If this story is accurate, it's disturbing, but not too surprising:
The leaders of Britain's fox hunts have boasted that they 'got away with it' after the demonstration outside parliament which ended in violent clashes with the police, a leaked memo reveals.
Despite publicly condemning the ugly scenes, a confidential memo sent from Stephen Lambert, chairman of the Council for Hunting Associations (CHA), reveals senior figures in the hunting world gloried in the publicity surrounding the 15 September protests. They described the storming of the Commons as an 'epic'.
Details of the letter sent out on Monday - and leaked to The Observer - have emerged as pro-hunt supporters launch a campaign of intimidation against Labour politicians. Yesterday more than 100 protesters barricaded Welsh secretary Peter Hain in his South Wales home to prevent him attending this week's Labour Party conference in Brighton. Hunt supporters began the siege at dawn yesterday and promised to remain outside the minister's country home 'for as long as it takes'.
Hunt leaders are increasingly concerned that they are losing control over the extreme elements of the hunting community.
The memo from the CHA - a body linked to the Countryside Alliance - suggests further disturbances are inevitable. The violent demonstrations in Parliament Square led to several arrests and dozens of injuries. Pro-hunting demonstrators blamed the police for excessive use of force.
In the document, Lambert said: 'We probably got away with it this time - but further confrontation with the police will inevitably result in the loss of public sympathy and media support.'
The council praised the publicity generated by the 'invasion of the house' by eight protesters, who included a friend of Prince William and Otis Ferry, son of rock star Bryan Ferry. He boasts it was an 'an epic covered by the media from Tasmania to Iceland'.
Lambert adds: 'Some have been concerned about the "sanctity" of the house; the private view of our political friends is that the incident has not lost us many friends in Parliament.'
Douglas Batchelor, chief execu tive of the League Against Cruel Sports, condemned the memo, claiming it showed that hunt leaders know who the trouble-makers are.
He said: 'This document appears to show the Countryside Alliance has some control over its hotheads, whose actions they refuse to repudiate. They are determined to overturn the democratic decision to ban hunting with dogs.'
The council refers to secret plans for its demonstration at the Labour party conference. 'You will be briefed shortly about Brighton. The southern hunts will be called on for duty, but all other hunts are welcome.'
Already the Real Countryside Alliance, the most hardline of the pro-hunting factions, has revealed that hundreds of supporters will attempt to form a human barrier around the conference to prevent MPs attending key speeches.
Elsewhere, the memo goes on to outline the hunting community's attempt to sabotage the government's proposals to ban hunting.
It reveals the Countryside Alliance has obtained 'expert legal advice' and has already prepared a legal challenge to the use of the Parliament Act to overrule the House of Lords. It will be 'actioned at the appropriate moment', the memo states and refers to an 'A-Z guideline' it will publish on both 'legal and illegal hunting'.
Despite the self-congratulatory nature of the memo, it does show the desire of the hunt leaders to rein in the actions of some of the more extreme supporters. Lambert also urges all senior figures in the hunting community to 'concentrate on the prejudice line' when speaking to the media, because he claims it is 'hitting the media and public conscience'.
The memo concludes: 'There is a central strategy in place and it is being rolled out. You will be briefed as appropriate but please ensure that everyone remains disciplined. Our future depends on it.'
A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance denied the suggestion that it was glorifying the violence. He said: 'We have made it abundantly clear that we condemned violence and the security breach at the Commons. We have worked closely with the police to keep the lid on violent protests, but passions are running high.'
In the past, I've worried about the radical AR and Eco tactics of "direct action" (read: violence, intimidation and coercion) precisely because they are so successful that they will surely be adopted by other groups:
Sometimes, it's better to be wrong than right, and this is one of those times. At issue is the effectiveness of the tactics of coerecion, intimidation and terrorism employed by AR (and Eco) extremists to get their way. I've said that they are fiendishly effective, and really warrant being taken seriously for two reasons: first, their success will encourage AR and Eco activists not previously inclined to use violence and coercion to adopt them to achieve their own ends, and second, the tactics are portable, meaning that any 2-bit extremist group (like MEChA) can easily adapt them to their own agenda.
This article seems to validate the first of my concerns: AR activism is increasingly inclining towards violence, coercion and intimidation, ARA's are aiming at 3rd parties to bring down their primary target, those tactics are very effective on a tactical level, and the entities (PeTA, SHAC, ALF and ELF, for example) employing such tactics are virtually immune from legal accountability.
At the time I wrote this, it didn't cross my mind that a pro-hunt, pro-country-side group might do "direct action" themselves.
But when a protest against the fox hunting ban turned violent and a group of protesters actually invaded the House of Commons, that very thought did occur to me:
Groups like SHAC and Speak have reveled in the success of their "direct action" tactics, and I've been concerned that other groups will adapt those tactics to their own causes.
The anti-ban people are feeling totally screwed by an insensitive, uncaring government, and are aflame with righteous indignation.
Could some of these folks be tempted to adopt the "direct action" tactics of the AR groups?
I sure hope not ...
There are obvious differences between AR targets (now, third parties doing business with their primary targets, either as suppliers or clients, as well as their primary targets), and the targets selected by the pro-hunt extremists (these folks are as yet unfocussed - they're directing their ire at cops on the line and government officials - but that could easily change). Both groups, though, are willing to use violence, and both groups believe that violence is a good way to attract public attention, if not sympathy.
Given the government's inclination to dither rather than to clamp down on the extremist AR troublemakers when "direct action" first reared its ugly head, is it a great surprise to anybody that other groups with axes to grind would adopt similar tactics?
Brian