If you've been reading my Facebook posts, you'll know that I've been following the reports that this UK Government is proposing to repeal the anti-fox hunting law. I discovered Brian May's ("Queen" guitarist) excellent web site http://www.save-me.org set up to organise pressure on the Government to maintain the current law. There is a petition on the site, to which I added my name, and advice about contacting local Members of Parliament, which I did. The response I received was somewhat worrying because my MP is listed as being in favour of maintaining the current law prohibiting fox hunting.
This is Rebecca Harris's reply:
Having a pet is, I suppose, A reason for not wanting to hurt animals, but being a human being should be first and foremost.
Unnecessary pain or suffering: does that mean that it's all right to cause pain and suffering if it's deemed necessary? I raise this point because of the proposed cull of badgers (protected by law in the UK) because it is alleged that badgers infect cattle with tuberculosis. The cull will be carried out by licensed farmers or landowners which will allow them to shoot badgers. This would then be necessary pain and suffering. Well, that's all right then – as long as it's necessary!
The Coalition Government, out of the goodness of their hearts, simply wants to makes sure that every MP can vote according to his or her conscience. How nice. What about voting according to the wishes of their constituents – you know, The Voters. Those same people who wanted the ban in the first place. Perhaps the Government just forgot.
So, Rebecca Harris MP, is more politican than animal lover. No surprise there, I suppose. Just because your MP has said that they are in favour of maintaining the ban, doesn't mean anything unless they are unequivocal. Ms. Harris's predecessor in reply to my question about her position regarding the impending fox hunting ban, wrote that she was "implacably opposed to fox hunting". That's what I call unequivocal.
Go to Brian May's web site and register as a supporter, sign the petition, encourage others to sign the petition and write to your MP. In addition, there is a page re. the proposed badger cull, enabling anyone to write to the above-mentioned Department answering the questions they have put forward for public consultation. Answer the questions (guidance is provided) and send it by e-mail.
This is Rebecca Harris's reply:
As a devoted dog-owner, my position is that no animal should be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.[My emphases.]
The Government has indicated that there will be a free vote on a Motion on hunting during the lifetime of the current Parliament. this does not mean that the Government supports a repeal of the Hunting Act; merely that, unlike last time, all Members will be free to vote according to their conscience.
However, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that the Government currently has more pressing issues to address, and so this vote may not occur for some time.
Having a pet is, I suppose, A reason for not wanting to hurt animals, but being a human being should be first and foremost.
Unnecessary pain or suffering: does that mean that it's all right to cause pain and suffering if it's deemed necessary? I raise this point because of the proposed cull of badgers (protected by law in the UK) because it is alleged that badgers infect cattle with tuberculosis. The cull will be carried out by licensed farmers or landowners which will allow them to shoot badgers. This would then be necessary pain and suffering. Well, that's all right then – as long as it's necessary!
The Coalition Government, out of the goodness of their hearts, simply wants to makes sure that every MP can vote according to his or her conscience. How nice. What about voting according to the wishes of their constituents – you know, The Voters. Those same people who wanted the ban in the first place. Perhaps the Government just forgot.
So, Rebecca Harris MP, is more politican than animal lover. No surprise there, I suppose. Just because your MP has said that they are in favour of maintaining the ban, doesn't mean anything unless they are unequivocal. Ms. Harris's predecessor in reply to my question about her position regarding the impending fox hunting ban, wrote that she was "implacably opposed to fox hunting". That's what I call unequivocal.
Go to Brian May's web site and register as a supporter, sign the petition, encourage others to sign the petition and write to your MP. In addition, there is a page re. the proposed badger cull, enabling anyone to write to the above-mentioned Department answering the questions they have put forward for public consultation. Answer the questions (guidance is provided) and send it by e-mail.
Why not doing a horary chart about the issue? At least you might know what to expect, as it is the kind of situation you don't have any control.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Andrei.
ReplyDeleteIt's usually because the querent has no power of decision or action that the chart is difficult to read. It's not impossible, though.
But your comment has made me think about the date and time that the Hunting Act came into force. That might show whether or not it would hold or would be changed. If I get some time, I'll see if I can find the details.
You're welcome. :)
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog and I am curious if you've got some time to read more of your ideas.
Thank you again, Andrei. I'll do my best to pick up this subject when time becomes my friend again!
ReplyDelete