CURRENT SITUATION (March 2005) PROSPECTS ARE: WORST CASE SCENARIO The Parliament Acts were  used and  the "BANKS  BILL"--------A  TOTAL OUTRIGHT  BAN became  law before  the end of November 2004. The "amending  motion" ( a delay  to July 2006 ) failed  in the Lords, Our several cases to get the ban ruled unlawful all fail.  HUNTING was BANNED ON 18 FEBUARY  2005 and  REMAINS  BANNED UNTIL  REPEALED OR THE BAN DEEMED UNLAWFUL BEST CASE SCENARIO A new administration, that wants to repeal the Ban, is elected in May? 2005. OR one of our cases to get the ban ruled unlawful succeeds.   A particularly galling aspect of the way the Hunting Issue has been treated is the RELATIVE DISENFRANCHISEMENT of the Rural Minority. Click here if you wish to research the background to the current situation).   SCOTLAND A vote in the Scottish Parliament on 13 February 2002 WENT AGAINST HUNTING. A ban became law on 1st August 2002. Several legal challenges were  and will continue to be mounted in the Scottish Courts and later in the European Court  of Human Rights. Unfortunately the first few failed. But challenges will not cease. The second round, in the Inner Court of Sessions Appeal Stage, is due to begin on  the 6 June 2003. OUR SCOTS FRIENDS ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. The livelihoods and culture of Scotland's rural minority are being destroyed by the prejudiced autocracy of a majority of the Members of the Scottish  Parliament. The Land Reform Bill is no less destructive than the "Anti-Hunting  Bill". The legal challenges will be based upon the following points: If new crimes are invented and particularly if the intent is to criminalise activities which have hitherto been conducted completely lawfully, legislation has to make clear what the crime is and how it is committed. There is a serious lack of clarity on these points. The legislation although purporting to be for the protection of wild mammals is in fact aimed at preventing certain human activities. For example, someone wishing to catch his supper and using, with permission of a landowner, a dog for that purpose, commits an offence if his dog catches and he then kills a hare by knocking it on the head. There is no offence in the case of a rabbit. This is either anti-rabbit and pro-hare or anti-hare hunters but pro-rabbit hunters: if the object is to protect wild mammals it cannot be the  former. If as a result of the invention of new crimes people suffer damage by loss of job, home or use of land they are entitled to compensation. The Scottish Parliament decided that there should be no compensation. Our Scots friends may well need your support again. Watch  their website. DESPAIR IS NOW OUR WORST ENEMY THE RISKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY These arise  from the fact that a majority  of M.Ps (mostly Socialist) used "Burns"  as an excuse  for resolving the issue in favour of an outright ban.  Their real reasons are  far removed from a sincere  belief that Foxhunting is  cruel or unethical. In fact Burns  did no more  than could be expected. That was: To shine  some light on current practices  and to indicate those that might,  after further  examination,  be found to cause unnecessary  suffering ( i.e. be cruel  ) or to be contrary to "The  good order of Society" (i.e. be unethical). In particular  "Burns" found that more research is needed before proper conclusions can be drawn about "cruelty". Several MPs  have made public  remarks that  disclose their  real reasons: E.G. Mr Skinner  "payback  for the miners",  Mr Bradley  "we will  see who rules this country". Human Rights It follows from Burns that, in the absence of irrefutable evidence that hunting is inevitably  crueller than other methods  of Fox Control, the outright ban is premature and will not stand up to  legal examination. Therefore, it  has been challenged as contravening Human Rights legislation  despite Mr Secretary  Straw having made the following statement under  section 19(1)(a)  of the Human  Rights Act 1998:  In my view the  provisions of the Hunting  Bill are compatible with the European  Convention on Human Rights. Democracy Foxman is sure that everybody will agree with  the dictionary  definition of  True Democracy  as "Government  vested in all of the people." When the option  of an outright  ban received  a majority vote in the House of Commons it  was a travesty  of True Democracy, because MPs  followed the  prejudices of the majority without giving equal weight to the interests of an ethical  minority (i.e. one which does not act against  "the good order of Society"). Therefore the  House of Lords, (as guardians  against abuses of democracy for political  expediency) repeatedly rejected the outright ban preferred  by the Commons. Draft Bills  passed backwards and forwards between the  Houses of Commons  and House of  Lords wasting much Parliamentary time. Surely the heavy Government Programme of legislation  on matters that are obviously  far more important  than Foxhunting,  would be a much  better use of Parliamentary  time, which is always in  short supply. (More detail on  the risk to democracy). AN EXAMPLE OF THE PRESSURE WHICH WE MUST CONTINUE TO APPLY One pressure was applied  by The March  for Rural Liberty and Livelihood (London 22nd September 2002). 400,000 people from all walks  of life, all  parts of the  UK and many other countries, and all political  persuasions marched several  miles through London. The  trigger for The March was  Hunting, a part of Rural Culture  that unites all "rurals" and "non-rurals" who abhor cultural discrimination . Thus it was  inevitable that The March united "rurals" with non-rural believers in freedom to do  things that cause no harm  to other people in demonstrating towards ensuring that governments follow the Countryside  Agenda, cogently set out by the Countryside Alliance. This aims to correct  the relative disenfranchisement of people of rural as  opposed to urban culture, which has arisen as  a result of the vote seeking priorities of  governments whose parliamentary  majorities arise in large measure from people  of urban culture. The marchers demonstrated abhorrence of  the prospect  of this country  being governed  by cultural prejudice. WE  MUST NOT BECOME COMPLACENT.   