Hereford is the most rural diocese in England, it is good hunting country and a recent expose of the Hereford hunt by the Hunt Investigation Team (HIT) resulted in five people being arrested and charged with animal cruelty. (Hunt Investigation Team expose of south Hereford hunt throwing live fox cubs to a kennel full of hounds. https://www.youtube.com/embed/iwwfwUsLDEY) With the horrific footage raw in mind, a HIT supporter wrote to the Archdeacon of Hereford about the Church and hunting. The Team posted the following comment on their Facebook page last week. “We are concerned by the Archdeacon of Hereford’s response to a HIT supporter's email about hunting. We suspect a tinge of bias here. What do others think? If you have concerns, please raise them politely with the Archdeacon, and support us in asking individual churches to prevent suffering and pledge not to host hunt meets on their land.” (Hunt Investigation Team August 2016) Below is the Archdeacon’s reply which is not exactly what anyone expected. "Your case can be made by speaking to people, as I am sure you do, and writing to them to persuade them that your views are correct. Hunt supporters would no doubt tell you that hunting foxes with dogs is at least as humane as shooting, trapping or poisoning them. They would therefore hold that hunting foxes is consistent with animal welfare (and certainly promotes the welfare of poultry, lambs and even on rare occasions human babies). Other people however are dismayed at the sight of horsemen and hounds tracking down and killing foxes. This dismay is not always motivated by love of foxes. It sometimes grows from dislike of privilege, or from a principled repudiation of killing for sport. As I said, both views are represented in church, and in each case the people concerned would claim to be acting in the interests of animal welfare. There is no contradiction in the church’s refusal to take a side officially, Best wishes, Paddy" Tel: 01432 373316 Fax 01432 352952 Email: archdeacon@hereford.anglican.org bishopofhereford@hereford.anglican.org Open letter to the Archdeacon of Hereford. Dear Archdeacon, I read with incredulity and alarm your comments regarding hunting with dogs, an activity that has been illegal for several years, particularly in light of events in Hereford where an investigation revealed video evidence showing live fox cubs being apparently thrown to young hounds at the South Herefordshire hunt kennels. The video caused nationwide revulsion and condemnation of a cruel and sadistic practice. This evidence is currently the subject of a criminal investigation. I was raised as a Christian but it is difficult today to consider myself a religious believer when I see a representative of the Church such as yourself showing a total lack of concern for God’s creatures. My Christian education as a child taught me to follow the example of Christ in loving my neighbour, treating others as myself and valuing kindness, compassion and decency above material concerns. To read then a response from you stating that opposition to hunting 'sometimes grows from dislike of privilege' reaffirms my view that the Church is out of touch. Polo is a sport practised in the main by privileged members of society, as are many equestrian pastimes. If the assertion regarding privilege were correct, would it not be reasonable to imagine a number of people objecting to these sports? I would counter that the vast majority of people object to hunting due to the horrific suffering it inflicts on sentient wild animals who I presume you believe to be part of God's creation. Be assured, Archdeacon, three quarters of the country are against hunting with packs of dogs. Surely, even the most ardent of supporters of this cruel form of entertainment could not accuse ALL of us of being jealous of privilege? My personal opposition to the violent, bloodthirsty and cruel practice of hunting with dogs stems purely from a sense of compassion and pity for a vulnerable wild creature who has a hard enough time simply trying to survive without being persecuted mercilessly by a pack of braying fools on horses. Wild foxes rarely survive beyond 18 months anyway, most die on the roads, but those that survive should surely be left to live their lives in peace. The Burns report, which resulted in the hunting ban, was at pains to be impartial, yet Lord Burns was unequivocal in hisfindings that hunting severely compromises the welfare of wild animals. (Not to mention the welfare of the dozens of pets killed by rampaging hounds annually, and the hounds themselves shot in the head or bludgeoned after six seasons when they are no longer deemed fit to hunt.) And it’s not just animals who suffer, those who monitor hunts, including the saboteurs, are regularly harassed, threatened and injured at hunt meets where the atmosphere is one of threat, menace and sadism. I have myself been a victim of hunt trespass, many of us living in the