that provides general protection from unnecessary suffering. (The relevant clauses in the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) are attached).
The Debate
As far as the very few MLAs who supported the Bill were concerned, their arguments relied on the same tired old phrases,
fox-hunting, stag-hunting and hare-coursing have no place in civilised society.
Hunting with dogs is inherently cruel. People who hunt
do so for pleasure, and, therefore, take pleasure in cruelty.
Badger-baiting is rightly banned, but the equally cruel practice of fox-hunting is still lawful. It is time to put that right.
However, there are two striking points about this debate.
The first is that the cruelty issue, instead of being avoided, was faced full on. The literature that was circulated prior to the vote obviously made an impact on the MLAs, allowing them to use clear and factual arguments that were used to good effect. The MLAs opposed to the Bill were well briefed, enabling them to counter accusations of cruelty and also to challenge unsubstantiated comments such as, All the evidence shows that foxes experience extreme trauma during the chase. Brian Wilson, in attempting to answer MLAs who queried this point, made an incorrect statement about research that supposedly took place in Oxford, I think, seven or eight years ago. To our knowledge no such research exists.
Mr Wilson was pressurised further after he had said that there were more humane ways of controlling foxes. He was asked time after time by MLAs to name these methods, but was unable to do so.
In referring to Northern Irelands existing animal protection law, one MLA stated that we have good law. This was a point that was missed on Mr Wilson, who appears not to have read the Welfare of Animals Act, as he stated that hunting was exempt from its scope. Hunting is not exempt if unnecessary suffering can be proven. References to the Burns Report and the change of mind of former LACS directors were made.
The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management was quoted and the natural chase argument used, The evidence that I am going to present is from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, because I want to work on the basis of veterinary expertise. That evidence states that the most humane way to deal with a fox those are not my words, they are the words of the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management is to allow the natural hunt.
Other aspects of the hunting argument were also used, such as bad law and the recent comments of Tony Blair, but the cruelty issue was at the core of the argument against this Bill and MLAs. In arguing this line, it not only prevented another piece of flawed legislation, but showed that pro-hunting politicians are indeed concerned about animal suffering.
The second point about the debate is that the MLAs arguing against the Bill spanned the political spectrum, unlike the numerous debates on hunting at Westminster. Indeed, the only other Member who supported the Bill came from the Alliance Party. Surprising, given Northern Irelands troubled past in which the political parties often reflected deeper animosity. It would seem that many MLAs are not willing to use hunting as a political football, as MPs at Westminster clearly did (and still will do) with regard to the Hunting Act.
Repeal of the Hunting Act
The principle contained in the Northern Ireland law is at the heart of Lord Donoughues Bill. While it is only right that the drafting of this Bill must be seriously scrutinised, the fact that it properly addresses the issue of genuine cruelty (in whatever activity), has a working model in one part of the UK and now shows that it can prevent prejudiced or ignorant Bills from becoming law must surely mean that Lord Donoughues Bill should form part of any repeal package.
Of course, addressing the West Lothian question is important and will, if successful, alter the numbers for and against repeal. However, even when repeal is achieved, there would need to be some further legislation to consolidate the legal position of hunting with hounds for the future and remove it from the political agenda. This constitutional change is now publicly linked with repeal (thanks to the Sunday Telegraph- 2nd January 2011), but that will not help those Conservative (and other) MPs in seats where the perception is that hunting is wrong and should remain illegal. They need something more.
The Sunday Telegraph also carried a revealing quote from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said, Tell me how to do it and I will do it. Surely the Northern Ireland debate has done just that?
JB 6-1-11
