Let’s take the tail-docking ban story as our first example: here we saw a lot of people with no experience in the world of field sports inflicting a law against the docking of dogs tails. In relation to displaying dogs at shows in the name of vanity I feel this ban is quite correct, but to stop a huntsman have a vet dock his dog’s tail is quite absurd.
What we will find is a lot of dogs out on shoots with their tails ripped to shreds by barbed wire fences. The animals will be in agony. But, because the law was passed, people are seen to be caring, never mind that there’s no substance to their claims.
Likewise, the hunting ban. This ban had nothing at all to do with animal rights. Foxes are pests and hunts were disposing of these pests. Sure, hunts are pompous throwbacks to feudal times, but they were, by and large, totally harmless. One fox gets killed – so what? I’ll bet the fox wouldn’t think twice about killing a chicken, rabbit or domestic cat given half a chance. Huntsmen and woman should have been allowed to get on with their sport in peace.
The national story about the animal rights protesters digging up the grave of a woman shows how these people have no morals – they are anarchists on the look-out for a way to justify their penchant for destruction. True animal lovers run cat and dog homes and the like, not lovers of violence and malice.
Amnesty International have made an appearance this week with the suicide of inmates at the infamous Guantanemo Bay prison. Now, I do not think for one second that Guantanemo is an acceptable place, and some of the treatment is questionable to say the least, but we have to think about this logically – would the inmates be there if they were totally innocent?
Sure, the USA should be open about the treatment of the inmates in the prison but we have to remember that the inmates are of the same mindset as those who flew the planes into the twin towers. Amnesty International would to well to focus on the human rights of those innocent people killed in terrorist attacks instead of the rights of the terrorists.
Without fail, whenever the word ‘rights’ is mentioned, that multi-millionaire soft-rocker Bono appears, probably dripping from head to toe in Versace, Armani, Gucci and the like, to tell us about those who are suffering and how we should all give up some of our hard-earned to help them.
As you can imagine, this annoys me. Why does this rich twerp think he can tell us what to do? Why should we listen? Why on earth does the collective national media give him coverage?
Bono should put his money where his mouth is. If he was a truly caring person, he’d abandon the world tours with his band and he’d be handing out food to kids in Africa. He’d be using his millions to fly in water, set up schools, set up police forces to tackle corruption and guerrilla warfare.
If he gives up the designer gear, sells all his homes and moves into a three-bedroom semi, sells all his cars and buys himself a hatchback and donates all his money bar a normal salary, then I’ll take his comments seriously and take heed of them.
Friends of the Earth never fail to make me laugh. No matter the subject, they always manage to come out with a ‘won’t somebody think of the children’ line. If what they actually spouted was true, the earth would both bone dry due to too much water usage and flooded due to alleged global warming. They can’t even make their minds up on their chosen subjects and all their campaigns become the same old wailings.
And now, I get to arguably the worst of the lot – New Labour. I must make it clear I detest politicians, but this bunch reach new lows. It is quite something when the one who I find the worst isn’t in the government. I am, of course, talking about Cherie.
Mrs Blair likes to be seen to be caring. She talks at dinners and functions run by charities – but she still takes huge fees for her time, all the while thinking about herself. If this woman was really interested in the causes she is supporting she’d be talking for free. She’s a barrister and her husband is Prime Minister, so it’s not like they’re skint and she needs the money! Cherie, to me, is the embodiment of all that is false and phoney. Substance has taken a back seat and I think we are all the worse for it.
* John Sorrie is a columnist for the Aberdeen and District Independent in Scotland