It worries me that various people, discussing the brutality of the police towards the pro-hunt demonstrators in Parliament Square, have said, roughly ‘Oh well, people like that will not have objected to police brutality against miners so it doesn’t matter.’
This seems to me wanton and disgraceful – we object to all police brutality regardless of whether the demonstrators who get clubbed are people with whom we agree or not. The press coverage appears to have been somewhat biased also – the missiles thrown by a section of the crowd appear to have been eggs rather than anything heavier.
There is a good moral case for banning fox hunting; there is no good moral case for it. There is, however, a case that civil liberties should only be suppressed in real emergencies – as someone who was involved in the SM community at the time of the Spanner trial, I don’t entirely feel that the moral outrage of a majority of people is enough. And again the fact that most, but by no means all, fox-hunters have not shown any great previous commitment to the rights of others is hardly relevant – rights and freedoms and liberties have to be considered inalienable and not the product of negotiation and reciprocity.
I have been conflicted about this issue from the beginning and in a lot of ways I wish I was not.
I also feel that part of what is going on is a new class of technocrats and international bureaucrats and managers, who are not our friends, taking the oppurtunity to demonstrate to the old gentry that the o.g. are no longer the masters, and that they now are. And who can readily sympathize with red-faced MFHs and their scrubbed progeny at being ousted from power? Not me, but I don’t like their replacements much either.
At least Tory toffs don’t in general claim to be our friends.
glamourousrags 
the brutality of the police towards the pro-hunt demonstrators
It seems to me that the irony of the situation was a that a group was protesting for the right to continue to inflict pain and suffering on much weaker creatures was coming up against what it means to have violence directed against them. Or to use the words of one wit “The police should have set the dogs on them and chased them with mounted units. See how they like it.” In this situation it’s difficult to have any real sympathy for the protestors who were, after all, trying to storm Parliament at the time.
There is a good moral case for banning fox hunting; there is no good moral case for it. There is, however, a case that civil liberties should only be suppressed in real emergencies – as someone who was involved in the SM community at the time of the Spanner trial, I don’t entirely feel that the moral outrage of a majority of people is enough.
Oddly enough I’ve often felt that the most distateful aspect of this business is how it seems to be a mirror-image of Section 28. It’s a rather vindictive piece of legislation designed to shore up a hard core of supporters by throwing them a bone. Most people don’t give a stuff about fox hunting but a very vocal minority are making a lot of noise.
fox-hunters have not shown any great previous commitment to the rights of others is hardly relevant – rights and freedoms and liberties have to be considered inalienable and not the product of negotiation and reciprocity
I have to disagree. Reciprocity is the key to rights and freedoms in a civilised society. It’s the realisation that just because what one person does is distasteful to you that’s no reason to stop them doing it. I’ll leave you to get on with your life if you’ll extend the same courtesy to me is the key. Again the huntsmen do not present a very appealing prospect here. How many of then do you imagine were appalled by Section 28? How many indeed were actively for it? They are paying the price now.
I have been conflicted about this issue from the beginning and in a lot of ways I wish I was not.
I couldn’t agree more.
the brutality of the police towards the pro-hunt demonstrators
It seems to me that the irony of the situation was a that a group was protesting for the right to continue to inflict pain and suffering on much weaker creatures was coming up against what it means to have violence directed against them. Or to use the words of one wit “The police should have set the dogs on them and chased them with mounted units. See how they like it.” In this situation it’s difficult to have any real sympathy for the protestors who were, after all, trying to storm Parliament at the time.
There is a good moral case for banning fox hunting; there is no good moral case for it. There is, however, a case that civil liberties should only be suppressed in real emergencies – as someone who was involved in the SM community at the time of the Spanner trial, I don’t entirely feel that the moral outrage of a majority of people is enough.