countryside are given little support against hunt bullies who tend to go wherever they wish, and who seemincapable of controlling the large pack of dogs they have let loose in our countryside. My niece, aged 6, was visiting when hounds invaded my land. She was inconsolable when she learned that a wild animal was being pursued to a grisly death, and she was terrified for our pets. I managed to secure our animals inside, but when I asked the hunters to vacate my property I was told in a very un-Christian way that I should be the one to 'leave'. Is this the sort of behaviour the Church now condones? The League Against Cruel Sports employs a number of monitors armed only with cameras to follow the hunts to ensure that the law is not being broken. Recently two of the League’s monitors were attacked by pro hunt thugs. One suffered a broken neck when both men were thrown down an embankment. Last year a young female saboteur was ridden down by a mounted huntsman who did not stop. She suffered broken ribs and a punctured lung, from which she is still recovering. These incidents are by no means isolated, and if corroboration is required, then please, Archdeacon, visit the POWA website, (Protect Our Wild Animals). A quick browse through the list of 'latest hunting news' will show you all of the incidents involving pro hunt law breaking, cruelty and bullying. The list of hunting crimes against animals and humans is enormous. I, for asking the hunt to leave my land, have had dead foxes and hares left at my house. An unpleasant experience I’m sure you will agree. Again, is this sort of menacing intimidation, trespass and cruelty now endorsed by the Church? I notice that you mention the usual pro-hunt arguments and scare mongering. To suggest that human babies are in danger from foxes, and that this is a legitimate reason for those animals to be pursued and torn apart by dogs, is laughable.The pro hunt Daily Mail, from which I’m informed you get your information, is notorious for publishing unverified scare stories and anti-fox propaganda. Perhaps you could use Christ as your example and allow compassion and kindness to guide you rather than the Daily Mail scare stories and lies by put about by those with a hobby to protect. No human has ever been killed by a fox, despite the best efforts of the Countryside Alliance and other pro hunting organisations to publicise any made up story demonising foxes. As for the assertion that hunting is at least as humane as shooting, trapping or poisoning, the experts would beg to differ. The Burns report showed unequivocally, that if an animal MUST be killed, shooting is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. Many studies suggest that fox control is unnecessary, but the propaganda against the species by people, including yourselfit seems, who support killing animals for fun, may prejudice others who might otherwise consider leaving our wildlife to live in peace. I also note that you did not mention stag hunting with dogs. Was that because of less opportunity to demonise deer as they are herbivores and cannot be accused of eating children? Compassion is surely a Christian concept that, with advancements in our understanding of sentience and animal psychology, should arguably be extended to other species as God's creation and thus worthy of a degree of respect, rather than a convenient source of 'sport'. Let us remember too, that Cardinal Ratzinger and his predecessor decreed that animals have souls. Fox hunting is anything but humane and the post mortems of four hunted foxes pre Burns showed that hunted foxes die in agony. Perhaps, Archdeacon, instead of identifying with the people who take pleasure in killing harmless wildlife, you could try to imagine the terror of a hunted wild animal used to his wild life in the quiet of the countryside. Suddenly you are confronted by a pack baying hounds, thudding hooves, shouts and horns as you are chased with no escape because your bolt hole has been blocked by the men the day before. Imagine if you can, a small fox who does manage to find a hole in which to hide. Often a gun may be fired into the hole, or a terrier sent down. You have no escape just the sounds of digging and the men’s voices above getting closer and closer to where you are hiding. Eventually, you are dragged out, bludgeoned, shot or thrown to the hounds. Foxes that are caught above ground by the dogs are eviscerated as they fight for their lives. In February 1999, five years before the hunting Bill became law, the hounds of the Chiddingfold, Leconfield & Cowdray Foxhunt scented and chased and caught a fox. Luckily for the fox, Andy the saboteur happened to be there. "When I saw the hounds bite into the fox's backside, I knew I had to do something and the only thing left was to jump in and rescue the fox myself. Grabbing the fox distracted the hounds enough for them to let it go, but the terrified fox bit me and I lost my hold...the fox