ALL  WHO BELIEVE    IN TRADITIONAL  BRITISH CONCEPTS OF FREEDOM AND FAIRNESS PLEASE GO TO THE HELP US PAGE and do as much as you can. "THE CAMPAIGN OF THE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE" The delivery, in spring 2002, from a "quiet" demonstration of letters to the Minister responsible for the "Hunting Bill" started the "Summer  of Discontent". These protests were unrelenting and grew. Their echoes were heard  loudly beyond British shores, and Ministers heard the sound of ordinary people marching  for their civil liberties, as they tried to convince the restof the world that the UK is a paragon of democratic virtue and the true defender of liberty against tyranny. Their claim sounded increasingly hollow as the days and months advanced. One of the aims of the campaign is to secure a viable future for hunting in the context of the "Countryside Agenda" . That is hunting  in all its forms. A solution to the hunting issue that accepts public accountability  and secures public confidence, one that is just, fair, and has our consent. During the 2nd reading debate on the "Government Bill" to licence hunting, there was a Protest around Parliament. Its increased militancy was a foretaste of what is to come if the Government continues to allow prejudice ( such as the bill's  banning of Deerhunting and Coursing Events in presumption of the Registrar's authority) to override logic. Public opinion is moving towards our side while they believe we are worthy of it. THE WORDS OF THE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE SET OUT THE CONTINUING TASK. We have to persuade a future Government to be strong, to resist unwarranted interference with the constitutional rights of minorities and to give us a just and fair solution for hunting that has the consent of rural people. Those rural people have lost faith  in the institution of Government, they see weakness and duplicity in Ministers when  faced with prejudice and bigotry, they see leadership failing. If our faith is to be restored, and if those perceptions are to be changed, a Government has to stand up to intolerance clearly and  unambiguously and deal with the real problems of rural  Britain. Determination and resolution are our watchwords, not optimism  or pessimism. APPEALS Foxman hopes that this site will be referred to by all those involved in the Parliamentary  processes following from The Period of Consultation. In particular we hope that people  will refrain from taking a view on Foxhunting until they have learned about it. This site should help and another excellent source is at http://www.countryside-alliance.org/cfh/index.html Those who follow the "Country Way of Life" won against  Mr Foster (the  last attempt  at a ban) by  the concerted actions of all of us.Our concerted  actions WON AGAIN in leading the Government to introduce an Inquiry before  framing proposed  legislation. Notwithstanding  the violent abuse of "True Democracy" that lead to the bigots overturning the Government's Bill in The  Commons"  and the Totalitarian  use of the Parliament Acts to prevent  the Lords striking  an acceptable compromise,  concerted action  can win yet again to ensure  that the Ban  is repealed and Hunting  is handled in a truly Democratic,  rather than in a Dictatorial,  manner .The  Countryside Alliance will be organising  many campaigns, marches, protests  etc. Some Pleas I have listened  to all the  debates in  the House of Commons about banning  Foxhunting, inter alia.  They were characterised, on both sides  of the argument,  by a lamentable lack of knowledge  of the subject  and by a ludicrous  level of emotion. There can  be no confidence  that The House has come to  a just decision unless there is confidence that MPs have  studied the subject thoroughly before voting  on a ban. I am delighted that The Government  allowed foxes  and all those involved in  Foxhunting  the courtesy of a proper  government  sponsored inquiry  "The Burns Inquiry" . After all  Clement Attlee's  Labour Government instigated such an inquiry in 1949 which did  not recommend  a ban. Parliament followed this  recommendation.  It is a blot  on Great Britain  that such a high level of emotion and prejudice  against hunting built up in  some MPs, members of The Public and some of The Media  that Parliament ignored the  favourable  (to hunting)  aspects of The Burns  Report.  Candidates  for National  and Local Elections  please study  The Burns  Report carefully  and in detail.  Your views  will be sort in political campaigns. "Do you  support the Ban"----"Why  did you ignore  Burns' view that Hunting is not cruel."  Please study the subject before "preaching " against, or in favour,  of Foxhunting.   Please be more tolerant all round; "Rurals" of our "Urban Sub-Culture" and vice-versa.  Both sides  please "cool  it" so  that the level  of emotion  is reduced  throughout  the debate  and Hunting can be viewed logically, rather than  emotively.    