The Support Hunting Association is one
of the UK's most prominent pro-hunting organisations, now incorporating
issues related to Game Shooting, Fox Hunting and Angling.
About Us
|
Full Contents
 |
| The
menus below contain the full contents of the site.
|
Search our site
|
| Search our site using Google. |
|
|
2007 Oakley
Hounds Calendar
|
 |
All profits from this calendar will be donated
equally to two local good causes. The Thames Valley and Chiltern Air
Ambulance and the Oakley Hounds. |
Have you seen these
pages?
|
| Police View
of a hunting ban - Two chief constables voice their concern on
a ban on hunting.
Timelines -On the current Hunting
Bill, the attempts to ban hunting, and on the ban in Scotland.
Hunting vs. Human
Rights - Parliament has advised that the Hunting Bill is incompatible
with the Human Rights Act. |
Quotes
|
The ban has guaranteed that the time and money invested by the League
Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA has increased animal suffering.
We told them this would happen. This rise in suffering since the ban
is the cost of ignoring that warning!
Daily Telegraph
3 May 2005.
Numerous police officers accompanied the more than 250 hunts which
took place yesterday, the first day that the sport became illegal.
Despite the friendly exchanges between officers and huntsmen and women,
the presence of the police posed a question: what public good were
they trying to uphold?
Daily Telegraph
20 February 2005.
|
|
|
| Kate Hoeys speach during the Hunting
debate - 15 September 2004 |
As one of only three Labour MPs to vote
against a ban on hunting, Kate Hoey gave a passionate speech to the
House of Commons during the debate on the 15th September 2004, calling
the Hunting Bill re-introduction 'cowering to bigotry'.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Many hon. Members have
said that we must return to this Bill and force it through in this
extraordinary and draconian way because it is an issue of trust between
the Government and the country. The introduction of this Bill is indeed
about trust, but it is about a higher trust - the trust that people
should be able to have in every Government, and especially a Labour
Government, that they will protect minorities from bigotry and intolerance
and will uphold liberty and freedom.
Since 1997, the Government have claimed to act as the honest broker.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has himself pretended to be the
honest broker on the issue of hunting. However, the reintroduction
of this banning Bill, and the way in which it has been done, makes
it clear that that is not the case. The Government promised the country
that legislation dealing with this emotive issue would be advanced
on the basis of principle and evidence. The Government promised that
prejudice and ignorance would not triumph, but the reintroduction
of the Bill is precisely that - the triumph of prejudice.
I could quote many examples of my right hon. Friend the Minister saying
that the future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal
preference. He believed that the Bill originally brought before the
House was a good Bill and he saw no reason why people should not support
it. He then said that people had chosen to ban hunting because it
was simpler to enforce. I am personally ashamed that a Labour Government
should connive in this triumph of prejudice. I have always believed
that the Labour party and the Labour Government stood for a tolerant
and inclusive society...
We cannot hide behind the pretence that the Bill is a private Member's
Bill. It is the Bill of a Labour Government who propose to fly in
the face of principle and the evidence. Two inquiries have been held,
at vast public expense, and neither produced any evidence to justify
a ban on hunting. A regulatory Bill was introduced, which my right
hon. Friend the Minister said was based on principle and evidence.
No fair or open-minded person could conclude that the evidence exists
to justify this Bill or that it is in the public interest. My right
hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 1 September 2004 that he had
identified seven key challenges for the future of this country. He
said that he had a key test for legislation and that was whether it
would in practical terms advance and improve the lives of Britain's
hard-working families in the future. He must know that this Bill will
not do that.
In contrast to the opponents of hunting, the rural community has shown its reasonableness
and openness to scrutiny. It has participated fully in the Government's inquiries
and hearings and the hunting community has placed itself under an independent
regulatory body.
The reintroduction of this Bill is a betrayal of public trust and will be interpreted
from this day on as an illiberal and intolerant act. I remind hon. Members that
it also breaks the Labour manifesto commitment, which was to enable Parliament
to reach a conclusion on the issue. Parliament is both Houses and not the Commons
acting alone. We have heard a lot of spin from some hon. Members about the other
place. They claim that it is Tory hereditary peers who have blocked hunting bills.
That is nonsense.
Since 1997, not only has no hunting Bill been returned to the House from the other
place, but even if none of the hereditaries had voted, 80 per cent. of the House
of Lords, including Labour peers, supported the Government's commitment to legislate
on the basis of principle and evidence. Even if no Conservative peer had voted,
73 per cent. of Members of the other place supported regulated hunting and we
could have had that system if the Government had not withdrawn the measure from
Committee.
The reintroduction of the Bill and the use of the Parliament Act show
disdain for the parliamentary process. It shows contempt for the majority
of Labour peers - Labour peers! - who sought a sensible outcome based
on principle and evidence. I am dismayed by the spin used to hoodwink
the country into believing that a fair, just and evidence-based approach
would be taken on the issue, when that is not the case.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to govern in the interests of the whole
country. He said that he wants a country at ease with itself. The Bill shows that
there are still people who believe that prejudice and bigotry should triumph as
grounds for legislation. We have seen similar things in all the world's worst
regimes. If people do not like something, they want to ban it. We shall see the
consequences.
The Leader of the House will have identified with the protest we saw
in the Chamber today, because it is precisely the kind of protest
that he carried out some years ago. The Leader of the House may not
have managed to get into the Chamber wearing a tee-shirt, but he certainly
got on to a cricket pitch...
...What we saw today was wrong and we must all condemn it. However,
we must remember that if laws are to be respected they have to be
just. I talked to many of the people in Parliament square today; they
are decent, law-abiding people who will lose their livelihood and
their way of life, because of a small number—although, yes,
there will be a large vote tonight—of Labour Back Benchers who
have a bigoted attitude to hunting and are determined to push the
measure through...
...If the Bill goes through the House of Lords and the Parliament Act is used,
the Government may think that because we have postponed the measure, the issue
will go away. However, I sincerely believe that it will be a poll-tax-type issue.
The Bill is unsustainable; whatever is said, the law cannot be policed. We have
made a huge mistake.
I never thought that I would live to see a Labour Government cower
before bigotry. That is unacceptable; it is a disgrace, and I am desperately
disappointed that the Prime Minister has allowed it to happen.
The MP to follow Ms Hoey in the debate - Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest,
East, Con) - said it was "a real privilege to follow what one
can truly describe as an extremely brave speech".
|
Related
links
|
|
UK Parliament | 15 September 2004
|
|
|