saw its chance and bolted down a rabbit burrow. Its tail was still poking out, so I sat on the hole to stop the hounds from snapping at it. To my amazement, a policeman lent me his helmet to plug the hole, and refused to let the hunt dig out the fox and kill it. Even the police must have been affected by the plight of this pathetic little creature! Eventually, once the hunt had left, we got the fox into a travelling cage and raced it to the vet's." ‘Copper’, irreverently named after the policeman who helped in the rescue, was examined by wildlife vet, Richard Edwards, who said the fox would have died without prompt treatment. However, its life-threatening condition was not caused by the bites Copper had received, but by extreme stress - caused by the prolonged chase of the hunt. (He had even begun to bleed from his penis, evidence of kidney damage due to trauma or extreme physical exhaustion.) After medical treatment Copper spent some weeks recovering and recuperating in a wildlife hospital. He was released, fit and well, into a non-hunting area in March 1999. http://nwhsa.org.uk/Copper%20leaflet.htm Although illegal today, terriers are still often sent below ground where they fight with a fox in complete darkness. This often results in horrific injuries to both animals. It is a myth that hunting is necessary animal control, in fact it’s an open secret that hunts across the UK rear foxes specifically for the hunting season. This cruel practice waseasily exposed by the League Against Cruel Sports earlier this year when they rescued 16 fox cubs from a barn where they were being reared to ensure a plentiful supply to hunt later in the season. I look forward to your response, Archdeacon, and a decision on whether your Church will allow access to hunts on its land. Very best wishes, Pete
0 Comments
This post from Koser Saeed is rather long but well worth reading; I've been doing a little study on comparative voting histories for Jeremy, Owen Smith, Theresa May and Sadiq Khan (well if Sadiq wants to weigh in on the debate then he deserves a little scrutiny as well, wouldn't you agree folks?). I've broken it down into categories for you so you can just pick out the stuff that's important to you if you prefer. It's been a lot of hard work but I've actually found it quite eye opening so it's been well worth it in my opinion. Why Jeremy Corbyn is Right About NATO BY CHRIS NINEHAM It's disturbing that Jeremy Corbyn's comments on foreign policy were in any way controversial says Chris Nineham 'A foreign policy that aims to ‘achieve a world where we don’t need to go to war’. In what kind of circles is that contentious?' If you step back for a moment, it is disturbing that last night’s comments by Jeremy Corbyn on foreign policy were in any way controversial. Corbyn made two points, one general, the other more immediate. In the round, he wants a foreign policy that aims to ‘achieve a world where we don’t need to go to war’. In what kind of circles is that contentious? Secondly, and obviously connected, he wants to avoid war with Russia. Asked about possible Russian interventions he refused to say Britain would go to the aid of a NATO member facing aggression, but instead focussed on diplomatic and political measures designed to avoid that scenario, explaining, ‘we can’t allow a military build-up which is going to lead to some calamitous, incredibly dangerous situation’. Presumably most sane people would support active steps to avoid war with Russia. Such a war would be more calamitous even than those generated by Britain’s string of foreign policy disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Corbyn’s implicit critique of NATO policy in Eastern Europe, too, is entirely appropriate. This year’s NATO summit in Warsaw in July decided on a policy of brinkmanship with Russia, including the deployment of four multinational battalions stationed on a rotating basis in Poland and three Baltic states: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Altogether, some 4,000 troops will be deployed with around 650 coming from Britain and 1,000 from the US. This follows, earlier in the year, the largest Western war game in Eastern Europe since the Cold War, involving 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from twenty four countries. Even NATO supporters were queasy about these moves. A defence attache at a European embassy in Warsaw is quoted as fearing a “nightmare scenario…a mishap, a miscalculation which the Russians construe, or choose to construe, as an offensive action”. After the summit, former Soviet premier Gorbachev gave an idea of the view from Russia, “All the rhetoric in Warsaw just yells of a desire almost to declare war on Russia. They only talk about defence, but actually they are preparing for offensive operations.” Of course NATO leaders present this historically significant escalation as reactive, but this view is simply unsustainable. