"Tony, if you invoke the Parliament Act it will be the most illiberal act of the last century". The late Roy Jenkins was no fox hunter, but he was a libertarian and his advice to Tony Blair shortly before his death in 2003 encapsulates the challenge of the Hunting Act for those who claim to follow in Jenkins' footsteps. Tony Blair failed the test and ‘allowed' the Parliament Acts to be used to ban hunting by introducing, and then reintroducing, a bill which as the Hunting Act marks a highpoint of authoritarian New Labour.
In fact hunting is arguably a definitive test for many libertarians in that opposing the prohibition of hunting means supporting the continuance of an activity which some find morally questionable. Whatever the motivation really was for the ban on hunting (I would argue class war politics, others the prohibition of perceived cruelty) the decision that the House of Commons eventually made was entirely based on its views of the morality of the activity. There was no evidence that hunting was any less humane than other methods of control as Lord Burns, Chairman of the Government Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, confirmed when he told the House of Lords: "people ask me whether we were implying that hunting is cruel...the short answer to that question is no."
The majority of MPs nevertheless decided that it disapproved of people taking part in hunting and that alone was a basis for prohibition. The High Court confirmed this when asked to rule on the compatibility of the Hunting Act with the European Convention on Human Rights. It decided that MPs had taken "a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical". The ‘cruelty' that MPs claimed to be addressing was actually a moral judgment on the motivation of participants rather than a justified concern about the comparative welfare of mammals, which remain susceptible to suffering through other methods of control.
No true libertarian can support legislation based solely on the moral judgment of the majority. That way leads to hanging, and probably drawing and quartering too. That way leads to persecution of minorities and the suppression of free speech.
Polly Toynbee summed it up when she wrote in the Guardian: "The liberal-minded should recognise that banning hunting is illiberal and unfair. Even townies should despise hunting should not stop people doing, any more than banning lap dancing". However distasteful some find hunting its prohibition is patently illiberal. The true libertarian will not just object to its prohibition, but support the repeal of the ban. There have been suggestions, most recently in James Forsyth's Coffee House blog, that the Hunting Act could be repealed as part of a wider civil liberties bill including issues like I.D cards. Guy Aitchison worries that the inclusion of hunting in such a bill, or indeed a free standing Hunting Act Repeal Bill will distract from "real civil liberties". Of course there are all sorts of other laws that should be repealed, but that does not justify retaining this one and hunting is, as I have argued, a ‘real civil liberties' issue, however much you dislike the activity.
The Hunting Act, even beyond its essential illiberalism, is a stunningly bad piece of legislation that wastes police time and licenses harassment. Passing it was hugely time consuming, but that does not mean that repealing it need be the least bit complicated. In legislative terms attempting to ban things is extremely difficult, lifting bans could not be easier. The debate has been had. There was no basis for prohibition, and there is no arguing with the case for repeal. It only needs one line: "This Bill repeals the Hunting Act 2004", and if you can't support that you are no libertarian.
