Tim Bonner: The Animal Rights movement eats itself

We have become used to being bombarded with marketing campaigns for vegan food in January but this year something else is on the menu. George Monbiot - Guardian columnist and high priest of all things environmental - has weighed into the debate on, of all issues, trophy hunting. Surprisingly, he has not sided with the abolitionists. That is slightly different to saying that he has sided with the trophy hunters (defined broadly as big game hunters) who he is clear he abhors, but he has accepted the arguments put forward by many eminent scientists that banning trophy hunting would have a significant impact on the conservation of wildlife and the environment in places like Africa. As a result, Monbiot has become the target, rather than as is more usual the perpetrator, of a social media feeding frenzy. The bizarre world of animal rights Twitter turned on Monbiot in a flash and he received the sort of abuse normally reserved for those who actually hunt. The actor and pack leader Peter Egan even compared Monbiot to the paedophile Jimmy Savile.

The trophy hunting debate is in many ways reminiscent of the debate on fox hunting in England and Wales that raged 20 years ago, which was also driven by perception and prejudice rather than evidence and principle. Then too those honest enough to think about the issue in more than a superficial way often found themselves on a different side of the argument than they might have originally thought. For instance, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee wrote: "The liberal-minded should recognise that banning hunting is illiberal and unfair. Even townies who despise hunting should not stop people doing, any more than banning lap dancing". Whilst novelist Jeanette Winterson wrote: "If we were a nation of vegetarians, our objections to hunting might carry more weight, but I am out of sympathy with the hypocrisy of those who seize on fox hunting as easy prey, while ignoring the more urgent issues of animal welfare and husbandry".

These were brave interventions in their day, but I do wonder whether they would have been made now. The sad truth is that the vicious social media tactics so beloved of the animal rights movement work. People who might have been willing to put their heads above the parapet to faced reasoned disapproval now understandably think twice about having to face vile personal abuse, death threats and even attacks on their family.

It is a sad reality that technological progress in the form of social media is currently restricting reasoned debate and silencing the voices of (unfashionable) minorities. This is by no means unique to the sort of issues the Alliance campaigns on, but there is no doubt that the animal rights movement was an early adopter of ultra-aggressive social media tactics and continues to use them enthusiastically.

The debate over regulation of social media to tackle abuse seems to go round in circles without any sign of significant change. In the meantime, it is incumbent on those like Monbiot who become the victims of these tactics to condemn them, not just when they are used to oppose issues which they support, but also when they are used to attack campaigners who they disagree with.