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO powers have been pushing eastward, into areas everyone knows Russia regards as vital to its security. Since 1991 twelve countries have joined NATO in the area. Georgia and Ukraine were promised membership of NATO in 2008, despite repeated warnings from the Russian government that taking NATO to the Russian border would cause a security crisis. Russia’s elites, including Putin, have in fact been looking for a security accommodation with the West since the end of 1990s. It is NATO expansionism in the East and unilateral western decision-making in other areas – in particular the move to regime change in Libya - that has ratcheted up the tension. Corbyn’s argument about NATO are sensible and supported by the facts. What is really controversial in establishment circles, is that Jeremy Corbyn is committed to a break with the aggressive British foreign policy that has dominated since Blair. Like the majority of British people, he opposes the kind of unqualified commitment to Washington priorities roundly condemned in the Chilcot report. Rather than just expressing regret over Iraq, he has apologized on behalf of the Labour Party for what most people believe to have been a disastrous decision. More than that - and this is what really riles - he is actually prepared to draw some conclusions from the chaos of the last fifteen years and try and act on them. How irrational. Better surely to continue to ignore the past, make the same mistakes over and over again, and plunge the world into further disorder. Source: Stop the War Coalition http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2124-why-jeremy-corbyn-is-right-about-nato Related reading: http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/georgie-harrison/former-blair-spin-doctor-uses-the-telegraph-to-undermine-corbyn
Web: http://stopwar.org.uk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stopthewarcoalition Twitter: https://twitter.com/STWuk Newsletter - 17th August 2016 Pouring petrol onto fire - 15 years of 'bombing for peace' None of the conflicts in the 'war on terror' that started 15 years ago seem to have an end in sight. In Afghanistan, which was invaded in 2001, the war continues to rage, with the Taliban currently making major advances in Helmand Province. John Sopko, the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, stated in his recent report that 'the US-led intervention in Afghanistan led to large-scale internal displacement'. The report also states that there remain 'at least 948,000 people displaced as a result of conflict and violence', and over 2 million Afghans cannot return to the country because it is too dangerous for them to live there. Western intervention continues to cause the mass exodus of refugees into other parts of the region and into Europe. The Western bombardment of Libya, Iraq and Syria has been equally savage, futile and destructive, as the recent massacres of civilians have reconfirmed. The war has created immense bitterness against the West. Besides, bombardment campaigns inevitably lead to massive civilian casualties. As many military experts have pointed out and the experience of the ongoing war has shown, fundamentalist guerrilla fighters are located in heavily populated areas so it is inevitable that civilians will get hurt and killed. The UK elite is continuing to cynically disregard these facts in its pursuit of economic and geopolitical interests in the Middle East and in North Africa. These and many other issues will be discussed at the 15 years on: Time to stop the war conference on 8 October. 15 years on: Time to stop the war An international conference Saturday 8th October • 10 - 5pm TUC Congress House 23-28 Great Russell St London, WC1B 3LS The list of speakers includes Malalai Joya, Lindsey German, Tariq Ali, Salma Yaqoob, Brian Eno, Medea Benjamin, Phyllis Bennis, Anas Altikriti, Chris Cole, Andrew Murray, Reg Keys and Mark Serwotka. Sessions include: Chilcot and the next steps for the movement • Armed and dangerous: Foreign policy after the US elections • The Middle East: Endless war? • Will the new Cold War turn hot? • Killing by remote control: Drones and geopolitics • The war on Muslims: Islamophobia and civil liberties Please invite your Facebook contacts to the conference. The ticket prices are £15 standard and £10 concession. Book your place here. International Conference to Support the Yemeni People 20-21 August • 10am London Pullman Hotel 110 Euston Road, London NW1 2AJ Stop the War Coalition is co-sponsoring this conference which is going to discuss the ongoing war in Yemen and the suffering inflicted on the Yemeni population by the intense Saudi bombing of Yemen, which has been going on for over 500 days now. Britain has sold around £3.3 billion worth of arms to the Saudi dictatorship (in contravention of national and international law) since it began bombing Yemen. By providing direct technical and other assistance to the Saudi government in this hideous bombing campaign, Britain has also been among the main creators of the Yemeni refugee crisis. 