Re: Paul McCartney urges PM to deliver hunt ban

From: Martin Willett (ignoredmailbox_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:06:50 +0100

Michael Saunby wrote:
> "Martin Willett" <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:2q968sFsiqomU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> A Pierrepoint wrote:
>>> "J Smytje" <JSmythe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i16pj0pgsfroucj78di55po5249i8jjppl@4ax.com...
>>>> Three quarters of the British public think hunting should
>>>> not be legal and we too believe that it's time for the ban.
>>>
>>> That's just about the number (75% or so) who think he death
penalty
>>> should be reinstated. I'm glad these celebrities want what the
>>> people want, it's only democratic. I look forward to the day,
>>> hopefully soon, when they all call for the death penalty to be
>>> reintroduced. I'm sure all true believers in democracy will join
me
>>> in this wish.
>>
>> There's a big difference here. The majority of the public who
support
>> a ban on hunting have voted for MPs who want to ban hunting too. It
>> is just the unelected drones in the Lords who are stopping the will
>> of the people being expressed in law.
>>
>> When most people are faced with the reality of actually being
>> responsible for executions their big hard talk tends to dissipate.
>> Most MPs do not support capital punishment, it is not any kind of a
>> conspiracy, it's just the way things go. The practicalities of
>> actually doing it and living with the consequences of such a move
>> would be far reaching, the MPs understand that. We would have to
>> renegotiate or scrap dozens of extradition treaties and we would
find
>> ourselves a pariah state. People talk to the Americans because they
>> have to, not because they want to, they don't have to talk to us in
>> the same way.
>>
>> I myself have no moral objection to executing those guilty of most
>> serious crimes, especially by drop hanging. (Yes, that's right,
"most
>> serious crimes" is what I meant, not "the most serious crimes")
But
>> I wouldn't vote for it if I was an MP today, it simply isn't
>> practical politics.
>>
>
> Greetings troll.
>
> And in both cases MPs would be entirely within their rights to put
> such matters to a referendum. There has been so such referendum so
> it's entirely dishonest to claim that the majority of those who
> might vote want hanging reintroduced, or hunting banned. We simply
> don't know. Hunting was supposed to be banned based on evidence,
> however the "evidence" seemed to point towards licencing, not
banning.
>
> Michael Saunby

"Hunting was supposed to be banned based on evidence" that sounds
rather like the way my wife talks, she tells me to tidy up the
kitchen, I say nothing, next morning she says "I thought you said you
were going to tidy the kitchen?"

Parliament can ban hunting for any reason or none. A ban on hunting
was in the manifesto of the party with a parliamentary majority, that
party is well within its rights to force the vote through the House of
Lords and use the Parliament Act to do it as long as it receives a
majority on a vote within the House of Commons. That is the way the
constitution works.

There is nothing dishonest in reporting the findings of opinion polls,
especially if they are genuine and their nature is fully disclosed. It
is complete pompous windbagggery to claim that only a referendum can
reveal the view of the people.

It is the job of Parliament to consider the issues and make these
decisions and to interpret what is best for the country rather than
simply follow every whim of the people, no matter how inconsistent
those whims are. Referendums are unpopular with parliamentarians and
they tend to happen only to avoid parties fracturing. There is no need
to put either capital punishment or fox hunting to a referendum
because all the main parties regard them as matters for the personal
conscience of MPs, referendums are only called over issues that
parties want to unite over, but can't, and/or matters which
fundamentally affect the constitution.

It is the pro-hunting lobby which is fickle, claiming that they are
doing it for tradition, for the past, for the future, to kill foxes,
to preserve foxes, for fun, because they have to, because it's
efficient, to ensure employment, because it gives the fox a chance and
that this efficient and effective form of vermin control isn't about
killing and only soft-hearted townies would want to go drag hunting.
Oh yeah, this persecution of hunting is about class war too, and only
lower class urban oiks oppose it. And everybody who lives in the
countryside who knows what's good for them supports it, except the
vicious hate-filled rabble who don't who should be ruddy well chased
over the fields themselves the ungrateful scum.

I had two grandfathers who were farmers. One farmed the squire's land
and doffed his cap to the hunt. The other put his shotgun to the
Master of the Hunt and told him to get off his land and don't call him
"my good man", the patronizing git. They've not been back for nearly
sixty years and my mother is upholding the same traditions today. He
sorted out his fox problems himself. The foxes either ran away for a
hundred yards or so and sat and laughed at him or got shot dead on the
spot. 

-- 
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/

Relevant Pages