I WAS outraged to read Professor Scruton’s article (Comment, February 17) on hunting, in which he cites the civil disobedience campaigns of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King to justify his attempt to continue his particular and peculiar bloodlust by setting hounds on mice. Does the good professor realise that the great men whose example he claims to follow would almost certainly have opposed his “cause”?
I am a carnivore and no animal rights activist; I understand that occasionally it is unfortunately necessary to use animals for medical testing or to undertake regular culls of certain animals. However, I cannot accept that it is right to inflict pain on another creature for cosmetic purposes or to provide fashion accessories, and certainly never to provide a few with bloodthirsty entertainment. There have been many depraved or misguided “ways of life” in human history that minority or majority communities have attempted to retain, but civilisation is about moving away from these and creating a better life for humanity and, in our capacity as guardians of the planet, protection for the rest of the creatures that live on it.
Vaseem Akbar,
London E14
Foxy ways
Advertisement
AS ALWAYS, Roger Scruton is being a little “foxy” with his sources and inspiration. Gandhi’s message was clear: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way in which its animals are treated.” In faithfully “galloping after Gandhi”, let’s not get side-tracked by Scruton in our hunt for national greatness.
Edward Gray,
Oxford
Unlikely alliance
WHILE it is true that Gandhi stressed that the means were as important as the end, I doubt if he would be flattered to have his name invoked in the cause of such literally bloody ends.
Another point, there was never a “law” enforcing the burning of widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres (“suttee” being the conventional English short-hand term). It was more of a convention followed by a fairly small number of upper-caste Hindu groups. In fact, one Indian historian has pointed out that it was really a form of conspicuous consumption since most Hindus could not, in fact, afford to sacrifice the labour or reproductive capacity of young women.
Advertisement
Supriya Guha,
Basle, Switzerland
Meaningful change
I HAVE largely ignored the hunting ban fiasco as it seems incredibly trivial in the sorrowful world in which we live today; I find it hard to feel sympathy for either the animals or the hunters when we are content to leave millions living in poverty.
I do object strongly, however, to the comparison between the “injustice” suffered by the hunters and that of the Indian people under imperial rule, and find farcical the suggestion that hunting is as imperative to the hunters’ lives as halal food is to Muslims.
Whatever the eventual outcome of this embarrassing battle, let us not forget the world outside our borders. If we were able to show this much determination towards world poverty then we could maybe make a change to something that actually mattered.
Advertisement
Daniel Wilson,
Annecy, France
Free for all
ROGER SCRUTON’S article sets out a guide for hunters on how to frustrate the application of the Government’s hunt laws. I trust that rural dwellers and landowners will also be appreciative of the measures employed by the travellers who arrive on their land on a Friday afternoon when council offices are closed, enabling them to park their caravans before any legal action can be enforced. Once you proceed along the path of civil disobedience you have to accept that other minority groups may well employ similar tactics in pursuit of their interests.
Eamonn O’Gorman,
Elstree, Hertforshire
Alienated minority
Advertisement
I AGREE entirely with Roger Scruton’s sentiments. This Government spends far too much time pandering to the “bleeding hearts and artists” brigade of political correctness. While watching the evening news yesterday, I noted, with a sense of irony, a piece on this very subject. This article was, unfortunately, about some rather unpleasant violence that occurred at this event. The hunt saboteurs were the ones wearing masks, presumably to protect their identity in order that they can commit other acts of violence, intimidation and even terrorism. It seems the adage “he who shouts loudest gets heard” applys to how this Government passes legislation. It “proves” its effectiveness by targeting the areas of society where it is least likely to get an argument: drivers, taxpayers, separated fathers, hunters, etc. If they continue they will, as they have started to see, push the public too far, they will alienate so many minority groups that those minorities will become the majority. To finish in the tone of Mr Scruton’s article, a quote from Gandhi: “You have to be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Peter Wilson,
Gosport, Hampshire