Oddly enough I’ve often felt that the most distateful aspect of this business is how it seems to be a mirror-image of Section 28. It’s a rather vindictive piece of legislation designed to shore up a hard core of supporters by throwing them a bone. Most people don’t give a stuff about fox hunting but a very vocal minority are making a lot of noise.
fox-hunters have not shown any great previous commitment to the rights of others is hardly relevant – rights and freedoms and liberties have to be considered inalienable and not the product of negotiation and reciprocity
I have to disagree. Reciprocity is the key to rights and freedoms in a civilised society. It’s the realisation that just because what one person does is distasteful to you that’s no reason to stop them doing it. I’ll leave you to get on with your life if you’ll extend the same courtesy to me is the key. Again the huntsmen do not present a very appealing prospect here. How many of then do you imagine were appalled by Section 28? How many indeed were actively for it? They are paying the price now.
I have been conflicted about this issue from the beginning and in a lot of ways I wish I was not.
I couldn’t agree more.
Thank you for those thoughts. I’ve been uncomfortable with my own instinctive vengefulness towards the protesters – I assert my right to protest, and do so illegally, and expect to be treated with as little violence as I offer. And I don’t think that’s what happened to those protesters. But because I despise their cause, I don’t feel sympathy.
To be honest, though, I do hate the way they’re trying to hijack the language of diversity and tolerance when there are clear paper trails of these same individuals not giving a stuff about other “minorities”. If they’ve had a change of heart and that really is why they feel they should be let alone, I’ll see them at Pride, or the local Mela. If they’re cynically adopting a rhetoric they despise and act against, then I don’t see why I should take their arguments on board.
Thank you for those thoughts. I’ve been uncomfortable with my own instinctive vengefulness towards the protesters – I assert my right to protest, and do so illegally, and expect to be treated with as little violence as I offer. And I don’t think that’s what happened to those protesters. But because I despise their cause, I don’t feel sympathy.
To be honest, though, I do hate the way they’re trying to hijack the language of diversity and tolerance when there are clear paper trails of these same individuals not giving a stuff about other “minorities”. If they’ve had a change of heart and that really is why they feel they should be let alone, I’ll see them at Pride, or the local Mela. If they’re cynically adopting a rhetoric they despise and act against, then I don’t see why I should take their arguments on board.
On a related issue, with regards to today’s revelations about security, the glee with which the newspapers seem to be trying to push parliament towards total exclusion of the public is a little worrying. It’d be interesting to see how they’d react if someone posing as a reporter tried one of these stunts.
Boringly – from the point of lively debate – I agree with you 100%.
Icon
Hey by the way you have a cool icon
Icon
Hey by the way you have a cool icon
But I think what I was really trying to say was, yes, because I don’t want the system turned round to face the other way, I want a new system.
Re: Icon
Thank you – and I look much as is, but with longer hair. 🙂
Re: Icon
Thank you – and I look much as is, but with longer hair. 🙂
I agree that rights shouldn’t be withheld just because a group has a past history of not caring about other groups’ rights. Everything has to start sometime, and that includes caring about rights.
It’s not clear from what you and have said whether it’s just been public statements of not caring or something more energetic like supporting political action against those rights.
I agree that rights shouldn’t be withheld just because a group has a past history of not caring about other groups’ rights. Everything has to start sometime, and that includes caring about rights.
It’s not clear from what you and have said whether it’s just been public statements of not caring or something more energetic like supporting political action against those rights.
Re: Icon
Wow if I looked liked that I’d walk around in a glass box
Re: Icon
Wow if I looked liked that I’d walk around in a glass box
I honestly can’t decide what to make of the claims of police brutality. I certainly don’t think they should be dismissed because “they” deserve it, but my instinct is that it’s hard to believe. The complaints sound so cookie-cutter: I haven’t heard any reports making specific allegations, just lots and lots of “Oh – but we were completely peaceful! It was the police! My goodness, they’re animals!”
And it might simply be the sheer disbelief of a class which has spent a century and a half looking on the police as loyal subordinates and protectors, or maybe … it’s not actually true, and just what people who find themselves involved in violent protests have been saying for years and years. There have been some huge protests in the UK over the past few years which haven’t turned violent: this suggests to me that the police do actually know how to behave at peaceful protests, even if they perhaps didn’t a few decades ago. Clearly, that’s not proof beyond all doubt that it was the protestors who initiated the violence, and I’d like to see some sort of attempt to establish the truth, but I’m inclined to suspect the protestors on this one.