2.5 million Yemeni people have been displaced by the bombing. There are many reports, including by the UN, of Saudi war crimes committed against the civilian population of Yemen. The British militarist elite is complicit in the savage destruction of yet another Middle Eastern country. To attend this conference please email: yemenconference2016@gmail.com. One Big No - A Stop the War benefit Friday 7th October • 7.30pm Shaw Theatre, 100-110 Euston Road London, NW1 2AJ Starring: Francesca Martinez • Richard Herring • Stewart Lee • Grace Petrie • Steve Gribbin • Boothby Graffoe • Michael Rosen One Big No marks 15 years of Stop the War with stand-up, poetry and music, showcasing the strength of feeling for an end to Western wars. We are proud of the amazing line-up. Come along and be a part of it. Help us to strengthen the movement for peace and social justice. Ticket prices: Standard £20 I Solidarity £30 I Concession (limited) £15. You can book here. 15 Years of the 'War on Terror' meeting in Liverpool during the Labour Party Conference Monday 26 September • 7pm Friends’ Meeting House 22 School Lane Liverpool L1 3BT Further details tbc. Protest at the Conservative Party conference Demonstration called by the People's Assembly Against Austerity Tories must go - Austerity has failed 2 October • 11:30am, Victoria Square, Birmingham Sign up to the Facebook event, share widely and invite your friends. At a time when the National Health Service is being crippled by enormous cuts and when millions are facing economic hardship, tens of millions of pounds are being spent on foreign wars and the establishment is determined to renew Trident nuclear weapons, at a catastrophic cost of £205 billion. Public resources should be invested in infrastructure and in decent jobs for all. Money should be spent on real human security and the health care and well-being of the population instead of being squandered on war and weapons of mass destruction. This is going to be a massive demonstration at a vital political moment, so make sure to be there. Transport is being arranged from across the country. Check this transport page for details. Join Stop the War Stop the War has no wealthy financial backers. Since our founding in 2001, our campaigns and small office have been funded entirely by our members, supporters and affiliated organisations. We need your support. Please help sustain our educational and campaigning work against the UK government's war policies by becoming a member, by making a donation or by leaving a legacy. • Join Stop the War » • Make a Donation » • Leave a Legacy » Stop the War Coalition | office@stopwar.org.uk | 020 7561 4830 Related: 2015 http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/ken-hanly/al-qaeda-group-seizes-huge-weapons-depot-in-yemen 2015 http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/barbara-mcpherson/building-yemen-crisis 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/11496264/Saudi-leads-ten-nation-Sunni-coalition-in-bombing-Yemens-Shia-rebels.html Wednesday Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson claimed that Trotskyists (sic) were seeking to influence the result of the party’s leadership election.
In an article in The Guardian Mr Watson said that members of the Socialist Party (formerly Militant), the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party had infiltrated Labour as part of the surge of support for Jeremy Corbyn. He claimed that these “Trots” did not have the party’s “best interests at heart”, but saw it as a “vehicle for revolutionary socialism” and were “not remotely interested in winning elections” and they were “twisting young arms in this leadership process”. Mr Watson’s “Trotsky Twist” claim is interesting for many reasons, primarily because he has introduced the word Trot or Trotsykist (it is Trotskyite, Mr Watson) as a term of abuse against the followers of Mr Corbyn. This word Trot can be added to a growing dictionary of abuse used by the anti-Corbyn camp vis: Hard Left, Loony Left, Commies, Infiltrators, Extremists, Momentum Thugs, Entryists, Dogs, Mob, Brick-Lobbers, Cyber Bullies, Trolls, Anti-Semites, Sexists, Vandals and many more. Remarkable double standards when less than two weeks ago Labour’s NEC decided to ban Labour Party members from using the word Blairite under threat of being barred from voting in the leadership election. The word Blairite has been added to a list of proscribed words – which also includes Scab, Scum and Red Tory – provided by Labour HQ. Interestingly the edict didn’t ban Labour right-wingers from using the slanderous, misleading and abusive terms defined above, to describe the 300,000+ new members from all ages, areas and demographic groups attracted to the Labour Party since last summer. As far as the NEC is concerned it’s perfectly