The Countryside Alliance is a many-headed hydra and simplistic or one-sided characterisations of it will never represent its true essence. There is however more than circumstantial evidence that indicates that underneath the respectable leadership there is the usual 'urban' mixture of nationalists and racists. In the countryside there is even less restraints on people's behaviour and coupled with the isolation from experiences of integration this produces a volatile cocktail that can and has fostered physical and verbal racism.

It is well documented about how the organised fascist groups regard the campaign for hunting - they see it as fertile recruiting ground and claim to have many friends and allies in the fieldsports fraternity. What is less well known is the extent of racism in the countryside and whether it is growing or not. Some farmers have, of course, been willing to use slave labour and some have been prosecuted for employing refugees illegally on starvation wages. In fact, paying low wages and exploiting workers is a major ‘countryside tradition’ as landowners and farmers have never been well known for being benevolent. The Transport and General Workers Union Rural workers branch says that pay is historically poor in the countryside - like the health and safety record as well. [1]

Politically foxhunting has evolved in the context of tight laws controlling game, as we have seen elsewhere, and can’t be divorced from the power structure. There was no revolution that disposed of the Royals and aristocracy unlike in France, which simultaneously abolished the game laws and distributed the land as well as chopping off the heads of the privileged. Historically the Bloodjunkies leadership, nationally and locally, has been composed of military leaders or aristocrats. The British Field Sports Society [the predecessor of the Countryside Alliance] was very well known for being the 'Tory Party at Play', and individual Hunt histories are well populated by both these types of people.

The Countryside Alliance is trying to position itself as the defenders of British liberty protecting minority interests using the language of civil rights - but this is glossing over the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary. Countryside people have been in a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830, but this didn't stop them literally lording it over us till the hereditary principle was finally challenged in the House of Lords in 1999 - and some of them are still lording it. The evidence also shows that these people have historically persecuted the real countryside minorities, the gypsies, and more recently the travelers on the streets and in legislation.

The idea that organised hunting with dogs is a real countryside tradition is a misnomer, it is a continually propagated myth that carries for them, some political weight. For example, the Duke of Beaufort writing in his book (Fox-Hunting) says, "hunting is a very important part of the tradition of our countryside – part of our whole heritage in fact." (P. 181) Unfortunately for them the historical facts are not in their favour.

Long ago the ruler’s hunted deer in an organised manner and the poor were asked to kill foxes however they liked. The real change came in the last decade of the 18th century when Hugo Meynell bred hounds suitable for foxhunting, and started the Quorn Hunt and popularised the sport for the aristocrats. The twin changes were the conversion of the squires from Hare hunting to Foxes, and for the aristocrat the growing urban areas meant the stag was rarer and so they changed to foxes as well.

So as Hobsbawm would say, Foxhunting is an invented tradition with the covert intent of continuing power relations imminently. Meaning that the very existence of foxhunting in its current form is totally divorced from the historical life of the people. In reality it is just a fraction of the ruling classes who have tried to convince people it is part of our history when they have merely put a gloss on the proceedings. When the stags were dying out foxes were not a problem, there was in fact a national shortage of foxes to hunt, some researchers say the Fox was close to extinction (BBC 2, 11.2.02, "A Foot Again in the Past", 3.05pm) This was because foxes were seen as a pest and vulpicide was encouraged by the practice of the priest dispensing money for every foxes head brought to him. It was hunts themselves in the early 1800's who bought foxes off the poaching gangs, who imported French Foxes, who avoided killing foxes on the early hunts, who put clauses in land rental contracts that made the killing of foxes forbidden, who rented woodlands and planted gorse coverts to protect foxes, and so on… So successfully that there was no shortage of foxes by the second half of the 19^th century at all. BUT it is still going on today. [2]

F.M.L. Thompson says that it was

"above all in the first third of the nineteenth century, that the hunting countryside
was quartered out between regular hunts, their 'countries' or territories receiving
defined and well-understood boundaries, and their meets becoming sufficiently
ordered and controlled to provide for thorough hunting of the whole of their country."
[page 145]

