Bigger hue and cry over animal rights

WHILE I might agree with the idea stated in a number of articles in the Irish Examiner that the recent ‘D’ case was primarily about the right to travel, the purpose of the journey in question was bound to raise issues of serious moral concern.

A somewhat similar situation arose a few years ago when it was suggested that British bloodsport activists might travel to Ireland in pursuit of their chosen pastime.

Animal rights groups saw this as more than a simple right to travel given the potential danger such journeys would pose to defenceless creatures. Auctioneers who advertised the hunting possibilities on lands for sale were also criticised.

Such developments were seen as being far from morally neutral, not just ‘information’. The idea of animal rights taking precedence over rights to travel and information was not lost on those who might be described as ‘pro (animal) life.’

Yet I know many who might be so described (not to mention individual politicians and political parties) who are more perturbed by the hunting fraternity travelling to Ireland to engage in bloodsport activities (even without a kill) than by 6,000 women travelling to Britain each year to abort their unborn children.

I think we are losing the plot.

Rory O’Donovan

111 Sundays Well Road

Cork