As regards the whole fox-hunting thing in general, I’m not pro-hunting, but I generally see this as a calculated action by a government whose core constituency is urban and who can safely alienate “the countryside vote”, whether that’s defined geographically or in class terms. It’s deliberately divisive, and I can’t commend that kind of politics.
I honestly can’t decide what to make of the claims of police brutality. I certainly don’t think they should be dismissed because “they” deserve it, but my instinct is that it’s hard to believe. The complaints sound so cookie-cutter: I haven’t heard any reports making specific allegations, just lots and lots of “Oh – but we were completely peaceful! It was the police! My goodness, they’re animals!”
And it might simply be the sheer disbelief of a class which has spent a century and a half looking on the police as loyal subordinates and protectors, or maybe … it’s not actually true, and just what people who find themselves involved in violent protests have been saying for years and years. There have been some huge protests in the UK over the past few years which haven’t turned violent: this suggests to me that the police do actually know how to behave at peaceful protests, even if they perhaps didn’t a few decades ago. Clearly, that’s not proof beyond all doubt that it was the protestors who initiated the violence, and I’d like to see some sort of attempt to establish the truth, but I’m inclined to suspect the protestors on this one.
As regards the whole fox-hunting thing in general, I’m not pro-hunting, but I generally see this as a calculated action by a government whose core constituency is urban and who can safely alienate “the countryside vote”, whether that’s defined geographically or in class terms. It’s deliberately divisive, and I can’t commend that kind of politics.
Yes, I think a lot of left-leaners were included to think – good, serves them right, these toffs need a good beating.
On the other hand I was looking at the scenes and thinking, what if this was a demo that I actually supported, how would I feel about it then?
But then I swing back to thinking… it serves them right for trampling around the countryside taking pleasure in ripping up animals. The police didn’t initiate the violence: a minority of these protestors deliberately provoked it, which has backfired and turned the tide definitely against them. And that’s good.
Yes, I think a lot of left-leaners were included to think – good, serves them right, these toffs need a good beating.
On the other hand I was looking at the scenes and thinking, what if this was a demo that I actually supported, how would I feel about it then?
But then I swing back to thinking… it serves them right for trampling around the countryside taking pleasure in ripping up animals. The police didn’t initiate the violence: a minority of these protestors deliberately provoked it, which has backfired and turned the tide definitely against them. And that’s good.
Having been on the fringes of the odd demo which did turn into a police riot, I recognized the signs when I looked at the television reports – people with blood all over them, the odd demonstrator lying on the ground not moving and having medical attention. I don’t feel especially sympathetic to this lot, but I also know what the police can do when they feel they have a license.
And Rob, I’m not quite as clear as you that the police had no role in initiating violence. And are you actually saying that the police are entitled to beat up people of whose activities you disapprove but which were legal and remain so for another eighteen months?
I’ve also been on demos which had a jolly good crack at entering the chamber, in righteous causes as it happens like the age of consent debates under the Tories, and so I don’t feel especially entitled to get all moral about disrupting the democratic process.
I wasn’t part of the group that shoved through police cordons and banged hard on the doors of Parliament, but I know plenty of people who were. And when people say this is the first time Parliament has been invaded since Charles I attempted to arrest the five members, that’s arrant nonsense.
For one thing, it ignores the various incursions of the Army under Cromwell. For another, and more relevantly, it ignores the anti-Clause 28 lesbian abseilers, who certainly made it onto the floor of the House during a sitting. I’ve heard of lesbian invisibility, but pretending that never happened, just because this time it’s the’wrong’ side that do it, is not on.
Having been on the fringes of the odd demo which did turn into a police riot, I recognized the signs when I looked at the television reports – people with blood all over them, the odd demonstrator lying on the ground not moving and having medical attention. I don’t feel especially sympathetic to this lot, but I also know what the police can do when they feel they have a license.
