BACK
TO MENU
TELEGRAPH 13.12.03
There is much talk amongst country people about 'Civil Disobedience'
in the face of a law that bans Hunting. No such law was proposed in
the Queen's Speech - but that was a matter of political expediency
not of repentance. It is almost certain that a Bill will be brought
forward at a time to suit the Government. Blair has described it as
- 'a matter of trust', which, as the man has told more porkies than
Pinocchio, cannot amount to much. It will whiz through the Commons.
It is to be hoped that whatever ragged remnants of the Upper House
remain will put up a spirited last stand. But the Government can eventually
work its wicked way by use of the Parliament Act. This may be un-constitutional,
but this government does not give two monkey's whatnots for Parliamentary
constitution. So what do we do then? We can bare our collective throat
to the knife - not an option as far as I am concerned. We can resort
to 'Direct Action', which would certainly result in innocent people
getting hurt and is a can of worms that I would not like to see opened.
The last option is Civil Disobedience.What is 'Civil Disobedience'?
Two examples are often quoted - the Poll Tax riots of 1380 and of the
1980s. But they were riots and a riot by its nature involves
violence and civil disobedience should not. Civil disobedience certainly means
breaking the law, but there has to be an overwhelming belief that the law concerned
is rotten and unjust and should not be obeyed. But it is the law that must be
broken not plate glass windows. CD means overwhelming the law not by force but
by choking it with the sheer weight of peaceful protest - think Ghandi. Peaceful
protest means carrying on doing what you believe to be right and submitting to
the due process of the law and the courts. We must use the law to draw attention
to the injustice of a law that is bred by ignorance out of malice. Something
like 40,000 people have signed a Declaration of Intent to carry on hunting if
it becomes banned by a law that 'strips humble people of everything they have
ever known and worked for, of their property and their livelihoods and their
histories'.So just suppose that all those 40,000 people say:"
Sod the law! I'm going hunting." What would happen? You might assume that
they would be arrested en masse and chucked in the slammer. But just consider
the logistics of this. As Alun Michael said:"
The House of Commons… chose a Bill that is simple to explain rather than
a Bill that is simple to enforce." Or as the Burns Report put it - "Legislation
implementing a ban might well pose some enforcement difficulties for the police…"And
hear what the Police have to say:The Chief Constable of Suffolk:"
Police have neither the money nor the manpower to hound illegal foxhunters.""
It is impractical to stop and arrest huntspeople on horse back and seize the
hounds and horses they use to commit the offence…"Chief Constable
of N.Yorkshire:"
If I do arrest people I am going to have to look where I put their horses and
dogs, which I would have to seize as evidence and I am particularly concerned
about the cost…Chief Constable of Thames Valley:"
We are not geared up to seize, horses, hounds and the sort of equipment that
goes with the hunt and neither do I think that it's our proper business…"The
police have, of course, twigged that they would be responsible for the welfare
of any animals seized and of maintaining them in the same good condition that
they were in when seized.
If the logistics of arrest are difficult consider the problems in the court.
A House of Lords amendment to the Bill to provides a clear requirement for the
prosecution to prove specific intent. The word 'intent' does not appear in the
last Bill. Alun Michael has supplied a definition - "'to hunt' is the intention
to pursue a wild mammal. Without that intent, a person is not hunting and is
not covered by the offence in clause 1." It would be the job of the prosecution
to prove intent. The situation is opaque to say the least. After all you could
just be hacking about the countryside; you could just be on your way to the shops
and stopped for a bit crack with some chums; you could just be on your way to
look the stock - the spade is to dig out a ditch and the terrier just loves a
ride on the quad. Hounds could be out for a constitutional. Hounds could be running
heel, in which case they would not be pursuing a wild animal. Remember you are
innocent until you are proved guilty. You may want to plead guilty as a political
statement. You will be fined £5,000. You will refuse to pay and will be
sent to gaol. I am told that it is no worse than Eton. The courts and prison
system of this country are already clogged like a blocked sewer. It is very doubtful
that they could cope with 40,000 political prisoners. A final quote:"
We are fighting for the inalienable right… to be free as long as it does
not impair the freedom of others." - T.Blair in his speech to United States
Congress.I rest my case.
|