And Sir W. Beach Thomas, a pro foxhunter comments

"it is true enough in essentials to argue that hunting as we know it began in the
eighteenth century and belongs to modern England… The Enclosure acts
encouraged it by destroying other sports, especially the hunting of deer…
in 1779… [there were] fewer than a dozen regular hunts". (pages 9 & 10)

The Master of Foxhounds Association dates from 1856 when only 24 Masters got together to form a committee. There we have it then, organised Foxhunting did not have a quarry and was not part of the life of the mass of country people till very late on in the 19^th century at the earliest. Like now, and fox hunter’s lack of concern for ordinary people’s jobs, as was noted at the Durham Miners Gala in 2001 by Rodney Bickerstaffe speaking from the stage.

Others speaking about Rich people who go hunting -

Also

"the gentry's particular delight was foxhunting and this developed into much more
than a mere sporting pastime to become a celebration of the hierarchy of country
society, cementing the division of rural class relationships. It created a following
which embraced all social classes while providing the country gentry and squirearchy
with a convenient excuse for coming together and sharing the same consuming
mystique. In so doing the hunt served a similar function to the London season,
even offering a parallel set of rituals and taboos in the intricacies of foxhunting
etiquette". (Howard Newby, Page 46, 1979)

If there are any pro-foxhunters or neutrals reading this today we suggest you delve into the history books and find out about the Toffs who ran hunting at the expense of the people. William Cobbett the early 19^th century journalist was "genuinely shaken and shocked… by the fate of the young men singled out to be hanged on the same gallows at Winchester – ‘and this for the preservation of game, you will observe. This for the preservation of the sports of the aristocracy… it was a thing never to be forgotten by me". The right to go hunting had been inherent in the application of the Game Laws in the 18^th and 19^th centuries (and before), and this activity united the aristocracy to the landed gentry in common defence of their culture, and forging new alliances within this. Rather similar to today’s activity which attempts to bind the aristocracy to the rural petit bourgeoisie and ‘conservatives’ in a new political force.

Although the Countryside Alliance represents an attempt by the right to simultaneously reproduce itself and to carve out new territory, it has different implications for our struggles, in particular those against racism. What evidence do we have currently of the levels of racist and nationalist ideas within these fractions of the countryside population?

Generally the flight from the city to rural areas has been well documented, and some have called this a "white flight" (R. MacFarlane. Town and Country Planning. June 1998). This, coupled with the very English 'love of tradition' in the form of romantic notions of Englishness and the English landscape constructed around the exclusion of 'others' (P. Scutt & A. Bonnet,"In Search of England", University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1996) and we have a snowballing effect of a number of issues being ideologically represented by a traditional right wing power group - personnel, newspapers & magazines, and their ideologists.

The Daily Telegraph editorial for Friday March 22^nd 2002

So issues such as Right to Roam are posited against the Right to Own, equality and justice versus 'traditional' values imposed by conquest and maintained by force, Britain versus Europe, Anti Road campaigners versus the More Roads lobby, Anti GM crops/ Agrochemical industry versus more chemicals(!) and so on [especially apparent in "Another Country" by M.Mosbacher & Digby Anderson, published by right wing think tank The Social Affairs Unit, 1999] For the right as for the left - No Issue is a Single Issue.

The groundwork for the Countryside Alliance was being done as early as 1995 by people like Lord Mancroft, Eric Bettelheim and Robin Page. Robin has campaigned for the Referendum Party, spoken at the "Right Now!" Christmas 2000 Moan, and writes for "Horse and Hound" with a persecution complex. In the hunting press there is blatant and barely disguised racism, homophobia and nationalism. On the marches they've held so far we've seen all shades of right wing and fascist groups. One example of this is the demonstration the Countryside Alliance held at the Labour party conference in September 1999. Amidst the well publisized attendance by the BNP (although I am yet to see evidence that they actually did turn up) the usual assortment of lay rightists turned up. Evidence for this is a photograph published in "Howl" the magazine of the Hunt Saboteurs Association that clearly shows a confederate flag (beloved by the Klu Klux Clan), the St Georges cross and the Union Jack flying within 50 yards of each other - all common flags at fascist gatherings.

