Jim Barrington: Free speech and the hunting debate

Most people understand that 'free speech' is an important part of society, not only in allowing the expression of different opinions and views, but also in the furtherance of education and how we learn about life.

There are always those who will push the boundaries, especially so in the age of social media and access to the internet. Thankfully most people know that there are limits to what can be said and the lines that should not be crossed and tend to accept the norms of civil everyday living. For those who do overstep the mark, the law is rightly there to curb excesses.

Yet a picture seems to be emerging that would, if it became the standard by which all speech is judged, severely curb the expression of views which, for whatever reason, are seen to be unacceptable to certain groups who have promoted themselves to the role of police officer in this area.

That can be annoying, but such a restriction doesn't just stop there. If what we say and the views we put forward have to conform to a set of pre-determined ideals - ideals not established by general consensus but by campaign groups - this will inevitably have an influence on the legislative process.

The signs of this trend were evident in the run-up to the passing of the Hunting Act. Now, it seems to many in the media, the public and in the political world that to even think about justifying the use of hounds, with all the stories of savagery, cruelty and killing for fun, is so beyond the pale that there are no grounds even to debate the issue – an atmospherethe anti-hunting groups have long been striving to create.

This situation was exploited a few years ago when a university put a request in to the Countryside Alliance for a speaker to take part in a debate on hunting. The invitation was duly accepted, awaiting a suitable date. When this didn't arrive, a call to the organisers revealed that no one from any of the anti-hunting groups could be found to take part. As an alternative to a debate, the CA offered a presentation instead. However, once this had been advertised via the internet and social media, the forces of anti free speech flew into action through those same channels, with the result that the event was cancelled on the day it was due to take place.

The hunting argument had been 'no platformed'. To those who know and understand hunting, the reality is very different from the grim anti- hunt imagery produced by some animal rights organisations and what certainly cannot be denied is that the Hunting Act has had a detrimental effect on the species involved. But the truth doesn't seem to matter in this peculiar world of political correctness.

It's understandable how such a tactic could work concerning an activity in which relatively few people take part and have first-hand experience, as compared to those who can watch carefully edited videos showing hunting in the worst possible light. But now reality is being turned on its head in other ways too.

Other issues, not just those involving animals, are being put through a kind of verbal straight jacket to the ludicrous point that even stating what is a biological fact can be regarded as 'hate speech'. The field sports world has long suffered this kind of abuse, with people who genuinely know and care for animals and the countryside being portrayed as the worst kind of barbarian – an insult that's almost laughable if it were not so damaging in eyes of the public and politicians.

That should have been a warning to those who value the freedom of expression, but now that the corrosive censorship by self-interest groups is even stronger, it will be all the harder to prevent.The passing of the Hunting Act has repercussions well beyond the fox and the hound.