No one on here is saying that livestock should be treated badly, dog fighting laws should be repealed, the RSPCA should be abolished. So in principal we agree that part of being a human is to be compassionate to 'lesser creatures' as I keep seeing animals referred too.
Yet we are suggesting that we take up constitutional time debating other ways of being cruel to animals as if it is some assault on our civil liberties.
If we agree that we should be humane – keep livestock in good conditions, not tortures our pets, not neglect our animals and not mistreat the family budgerigar then it is inconsistent to say that certain animals and practices are civil liberty issues.
As a society we have already accepted humane treatment for animals as a standard – if it isn't humane you can't do it – simple really!
Why does this idea matter?
These are distraction issues and have NOTHING to do with civil liberties we should be discussing real issues – detention of terrorist suspects, stop and search laws, CCTV, trespass laws etc.
We should be discussing societal entitlement – what standard of living are people entitled to and how do we provide it? These are real issues. We are wasting time and energy on things that in principal have already been decided.
These are emotional issues on both side of the fence when really it is quite simple – hunting is not a civil liberty debate.