Not long after minor Royal’s, Edward & Sophie Rhys Jones were prepared to meet the leading Austrian fascist Haiders deputy. They and other Royals are well known for foxhunting, including Charles and William; as well as Princess Anne, her daughter, and violent boyfriend. All move in Countryside Alliance circles. Put this all together and we could have a situation being cooked up that resembles the 1930's. In fact, it was clear that Hague attempted in the 2001 General Election to garner the xenophobic vote helped along by 'romantic nationalist' campaigns in the Telegraph (eg. Minette Marrin, "It's not just foreigners who find Britain a foreign land", Telegraph, 10.3.01)

We should also be aware that the Countryside Alliance has been politically formed by the right as a response to the growth of environmental concerns and the environmental movement. Articles like "A War We Can Win" by Eric Bettelheim (The Field, Page 9, November 1995) are good examples of this, arguing for a conservative all encompassing 'countryside' campaign. Other examples are articles by authors like Frederic Forsyth in ‘the Field’ ("March 18: Be There. Fight For Liberty" page 7, Feb. 2001) which say in fighting talk, "The day of acquiescence, of timid acceptance, is finally over. The hours of real militancy have come. Gloves are off." This can be seen as both promoting (far) right wing direct action and it's political cause, especially when articles like "Memo Warns of violence at hunt protest" (Paul Waugh, Independent 5.2.01) say "The Countryside March next month is in danger of being hijacked by violent demonstrators from the 'provisional wing' of the Countryside Alliance, its organisers have warned. The march… has become a focus of hardline hunting activists furious at plans to ban their sport, according to leaked internal memos".

The left shouldn’t really have been surprised that the Countryside Alliance has been formed for reasons stated above. There were a national string of previous meetings in 1995 [see Howl 58, Page 6, Summer 1995 edition] called "The Countryside United" by the Countryside Movement. These were designed to rally support against the McFall bill to ban foxhunting. The Countryside Movement according to Milbourne [3] is "the voice of traditional power and privilege, of field sports, farming and landed property - a voice which is attempting to re-position and re-establish its vested interests within a rapidly changing rural Britain." Clearly this campaign failed because the Tories were in office and the legislation stood no chance, it’s only when there is a real danger of losing the parliamentary battle that Foxhunters threaten direct action and demonstrations.

And clearly those involved in such mobilisations are not unafraid to employ racism, as one tactic, to do so. For example, "the Shooting Gazette" [the posh magazine for the thoroughbred shooter] stated "Deport all illegal immigrants" {page 75,March 2001 edition} in the very issue in which the front page proclaimed that their "Next Stop" was "London" for the planned Countryside Alliance demo against the proposed ban on fox-hunting. The march was cancelled due to Foot and Mouth. We hope the racists keep their 'disease' to themselves and stay at home next time.

However much the leadership of the Countryside Alliance likes to portray themselves as respectable, there is a tension between them and their right wing rural ground troops, such as the terrier men who do a lot of their fighting for them. The ideology of this group of people is formed in isolation from any progressive social ideas and real minority groups, and as a consequence is a bastion of conservative practices and ideas. This can easily spill over into violence that has been widely catalogued by the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) and others, indeed the Crown Prosecution Service only last year [2001] dropped an attempted murder charge that was faced by a hunt supporter after he had driven over Steve Christmas, a hunt saboteur, in Surrey. The HSA press release dated 5^th sept 2001 was entitled "Its Official – Crown Prosecution Service say it is OK to try to kill Hunt saboteurs", and covered all the pertinent points well.

