The fight over fox hunting in the UK has taken a new and controversial turn. A group of hunters is now seeking protection under the Equality Act, claiming that their belief in the sport should be treated as a protected characteristic, much like race, religion, or sexual orientation.

This move, spearheaded by the lobbying group Hunting Kind, has sparked widespread outrage among animal rights activists and the public, who see it as a blatant disregard for the rights of animals.

Seeking Legal Recognition

Ed Swales, the chair of Hunting Kind, argues that fox hunters face discrimination and deserve the same legal protections afforded to minority groups, The Guardian reports. He believes that hunting, particularly with dogs, is a cultural heritage that has been unfairly targeted by the law. According to Swales, hunters have faced social media abuse, job loss, and public shaming, all of which he sees as discrimination against a legitimate lifestyle choice. He has gone so far as to propose that hunters qualify as an ethnic minority, citing their shared history, customs, and cultural practices as evidence.

Swales has spent years preparing a legal case to argue that hunting with dogs is a protected belief under the UK’s Equality Act 2010. He claims to have the backing of a top human rights lawyer who believes that hunters meet all the criteria necessary for such protection, including a distinct culture and a long-shared history. This argument, however, has been met with skepticism and criticism from both legal experts and the public.

The Argument Against

Animal rights activists and legal experts have strongly opposed Swales' claims. They argue that fox hunting is not a cultural practice worthy of protection but rather a cruel and outdated tradition that has no place in modern society.

The 2004 Hunting Act, which banned the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals, was passed to protect animals from unnecessary suffering, a point that many believe overrides any claim to cultural heritage. Critics also point out that the hunting community, traditionally composed of wealthy landowners and aristocrats, hardly qualifies as an oppressed minority. The idea that such a privileged group should receive special protection under the law is seen as absurd by many. 

Edie Bowles, the executive director of the Animal Law Foundation, expressed disbelief at the notion that “some of the most privileged in our society should also be protected on the basis of their shared activity chasing and killing a terrified wild animal,” she told The New York Times.

The legal argument that hunting with dogs could be classified as a protected belief is also viewed with skepticism. The Equality Act requires that a belief be “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and that it not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. The question then arises: do animals not have rights that deserve protection?

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that the ban on fox hunting does not violate human rights, a decision that undermines Swales' claims, The Guardian reports.

A Disregard for Animal Welfare

Swales and his supporters argue that hunting with dogs is a natural and humane form of wildlife management. They claim that it replicates natural selection by targeting old, weak, or sick animals, thereby benefiting the overall health of wildlife populations. However, this argument has been thoroughly debunked by wildlife experts who point out that hunting with dogs is anything but natural.

Trevor Williams, founder of the Fox Project, told Byline Times that “forcing an animal to run for their lives in fear of being caught by dogs, and over distances they were not designed to run can never be humane.”

The suffering inflicted on foxes and other animals during hunts is well-documented. Hunt saboteurs have filmed numerous incidents of hounds tearing foxes apart, chasing stags to exhaustion, and even killing pets, Plant Based News reports.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has condemned the use of dogs for hunting, citing the significant suffering it causes to both the hunted animals and the dogs involved.

Public Sentiment

Public opinion is firmly against fox hunting. A majority of the British population supports the current ban, with many calling for it to be strengthened. Polls commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports show that 76% of people want the hunting laws to be more stringent, and 85% are against repealing the ban on fox hunting altogether, reports the Daily Mail.

The current Labour government has pledged to close the loophole that allows for trail hunting, where dogs follow a pre-laid scent instead of a live animal. However, critics argue that this practice is often used as a cover for illegal hunting, with foxes frequently being killed despite the supposed safeguards in place.

The Larger Implications

If Swales and Hunting Kind were successful in their bid for protected status, it would set a dangerous precedent. It would not only undermine the rights of animals but could also weaken the entire framework of the Equality Act. Legal experts warn that if beliefs that conflict with the rights of others, particularly non-human animals, are protected, it could open the door to a host of other harmful practices seeking similar recognition.

The attempt by fox hunters to gain protected status under the Equality Act is not only legally dubious but morally questionable. It shifts the focus away from the real issue—the rights and welfare of animals—and instead tries to paint a privileged group as victims of discrimination.

As the debate continues, it is crucial to remember that the true victims are the animals who suffer in the name of tradition. Click below to take a stand for these threatened animals!