And Rob, I’m not quite as clear as you that the police had no role in initiating violence. And are you actually saying that the police are entitled to beat up people of whose activities you disapprove but which were legal and remain so for another eighteen months?
I’ve also been on demos which had a jolly good crack at entering the chamber, in righteous causes as it happens like the age of consent debates under the Tories, and so I don’t feel especially entitled to get all moral about disrupting the democratic process.
I wasn’t part of the group that shoved through police cordons and banged hard on the doors of Parliament, but I know plenty of people who were. And when people say this is the first time Parliament has been invaded since Charles I attempted to arrest the five members, that’s arrant nonsense.
For one thing, it ignores the various incursions of the Army under Cromwell. For another, and more relevantly, it ignores the anti-Clause 28 lesbian abseilers, who certainly made it onto the floor of the House during a sitting. I’ve heard of lesbian invisibility, but pretending that never happened, just because this time it’s the’wrong’ side that do it, is not on.
Re: Icon
Hmm, I can take good photos. The reality might be disappointing. 🙂
But thanks for the compliment. Made me smile.
Re: Icon
Hmm, I can take good photos. The reality might be disappointing. 🙂
But thanks for the compliment. Made me smile.
For another, and more relevantly, it ignores the anti-Clause 28 lesbian abseilers, who certainly made it onto the floor of the House during a sitting
Wasn’t that the House of Lords?
For another, and more relevantly, it ignores the anti-Clause 28 lesbian abseilers, who certainly made it onto the floor of the House during a sitting
Wasn’t that the House of Lords?
Unfortunately, the system you’re complaining about is not a set of artificial and easily changed rules, it’s human nature. The new people on top always have a tendency to do what was done to them when they were on the bottom. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The best solution is to put in rules to prevent this kind of abuse before one is tempted to use it.
As for fox-hunting itself, sure it’s cruel to the fox, but it is any crueller than, say, factory-farming is to farm animals? I think not. Except for that small minority prepared to go the all-vegetarian all-animal-rights all-the-time route, I don’t think we have the moral standing to get on too high a moral horse about fox-hunting. Disapprove, yes. Regulate it up the wazoo, yes. But an outright ban seems self-righteous.
Unfortunately, the system you’re complaining about is not a set of artificial and easily changed rules, it’s human nature. The new people on top always have a tendency to do what was done to them when they were on the bottom. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The best solution is to put in rules to prevent this kind of abuse before one is tempted to use it.
As for fox-hunting itself, sure it’s cruel to the fox, but it is any crueller than, say, factory-farming is to farm animals? I think not. Except for that small minority prepared to go the all-vegetarian all-animal-rights all-the-time route, I don’t think we have the moral standing to get on too high a moral horse about fox-hunting. Disapprove, yes. Regulate it up the wazoo, yes. But an outright ban seems self-righteous.
First up, I wasn’t aware I was “complaining” about anything. Discussing, talking about, sure. Complaining? That’s the sort of word that makes assumptions about the sort of person and the sort of activist that I am.
Also, I think your analysis of “the system” (you assume you know exactly what I’m referring to) as simply “human nature” is simplistic. Power structures are made up of humans, sure, but it’s humans in interaction with historical and societal trends, ownership of resources, and so on. Yes, indeed, it would be nice if there were rules to prevent the abuse of power.
calimac
2004-09-17 08:24 (link)
Unfortunately, the system you’re complaining about is not a set of artificial and easily changed rules, it’s human nature. The new people on top always have a tendency to do what was done to them when they were on the bottom. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The best solution is to put in rules to prevent this kind of abuse before one is tempted to use it.
As for fox-hunting itself, sure it’s cruel to the fox, but it is any crueller than, say, factory-farming is to farm animals? I think not.
I think not either. I’m against both. I wasn’t aware I was required to choose, or to state all of my beliefs and credentials when discussing any given one of them. And, well, I am all-vegetarian. I presume that makes me (see below) self-righteous rather than consistent, to you.