If the CPS can drop charges like this cos they feel the evidence isn’t clear enough for the jury to convict, one wonders just how much evidence they need. Surely in conflict situations like this the jury should pronounce on this, not some bureaucratic and right wing decision-making institution

It is of no surprise that the right are mobilizing and concentrating on the countryside and it's everyday conservatism, and lack of understanding of minorities and their very presence. Everyday language in their publications is often composed of barely disguised racism and homophobia [eg Horse and Hound, 18.1.01, page 5, full page propaganda letter to the Prime minister by Peter Gent] One approach is to cast themselves as being a-political, but time and again they are proved to be lying. Whether it's the poll that showed that 83% of the marchers in Edinburgh in December 2001 were Tory supporters a lot of which were from England, or The Field magazine who in 1983 (4^th June) advised it's readership adversely against Labour, "The choice facing field sports followers next Thursday is clear". Another approach is to talk up the supposed favouritism that Labour is meant to show towards other minorities, and compare it with the ‘countryside foxhunters down trodden hard luck’.

The Countryside Alliance (C.A.) has been built up on the conservative infrastructure of hunting and it has to be taken seriously, not least for its ability to mobilize people. At the very start [see chapter 5] in 1997 they were able to quickly mobilize over 50,000 and a quarter of a million turned out in March 1998. Indeed they appear capable of fielding 250,000 people at these special one off events, so let’s look at its smaller manifestations…. it has turned out several thousands of people in different regional centers to forward the cause for hunting, Brum, Norwich, Newcastle, Bournemouth, but it’s clear they are at the peak of their mobilizing capability because they have no other base of support beyond that which they can tap into already if the campaign is confined to Bloodsports.

However, they do appear to have a number of very dedicated activists who do a lot of the running, and will go to several of their regional events. The only march in 2001 they did after the advertised mass one in March was cancelled due to Foot and Mouth was in Edinburgh on 16^th December. This was to oppose the legislation then going through the Scottish parliament to ban hunting with dogs. It is, of course, banned now but we are yet to see how hunting will cope with this. Apart from threatened legal action they have also found out that they could chase foxes towards guns who will shoot them, apparently legally. With only 3% of C.A. membership living in Scotland, leaked internal memos said they were hoping to bring 200,000 English hunters to Scotland. An independent Mori counting team put the total number of marchers at 11,000 with 30% coming from England, and the poll further found that 83% of the hunt supporters vote Conservative. Hardly surprising when one of the best recruiting grounds for the C.A. is not the leafy shires but is in fact Kensington & Chelsea, Michael Portillos’ very safe Tory seat.

The Countryside Alliance then is based on hunting with Farming interests coming second. "Agriculture may be described with some justification as the ‘Conservative party at work’ and for generations, the party’s grandees have come mainly from the farming and land-owning classes, and even those who are businessmen or professionals tend to take up agriculture as hobby-farmers. Some authors have said that as many as 70% of Conservative MP’s have commercial links with the food and farming industry. [4] More worrying perhaps is the ‘fortuitous’ political developments that have enabled some respect and political development for the Countryside Alliance from sections of the media and middle class.

Foot and Mouth and the Petrol dispute allowed a conservative persecution complex to develop which showed why careful analysis of the emerging direct action right wing movement is necessary, as they are able to mobilize fairly easily across issues from a right wing perspective.

The welcome decision by the Scottish Parliament on February 13^th 2002 to ban hunting with dogs does not, by any means, guarantee that the British Parliament will follow suit. [See introduction to this pamphlet] Blair may be under pressure from a large number of back-bench MP’s to ban fox-hunting but he is certainly not under pressure from the electorate at large and where there is pressure it is from those fighting to keep it. Blair’s success, or otherwise, at the next election will not depend on what he does about foxhunting.

As such, the prospects for a victorious struggle against hunting are weakened partly because of the ethos of certain groups who have their own agendas. The failure in particular to gather together a significant political force in terms of numbers on its actions has held the anti-hunt movement back already for decades and is in danger of losing this battle as well. The respectable and indeed Royal organizations (RSPCA) did come together to form Deadline 2000, and when they failed to get hunting banned by the year 2000 have finally changed their name to "Countdown to a ban" in early 2002. Perhaps they should have questioned whether their approach had failed to help the campaign to stop hunting with hounds already?

