It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FredT
So I can understand this, where is Blair? When i see him speaking in debate is it at the House of Commons or Lords? Who decides who makes up the Lords? Is it a birth right? If they can overridden using the 1949 Act, what is the point of them?
Originally posted by Majic
Finally I can travel to Britain without fear of being shot.
At least, I'm told I am quite the fox.
LONDON (AP) - Defeated in Parliament, British hunting supporters looked to the courts Friday to uphold their right to chase foxes.
Some hunting supporters have threatened to disobey a new hunting ban after it takes effect on Feb. 18. But the Countryside Alliance, which staged mass demonstrations in the losing battle, said it would go to court to try to overturn the law. The House of Commons asserted its supremacy on Thursday by enacting the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales over the obdurate opposition of the House of Lords.
Legal paperwork was being completed Friday morning and "we will be going this afternoon almost certainly," Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said.
The case would argue that the Parliament Act was not applied properly, Bonner said. If that fails, he said the Alliance planned a second challenge arguing that the law violated human rights.
Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Trying to save foxes, or improve the lives of foxes, is a noble idea. This ban, however, will achieve neither. Foxes will still be controlled, and that will be done using poisioning, trapping and shooting (none of which are addressed in this bill). At least the foxes hunted with dogs have a decent chance of getting away, and it's usually the old/sick that don't make it; this a recreates natural law that is otherwise missing: natural predators.
Foxes aren't the cuddly animals they appear to be; they are vicious killers, and will kill more than they need to eat. I've seen this with my own eyes; 5 of our chickens slaughtered, only one of which was carried away to be eaten. People with small livestock consider them vermin, although no one wants to see them wiped out, as they're an intergral part of the natural order of things.
Here's what I can't understand: why would a person who believes in "animal rights" (a stupid idea, IMHO, as rights require responsibility..."freedom from unecessary suffering" is a more realistic ideal)...anyway, why would such a person choose foxes as the first target of opportunity? Because one thing is irrefuatable: your average fox enjoys a MUCH better life than any battery hen, veal calf, or intensively-raised pig. Why not tackle the real injustice first??
The next logical target would be abandoned & mistreated pets.
The truth behind this whole thing comes down to class hatred and a pathetic desire to force one group's (questionable) moral code on another group.
Originally posted by ANOK
I used to be involved in "animal rights" actively a few yrs ago.
Trust me "animal rights" activists are just as active in trying to liberate all animals who are exploited and misused (Vivisection labs/Battery farms/Furriers etc..)
The Fox hunting issue just happens to be more news worthy and atracted the interest of the general public.
NO Human will be free until ALL animals are. Animal Liberation Now!