Hunt supporter Iain Harris, 66, announced in August that he plans to sue opponents of hunting foxes with hounds who describe such hunts as “cruel.”
Harris told the Western Morning News (Plymouth),
This is nothing to do with trying to save hunting or with the Countryside Alliance – it is about objecting to being called cruel. I am delighted with the support we have for a joint action which we are very serious about.
As far as I am concerned this is personal and I am furious that I have been smeared. I go hunting, which is my legal and just right to do, and I do not cause any damage, I behave properly and I am certainly not cruel to any animals.
. . .
We are sick and tired of people getting away with it and other people believing they are right.” Mr Harris said he had hunted all his life, and that it gave him the opportunity to follow the hounds and ride across country where he would not normally be allowed to go.
. . .
That is the top and bottom of hunting for the majority of people. I have never done anything cruel in my life. It is nothing to do with hunting, it is about the fact that I go hunting, and I am described because of that as being cruel.
Harris claims that he has consulted with lawyers who told him he may have a case, and given the UK’s loopy libel and slander laws he may. On the other hand, even if successful, such a lawsuit would probably simply garner public support for opponents of the hunt.
As Peter Anderson of the League Against Cruel Sports told the Western Morning News,
Let him sue. All the independent MORI opinion polls which we have had carried out have consistently shown 70 per cent of the country think hunting is cruel and want it to be banned.
They are going to need a few more than 7,000 people offering support to take everyone to court.
League Against Cruel Sports head Douglas Batchelor expanded on those views telling the Western News,
Suggestions that hunters have a case against those people and organizations that say hunting is cruel have no basis in law.There is and should be no freedom to be cruel.
The legal definition of cruelty is the causing of unnecessary suffering. A cruel act is cruel, whether it be by design or neglect. Hunting with dogs is based on practices which are inherently cruel.
While Mr. Harris and others may want to use the law to silence those who oppose the deliberate cruelty of chasing wild mammals with dogs for sport, most members of the public have a very clear understanding of the cruelty of hunting. That is why, on their behalf, MPs have voted to ban it and to make it a crime. If Mr. Harris wishes to swell our campaign coffers by funding our costs when he loses, we will be happy to meet him in court.
A couple weeks after announcing his lawsuit, Harris reported receiving death threats from hunting opponents. Harris told the Press Association, however, that the threats would not deter his lawsuit,
We have got cameras all around the property recording everything that moves.
Regardless, the proposed lawsuit is simply a bad idea all around and should not be pursued.
Sources:
Anti-hunt groups react to libel threat. Western Morning News (Plymouth), August 11, 2003.
Legal fight looms over ‘cruel’ hunting claims. Nathan Pynn, Western Morning News (Plymouth), August 12, 2003.
Hunt supporter threatens to sue over cruelty claims. Richard Savill, The Daily Telegraph (London), August 14, 2003.
Hunt-Follower Receives Telephone Threats. Chris Court, Press Association News, August 23, 2003.