Other groups like the Hunt Saboteurs association are just interested in sabbing, although individuals and groups have taken it further, the League Against Cruel Sports is busy being respectable and virtually only campaigning in Parliament and the media. The National Anti-Hunt campaign is also very busy and has organized a variety of things on shooting as well as foxhunting. Peta and societies like the Vegetarian are either just interested in their own agendas or isolated campaigns. This is unlike the Countryside Alliance whose individual campaign groups quickly subsumed their identity for the ‘greater good’, although it is clear that hunting is the sole raison d’etre of the Countryside Alliance as indicated elsewhere in this magazine.

Perhaps the animal rights’ movements think too much about themselves, when an umbrella group to mobilize the hundreds of thousands of potential supporters is the one way that real pressure could be put to bear to hasten the demise of hunting and make sure no Government dares to allow its re-introduction..

It is worth remembering that it is said the French revolution was carried out by poachers, who in those days were the poor and the starving, and they disposed of both land and the right to shoot game enjoyed by the rich. In Britain today the urban masses are again denied land rights, the money to go hunting, and perhaps with the availability of food the issue is of equality of aspirations against the demanded arrogance to go hunting with no social obligations. Where once the aristocracy were afraid of republican poachers, they are now afraid of vegetarian hunt saboteurs. The ‘Right to Roam’ will haunt the aristocracy for generations….The real test for the anti hunting movement lies in it’s ability to work together on a large level, and also in being able to raise the land question as a political issue. Not an easy task, though it has been seriously important less that 100 years ago when even the Prime Minister was advocating land reform. The Liberal Prime Minister in 1906 said "We wish to make the land less of a playground for the rich, and more of a treasure house for the nation." Fine words, yet to be realized… There has always been opposition to Foxhunting as the Forward to the book "Let's Go hunting" (1950) reveals:

"There is little doubt that the title of this book will set the critics of hunting in full cry" Duke of Beaufort

Not that we should be surprised as the second ever edition of Horse and Hound also reported a large anti hunting community.

Perhaps in Britain the Captain Swing campaign of 1830 is the example we are looking towards of the poacher’s revenge. Incidents like the following caused widespread and disciplined direct action that was put down brutally "In mid-May 1830, an inquest was held on four farm labourers, found dead, huddled under a hedge near Ealing. The surgeon who conducted the post mortem reported that he had found nothing in their stomachs but sorrel, and death was caused by starvation. In the House of Lords Lord Winchilsea… told his fellow peers that such cases were not exceptional". Hopkins, P. 185.

The Norfolk hunt took the prisoners to jail after a battle around Melton Hall. This didn’t change the battleground though, and in the 1870’s Game law convictions were over 10,000, running at twice the rate of 30 years previous.

The struggle against hunting has ebbed and flowed depending upon the political situation and the cultural fashions, if we allow the press or some of the more respectable to direct the campaign away from the masses then we only have ourselves to blame. Though the animal rights movement is fractured along the lines of who does direct action and who does not, these are political hurdles we must overcome.

[1] "Scandal of poor health and safety in the countryside must be addressed" [3.11.00. Press release by the Transport and General Workers Union]

[2] See "Hunters 'breeding foxes' to provide for the kill: concrete chambers used as 'artificial earths' to ensure supply of animals for blood sport", Paul Harris, Observer, 17.2.02.

[3] P. Milbourne. "Challenging the Rural: Representation, Power and Identity in the British Countryside". In P. Milbourne (Ed.) "Revealing Rural ‘Others’: Representation, Power and Identity in the British Countryside". Pinter. 1997.

[4] {R. Lacey, "Poison on a Plate: The Dangers in the Food we eat - and How to Avoid them", London:Metro, 1998}

next page