One baby eating urban fox proves nothing

The story last night of the 9 month old twins being attacked by a fox while they were sleeping in their cot in their home in Hackney sent shivers down my spine. 

Once my spine had stopped shivering, my next reaction was to think about the impact such a story will have on the image of foxes, particularly the urban variety.

Some of us, me in particular, regard the urban fox as one of life's annoyances.  Some of them live in the communal gardens near our house. I've seen them running down the road, bold as brass, playing with each other and I have scooped up the contents of our shredded bin bags outside our front door - as well as enjoyed the smell of their urine on the door step.  For me, foxes belong in the countryside where they can be trapped, shot or even accidentally hunted by dogs.  But this is not a post about hunting.

Other people take a different view and see a handsome animal charmingly bringing a hint of the countryside to their city. They leave food out in their gardens and delight in how close they dare come to humans. They are almost like pets.

I accept that such people would make the perfectly valid assertion that an attack by a fox on humans - even very small ones - is so rare it is virtually unheard of. More people are attacked - and children killed or maimed - by domestic dogs - or for that matter their own parents, step parents, foster carers and other assorted random nutters in a single year than the total record for fox attacks (I assume).

The reaction I was not expecting was one of complete denial. However, if you visit the home page of the Save-me campaign (sponsored by Brian May, the guitarist off Queen), this is what you will find. Brian's first post to the campaign's facebook page read

"Fox attacks babies ? Sure ! And monkeys will fly ...... out of my butt. Ha ha. And I suppose there is proof ? !!! What a piece of work is Man. love Bri".  

As of now, 238 people "liked" this note and 241 commented. Once Brian had established that there was in fact proof he wrote a more "serious" note which started:

"Well, I don't have enough information to know whether this is an attempt by somebody to turn people against foxes, or not." 

This note opened the floodgates to a further 213 comments ("likes" down to 126) many of which were sceptical about the truth of the original story on the basis that foxes simply DO NOT attack humans.

Of course, this reaction of denial would be no less irrational than calls for a massacre of urban foxes on the grounds that they are a danger to small babies. 

But by nature we are irrational when faced with freakish events.  Some find solace in conspiracy theories which allow them to pretend that the event in question has a different cause with which they can cope more easily.  Others call for drastic action to ensure that the incredibly rare event can never happen again.  These calls are often irresistably populist and end up in bad legislation - or in the case of 9/11 - war.  

With this in mind, I had some sympathy for the senior policeman defending the actions of his unarmed officers who were in contact with Derrick Bird while he was rampaging around Cumbria, but were unable to stop him.  Like he said, these were "exceptional circumstances" and sometimes it is impossible to draw any lessons.

So, it would be irrational to view foxes as any less cuddly following this incident.  Brian May, on the other hand....

Thinking about the meaning of "authoritarian"

I try to read a range of opinions and my feedreader contains a decent cross section of political bloggers, although sometimes I cannot remember why a particular one ends up in there. Nevertheless, I do follow the slightly pretentiously named "Letters from A Tory" and this morning a post (or "letter") did catch my eye as the title pretty much betrayed the author's opinion on its own: "Tories will bring back fox hunting by the back door" - of course there was a chance that "A Tory" would be enthusiastically arguing for hunting to be restored through the front door, but my interest was piqued by a seemingly rightwing blogger going against fox hunting.

I commented quite early on (15/65 - and counting) that there was nothing "back door" about the proposal and that it makes political sense for the Tories to signal their support for a repeal or reform of the Hunting Act. Framed in terms of animal welfare, the debate in the comments followed some well-trodden paths, but for me it got interesting when the charge of New Labourite "authoritarianism" was thrown at the self-styled "Tory" (aka LFAT).

His response (at 58) was as follows:

"I think it’s fair to say that banning something just because you don’t like it is indeed authoritarian. However, as some have pointed out above, foxhunting is not so much a case of banning something because you don’t like it – it’s banning something because it’s wrong. Governments have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to harm and suffering as there are certain things that a society should not accept e.g. rape or murder. I believe that causing harm and suffering to animals for fun also crosses that line without any shadow of a doubt, whereas hunting animals for population control (which fox hunting is most certainly not) is acceptable in my opinion. It’s all very well saying that banning things is authoritarian but people and animals should always be protected from cruelty – indeed, if they weren’t then something is seriously wrong."

It is quite right, perhaps trite, to say that governments do have to draw a line somewhere - they do that all the time, but when it comes to banning an activity, what counts as being authoritarian?

The problem in this case lies at the point where LFAT - or in fact the government (if you leave to one side all the non-animal welfare/class issues) - made its judgment, namely that fox hunting is cruel, because this is not a conclusion shared by the vast majority of people who advocate a repeal of the ban.

There is no point making an analogy with rape or murder - or even bear baiting - because you would be pushed to find a significant number of people who would honestly defend such things as being humane or desirable in society.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the defenders of fox hunting hold their views as faithfully and honestly (not to mention, vehemently) as the opponents. Many of those in favour have never been anywhere near a horse, let alone a hunt, so there is little self-interest in play or ulterior motive. Without any question, there is at least an arguable case for hunting (but please don't try and engage me in the comments in this argument - that's not the point of this mental download).

My point is this: where the arguments are so finely balanced a non-authoritarian government should generally come down in favour of liberty. The balance has to be in terms of the classic cost/benefit analysis - but where any perceived gain is so small in relation to the loss of liberty, it would be fair to use the authoritarian tag.

This analysis can be applied all over the place, for instance, today's mad proposal that ALL pubs be obliged to use plastic glasses, or, some would say, the blanket smoking ban. It works the other way as well, and restrictions of personal liberty that produce relatively dramatic gains can be completely justified - such as compulsory seat belts in cars on the lower scale, or more significantly, taxation.

Of course, we end up back at square one on this debate, when the proponents of a new ban claim that the benefits will be huge or the opponents refuse to accept the encroachment on what they perceive to be a vital liberty. I guess this is what makes politics still interesting.