A view from Europe The UK Government's move against Foxhunting is in stark contrast to hunting's growing  support among the European Public and its MEPs. In France, the countryside's political  party "Peche, Nature et Traditions" attracted 7% of the vote and has 6 out  of 87 French MEPs. 40 of the UK's MEPs are pro-hunting. There is also growing support  among Eastern Europeans. Their countryside was despoiled by decades of urban based  bureaucracies. Their Civil Liberties were seriously eroded. The UK Government seeks to impose yet more bureaucracy on the countryside. They propose to restrict the Civil  Liberties of those of its citizens who follow The Country Way of Life. The Eastern  Europeans seek to reduce bureaucracy and restore Civil Liberties. What a contrast. No wonder many Eastern Europeans clamour to join FACE (The Federation of Associations  for Country Sports in Europe); a bulwark against a possibility of infection by the "New English Disease" of bigotry, intolerance and neglect of the traditional  rights of Country Sports minorities. A QUESTION FOR THE UK GOVERNMENT At the time of the conflict in Kosovo you fought bigotry, intolerance and neglect  of the traditional rights of the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia.  Does one of your own minorities deserve less? SUMMARY Foxman is not opposed to some enforced changes to the  control (regulation or supervision) of Foxhunting and to the banning of some practices in specific circumstances in particular places as may be decided by a Code of Conduct and a Licensing Process. "Burns" found that several crucial aspects of the alleged cruelty and degradation of welfare had NOT been thoroughly researched. Furthermore, the Inquiry did not have time to initiate this "missing research", nor to await its outcome before  reporting. The Government has stated that it is founding its actions about hunting  on the basis of the evidence. However since Burns found that there is not enough evidence  available, it would be incumbent upon The Registrar to sponsor the necessary research and to analyse its conclusions before disallowing any hunting activity. Pending such evidence becoming available, nothing in The Burns Report nor from The Westminster  Hearings dilutes Foxman's conclusions that: There are good reasons (REF  "A") to believe that foxes are not in terror when being chased and that certain death under many hounds in seconds is preferable to a significant probability of wounding and  slow death when shot at. [Ref "A": A paper published in November 1996  in the academic journal Animal Welfare, by two British zoologists at the University of Nottingham, (Chris Barnard, professor of animal behaviour and Jane Hurst, a behavioural ecologist). Summarised here. ] Persons whose property is killed by foxes (E.g.. Farmers and Gamekeepers) are going to kill foxes; however needless this may be in a macro-economic sense. All methods, other than Hunting with Dogs have serious disadvantages. However, there are some practices of Foxhunting, which may be found after further independent study to be against the "good order of Society" or "cruel" in specific circumstances. Consequently, "Burns" and "Westminster" has found nothing to invalidate the arguments put forward that a total ban on Foxhunting or an ill considered, premature or ill implemented licensing system would "backfire" because it would destroy Foxhunting's "utility" in the following respects: Foxhunting reduces suffering from the inevitable culling of foxes. A ban would Increase the duration of suffering in the fox population as a result of shooting inevitably replacing Foxhunting in many places. ( There has been talk of poisoning and gassing, but these are too cruel and indiscriminate to be considered  seriously as part of an endeavour seeking to reduce suffering). Foxhunting helps maintain a healthy, genetically sound fox population. A ban would harm the UK fox population as a whole. Foxhunting helps the the maintenance of much of the  traditional appearance of the UK Countryside. A ban would degrade it. Many UK farmers benefit by assisting in the maintenance  of the infrastructure of Foxhunting (e.g. by maintaining hunting horses for customers)  and by less fear of predation without the stress of possible wounding by shooting. A ban would reduce the well being of these farmers. Many people in the countryside and in the towns derive a significant proportion of their livelihood because of Foxhunting. A ban would  threaten their livelihood. In several areas, Foxhunting is pivotal to the social  and other aspects of the "Country Way of Life". A ban would destroy  the social cohesion of many country communities. Further detrimental effects of a ban would include: Failure to satisfy the animals rights lobby, which has said that it would increase pressure to ban shooting and fishing once hunting with dogs was banned. Encouragement of intolerance towards other cultures  (E.g.: Islam and Halal slaughter) and lead to an undesirable increase in cultural incompatibilities becoming a basis for Law instead of "the good order of  society" (viz. homosexuality). Encouragement of an anarchic element which has indulged  in an Anti- Hunting "Battle" and would switch to other targets. The outright ban or something close to it ( such as an ill thought out and/or ill implemented licensing system) is not only  contrary to legislation on Human Rights but is also undemocratic political opportunism and perpetuation of "class warfare"  and "Old Socialist" aims wholly contradictory to the aspirations of New Labour to govern for "all the people" in a thoroughly modern manner. Furthermore, any future Bill containing regulations covering particular aspects of "the hunt"  would be wholly premature before further research. Meanwhile, in the interests of the fox population, of democracy and of Human Rights, Foxhunting should be reinstated under improved regulation and a fair and properly implemented licensing system. Nevertheless, the "forces of political expediency" have allowed bigots to pass a dangerously illogical ban.   As a result Foxhunting continues to face its worst ever crisis.