Charles Moore believes that the English pro-hunting lobby is too emotional in terms of how it’s planning to fight the recent parliamentary ban: “Extraordinary that English people now need to learn lessons from Solidarity in Poland, the anti-apartheid struggle and the Civil Rights movement in the United States”.
He suggests beginning by getting the facts of the case straight:
“First, work out the nature of the injustice. This does not consist in the desire of Parliament to regulate hunting, but in the ban, because it is oppressive and unsupported by evidence. Lord Burns collected evidence for the government. He established that hunting was no crueller than any other form of killing foxes, and therefore made no case for a ban. This did not deflect the abolitionists. Almost all refused invitations from hunts to come and see what they did: they positively proclaimed their ignorance, and thus that they were making law on the basis of prejudice. They then abused the purpose of the Parliament Act by forcing through something that was not part of the governments programme. So the law is unjust in manner and matter. It therefore helps the rule of law to defeat it!”.