And liberty she flew away

"The woodlands where my race has bred
Unto the axe shall yield;
Hedgerow and copse shall cease to shade
The ever widening field."

The ban on fox hunting comes into force today. I've written much about it over the past year or so and regular readers know where I stand on the issue. For those of you that do not, I am against the ban. Utterly. Go ahead and search the archives to find out more if you want. This day was coming, but knowing that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

There are certain events that occur in peoples lives that are unforgettable and unforgivable. Time does not heal them. They are red lines that have been crossed and I suspect that the ban on fox hunting is one of these events for hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

It's that kind of issue and why wouldn't it be? Forcing people to live their lives in a way that is acceptable to a few other and more powerful people is exactly the kind of issue that is likely to raise merry hell.

Some of these hundreds of thousand of people will be angrier than others and some of those will not be able to help themselves in expressing that anger. Any large group will have some people among them who are less able to control their rage. I hope and pray that any incidents will be few and far between and minor.

For some it is no longer about who is wrong and who is right; that process has pretty much run its course and those in the wrong were fortunate enough to have the ear of some of the most wickedly illiberal men and women to have ever held influence in this country.

Like I have said before, I have never hunted and I have never felt the desire to go hunting. That has now changed.

Andy writes:

Do you really believe that huntsmen and women are above the law? Do you really think that punching a woman is okay if you're angry?

The answer to Andy's first question is kind of. They are not above all law, obviously. They are not above the law on Fox Hunting either. However, I believe that the law is wrong on this issue and I would support a policy of civil disobedience on the issue. That is, and to clarify, I would support the continuation of hunting if hunters who break the law submit themselves for prosecution. Read that again Andy, lest you once again missunderstand what I have written.

As to the second question I leave it to the reader to try and work out what other article Andy was reading when he decided to accuse me of thinking that it was alright to hit a woman because one wanted to continue fox hunting and one was angry about it. I said:

Some of these hundreds of thousand of people will be angrier than others and some of those will not be able to help themselves in expressing that anger. Any large group will have some people among them who are less able to control their rage. I hope and pray that any incidents will be few and far between and minor.

I wrote that before reading about the incident Andy refers to and I stand by it now. It is simply analysis based upon what I think human nature is and it seems to have been born out by events. I do not support it and have not said anywhere that I do, yet Andy manages to attribute support somehow to me.

Andy offers me advice: John, you really ought to look at what you've written. I would suggest he also takes a look at what I have written.

Andy adds:

Civil Disobidence is a bedrock of our democracy, indeed as I said above egg-throwing is to my mind perfectly acceptable, the problem I have with John's post is that he seems to consider physical violence as civil disobidence. John is going to respond to that by pointing out that he's never said he supports it, however he has managed to write about it now without even vaguely condemning it. All I want to hear from him is that the Beaufort and the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunts have overstepped the bounds of what's acceptable.

I recall writing on the subject of violence (with respect to the anger some are feeling and the incident of the unacceptable incident with the woman) that I do not support it and have not said anywhere that I do. That, at the very least, is a vague condemnation. I certainly consider physical violence as a possible form of civil disobedience, but I do not give it my support. Indeed, I remember as a younger man feeling simply dreadful the day that taxi driver was killed by a protesting miner when he threw that concrete slab off that bridge and it is not something I have forgotten.

Andy wants something from me; he want's me to say that the Beaufort and the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunts have overstepped the bounds of what's acceptable. This I cannot do. What I can say is that some protesters have. I condemn their actions.

Posted by John at February 18, 2005 09:07 AM | TrackBack