IN Monday's Daily Post rural affairs minister Alun Michael urged hunt supporters to accept the new hunting ban. Here, in response to that article, the Countryside Alliance's regional director Barry Henderson argues that a ban will not stop cruelty ALUN Michael's pathetic arguments in defence of a ban on hunting have already been described as "the insufferable attempting to justify the indefensible". Mr Michael has turned so many circles he has clearly reached the stages of utmost confusion. In his article, his argument flounders, utterly devoid of logic, in a quagmire of prejudice and bigotry. The government has gone back on its promise to base hunting legislation on "principle and evidence". Its 2001 election manifesto commitment was to resolve the issue, not to press ahead with a ban, ignoring the evidence and the views of every major land use group in the country as well as two out of three rural vets, and their own independent inquiries. The hunting community has long accepted if it is to have the confidence of the public, strict regulation was necessary. It compromised hugely, contrary to Mr Michael's assertions it would not allow "the slightest compromise". It agreed to a licensing system, which is testament to its own desire to improve animal welfare and to behave in an open and accountable manner. The House of Lords similarly accepted this need for compromise, taking into consideration all the impressive evidence against a ban, but the deafening roar of prejudice from Labour back-benchers scuppered all chances of any sensible solution. The government then cynically attempted to delay implementation of the Act until after the election. The implication hunting is so cruel it must be banned, but not so cruel that it cannot wait until after the general election, is an absolute contradiction. In a letter to John Prescott last year, Mr Michael was clear the banning bill has now been railroaded through Parliament. "A complete ban amendment would destroy the architecture of the bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruel-ty". Defra secretary of state Margaret Beckett went further: "No bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable." Mr Michael has decided yet again to try to mislead the public and to "spin" his way out of trouble. One of the most dishonest claims in his article is that the act intends to prevent cruelty. It fails to address the issue of cruelty at all. It is ridiculous to suggest, as the Hunting Act does, that killing a hare with a dog is cruel whereas killing a rabbit with a dog is not. Likewise, killing a mouse will soon make you a criminal but if you kill a rat you are exempt. Inexcusable idiocy provides the backdrop to this legislation, and in defending it without any credible explanation (there is none), Mr Michael lowers himself yet further in the public eye. Mr Michael maintains that he, Defra and the government listened to the voice of the countryside, but herein lies the greatest untruth of all. In actual fact, they ignored the views of every major land use organisation in England and Wales, as well as those of the British Horse Society and the majority of people in the countryside. It is time for Mr Michael to come clean, this has nothing to do with animal welfare. It is about management of the Labour Party and settling old scores. Even Mr Michael's own parliamentary private secretary, Peter Bradley, admitted in print what has long been known - that class war is the real reason the ban has been so vigorously pursued by Labour backbenchers. He wrote in a Sunday newspaper in November: "Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war". In his admission, Mr Bradley backed up Tony Banks' September 15 comment: "Is it a class issue? Well, yes it is." Contrary to Mr Michael's suggestion, the debate is far from over. The issue may have been sewn up in Westminster for the time being but it continues to dominate hearts and minds throughout the country and in the media. The Alliance has already launched a legal challenge to the validity of the 1949 Parliament Act, turning the issue into a constitutional matter. Ultimately, this fight is likely to end up back in the House of Lords if both sides fight it to the end, which they will. The second strand of the legal challenge relates to the European Convention on Human Rights. The parliamentary joint committee on human rights stated quite clearly the act breaches the convention, but the government chose to ignore this advice and allowed the banning bill to be re-introduced. Everyone who supports freedom and tolerance should take every opportunity to demonstrate their disapproval of this government's latest attempts at unnecessary interference in people's lives. | 