But an outright ban seems self-righteous.
Why? I believe that people shouldn’t do stuff that’s wrong. Some things are so wrong that regulating them cannot make them right: the core identity of the activity is wrong/ cruel/ abusive/ whatever. For example, I don’t believe in regulation of the death penalty: I believe it simply should not ever happen. I don’t actually feel particularly strongly about fox-hunting – it’s not a big issue for me – but I don’t think my belief that it’s fundamentally cruel and really shouldn’t happen is inconsistent with my other beliefs or practices.
First up, I wasn’t aware I was “complaining” about anything. Discussing, talking about, sure. Complaining? That’s the sort of word that makes assumptions about the sort of person and the sort of activist that I am.
Also, I think your analysis of “the system” (you assume you know exactly what I’m referring to) as simply “human nature” is simplistic. Power structures are made up of humans, sure, but it’s humans in interaction with historical and societal trends, ownership of resources, and so on. Yes, indeed, it would be nice if there were rules to prevent the abuse of power.
calimac
2004-09-17 08:24 (link)
Unfortunately, the system you’re complaining about is not a set of artificial and easily changed rules, it’s human nature. The new people on top always have a tendency to do what was done to them when they were on the bottom. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The best solution is to put in rules to prevent this kind of abuse before one is tempted to use it.
As for fox-hunting itself, sure it’s cruel to the fox, but it is any crueller than, say, factory-farming is to farm animals? I think not.
I think not either. I’m against both. I wasn’t aware I was required to choose, or to state all of my beliefs and credentials when discussing any given one of them. And, well, I am all-vegetarian. I presume that makes me (see below) self-righteous rather than consistent, to you.
But an outright ban seems self-righteous.
Why? I believe that people shouldn’t do stuff that’s wrong. Some things are so wrong that regulating them cannot make them right: the core identity of the activity is wrong/ cruel/ abusive/ whatever. For example, I don’t believe in regulation of the death penalty: I believe it simply should not ever happen. I don’t actually feel particularly strongly about fox-hunting – it’s not a big issue for me – but I don’t think my belief that it’s fundamentally cruel and really shouldn’t happen is inconsistent with my other beliefs or practices.
You said you wanted to get rid of this system and replace it with another system. That strikes me as a complaint about this system. *shrug*
You’re not required to state all your beliefs or credentials when discussing these matters. My post was specifically designed to cover various bases, and made no assumptions about where you fell.
I don’t think the death penalty is a good analogy. I can’t think of other things that are equivalent that are as bad, the way farming practices are to fox-hunting. I therefore don’t think it’s self-righteous to push for its ban. But since in the US that isn’t in the cards right now, I’d rather regulate and limit it than do nothing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Back to fox-hunting, I think we can agree that it’s bad and we’d like to see it disappear. But the question at hand is, what are we going to do about that?
You said you wanted to get rid of this system and replace it with another system. That strikes me as a complaint about this system. *shrug*
You’re not required to state all your beliefs or credentials when discussing these matters. My post was specifically designed to cover various bases, and made no assumptions about where you fell.
I don’t think the death penalty is a good analogy. I can’t think of other things that are equivalent that are as bad, the way farming practices are to fox-hunting. I therefore don’t think it’s self-righteous to push for its ban. But since in the US that isn’t in the cards right now, I’d rather regulate and limit it than do nothing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Back to fox-hunting, I think we can agree that it’s bad and we’d like to see it disappear. But the question at hand is, what are we going to do about that?
Yes, of course, my bad, and therefore not quite such a disruption of democratic process morally, but still one technically.
Regardless of the morality of the fox hunting issue, I don’t think any of the protesters ought to’ve complained about being beaten back by the police after they launched an assault on the seat of government. I suppose they think it makes a difference that they’re English and not, oh, for instance, a terrorist threat, but it seems to me that anyone launching themselves at the Houses of Parliament with the intention of forcibly entering and disrupting a session of duly elected representatives ought to expect to be whacked about the head a bit. Or at least to have sufficiently thought through the idea and worn a helmet.