As Labour pushes to strengthen the Hunting Ban the Blair Government imposed in 2004, the barrister who drafted the legislation has admitted it had little to do with animal welfare. MailOnline has more.
Daniel Greenberg, who drafted the Hunting Act 2004, is reportedly “troubled” by the ban and argues it is “ineffective” because it was introduced for moral reasons.
Mr. Greenberg told the Daily Telegraph the law is an example of “unfinished business” and does not respect the “minority cultural opinions” or traditions of the hunting community.
The barrister’s remarks come as more than 200 packs get ready for traditional Boxing Day hunts. The parades, which were previously disrupted by Covid restrictions, are going ahead in full today for the first time in three years.
More than 430 convictions under the Hunting Act have been secured over a decade, figures reveal amid demands to strengthen the law.
Mr. Greenberg, who has spent 20 years of drafting legislation as Parliamentary Counsel, has now revealed that drafting the hunting ban made him uncomfortable.
He said it was “troubling” that the law was “driven more by a moral outrage angle than animal welfare”.
“As a result of the way that the Act came out, I think that there is unfinished business and that includes aiming to maximise the animal welfare impact and also to consider the respect of minority cultural values and moral opinions,” he said.
“The difference between a parliamentary democracy and a parliamentary dictatorship is the respect shown to minority opinions and rights.”
Mr. Greenberg, who next month will take up a new role as Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, has warned that Parliament must be “very careful” before it moves to ban hunting, as the Labour Party has recommitted to closing “loopholes” in the law.
The party claimed trail hunting, where a scent is laid for hounds to follow, is being used as a “smokescreen” for the illegal hunting of foxes.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The League Against Cruel Sports is urging Labour to close the “loophole” in the Hunting Act, arguing that the 438 convictions for hunting that have been secured since 2010 proves it is still widespread. But as Nick Herbert of the Countryside Alliance points out in the Spectator, the large number of prosecutions under the Hunting Act shows that the legislation is effective and doesn’t need to be revisited.
Stop Press: An 82 year-old aristocrat was beaten over the head and knocked to the ground by a hunt saboteur and left bleeding and disorientated. His sin? He was observing a melee between hunt participants and sabs, not participating in one himself, and had picked up a video camera he found on the ground and asked who it belonged to. MailOnline has more.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.