fine for Labour right-wingers to damage the reputation of the Party by referring to hundreds of thousands of their own members with vicious and inaccurate slurs, yet anyone who refers to Tony Blair acolytes as Blairites has committed such a severe crime that they could be stripped of their right to vote in the leadership election. Yet, it’s obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of British politics that the Blairites are the entryists who took over a left-wing political party and switched it to the promotion of Rupert Murdoch approved Thatcherism (driving away 5 million Labour voters between 1997 and 2010 in the process). It’s remarkable how so many of the terms of abuse that the Labour right-wingers hurl at Jeremy Corbyn supporters (bullies, infiltrators, cultists, entryists) are so much more applicable to themselves than the victims of their slurs. But that is how psychological bullies operate. They project their own character traits onto their victims, and then continually blame their victims for the abuse they subject them to. Loaded language is their stock in trade, learned assiduously from their Tory friends and their pals in the print media. Last December, then Prime Minister David Cameron was repeatedly asked to apologise for labelling MPs who might vote against bombing in Syria as “Terrorist Sympathisers”. It was a failed but oblique attempt to score points against Jeremy Corbyn for his historical support for Hamas and Sinn Fein. Biased use of language, with a nakedly political motive, is clearly poisonous. UK tabloids like the Murdoch-owned Sun that has compared immigrants to cockroaches recall the dark days of the Nazi media attacking those they sought to eliminate, says the UN’s human rights chief. “The Nazi media described people their masters wanted to eliminate as rats and cockroaches,” said UN high commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. He singled out an article by far right media columnist Katie Hopkins, published by the Sun, in which she wrote: “Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches.” The use of language to load news reporting and political rhetoric is used regularly in domestic situations. The British press regularly use the adjectives Far Left, Hard Left and Loony Left to describe Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters in the Labour Party, while referring to more right wing MPs as being Moderates. Never do they seek to define what the word Moderate means or ever refer to David Cameron or Theresa May as being Far Right or Hard Right. What we are observing is an adjectival degradation. Every report, coming from inside governments or institutions outside is, if it contains some form of criticism, therefore “damning”, “devastating” or “scathing”. Warnings, which most of the time were not heeded anyhow, are “stark”,differences of opinion between politicians of the same party are “dramatic splits“, developments are “alarming” – the consumer of the media is confronted with a permanent linguistic overkill. Remember how Tony Blair and his spin doctors rebranded the Labour Party as New Labour and Blair’s Labour as he courted Rupert Murdoch and the so-called Middle England vote in the 1990s. For marketing and propaganda purposes he even banned the use of the word socialist or socialism among his MPs. The final irony is that almost 20 years later the word Blairite is now considered a term of abuse by the Labour Party. Is that the final abuse? Many thanks to award winning writer and journalist Nic Outterside Check out his thought provoking blog here https://seagullnic.wordpress.com Two trade unions announced their nominations for Labour Party leader Wednesday. One, the GMB union, opted to ballot the members but already social media is buzzing with allegations of foul play. Many members claim they were not contacted about the ballot. Those who did vote nominated Owen Smith by a majority. The other, the Unite Union, opted to go with a nomination agreed a short time ago at conference. Smith supporters are crying foul here saying it should have been one member one vote. The Unite Union nominated Jeremy Corbyn. Both forget united we win divided we lose. The Labour Party were happy to restrict Jeremy Corbyn to policies agreed at conference before he was party leader, significantly the EU referendum and renewal of the Trident weapons system. While we are on the subject of Trident, workers who rely on its renewal tend to belong to the GMB union. Mr Corbyn is against the renewal of Trident.
https://corbynnews.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/560000-gmb-members-never-received.html#.V6txFefbNws.facebook
June 27 the GMB union backed Corbyn: http://labourlist.org/2016/06/gmb-and-unison-issue-fresh-backing-for-corbyn-amid-resignations-row/ |
Yourvoice
This blog will include a range of reports and opinion pieces covering many issues. It will be YOUR Voice. Archives
April 2017
Categories
All
|