Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts

Sunday, 10 April 2011

A rather serious argument for a Sunday

Posted by Tania Kindersley.

I wasn’t going to do this, but I think I have to. It’s a sunny Sunday, and I should just give you some pretty pictures of blossom and the recipe for the lovely new beetroot salad which I just invented. But this has been weighing on my mind all morning, so I’m afraid you get instead a thousand words on the morality of racing. What you poor readers have to put up with.

Some of this I mentioned briefly yesterday. For some reason, I felt a pressing need to get the whole argument clear in my mind. Here it is:

 

I felt incredibly sad yesterday. It was a disproportionate sorrow, and I could not shake it off. The three glorious days of Aintree had been so glittering and marvellous. There had been thrilling, champion performances from Master Minded and Big Buck’s, and it all led up to the big event of the National itself. Then the bird of death swooped down, casting a shadow over the sun.

After Ornais and Dooneys Gate died in the Grand National, both killed in crashing falls, there was a pall spread over a great day. Then, there was a sudden outcry on Twitter. The comments had an odd savagery about them. They were along the lines of: dead horses, but people made money, happy now? It was more an intemperate rage at the horrible racing plutocrats, who literally run their horses to death, rather than sorrow for the animals themselves. The Mail on Sunday ran a sensationalist article; people were quoted calling for the National to be banned,describing it as 'ritual animal cruelty'.

I started to wonder. Perhaps they were right. I have lived with racing all my life; my father was a jockey and then a trainer. It is what I grew up with. But the furious critics were so sure of their arguments. Perhaps I had been lost in a festival of savagery all along. Perhaps my dear old dad is, in fact, a beast.

It took me a while to come back to some kind of perspective. Here is the awful, raw truth. Horses die. Even tough, cross little ponies are curiously delicate. They die on the roads and in the field. They can get cast in their box and break a leg. They die of laminitis, from the apparently benign activity of eating grass; they get colic and Monday morning disease. If you want no horse to die or suffer ever again, then there must not only be no more racing, there must be no more horses. No more dressage or show jumping or three day eventing or gymkhanas or riding for the disabled; no more pony trekking or polo or cantering over the downs on a sunny day.

The argument goes that racing is particularly cruel and unnatural because horses are forced to run at high speeds over huge, treacherous fences. First of all, there is no forcing. No ten stone human has ever been able to force a half ton horse, hot with oats and breeding, to do anything it does not want to do. Anyone who watched the racing over the last three days saw that there was a bolshie creature that stood stock still at the start on Friday, deciding that he simply did not want to race that day. He was taken back to his stable.

Horses that are not happy in races are pulled up. If a horse is not eating up at home or not himself or showing any signs of distress, he will be rested. The really top class horses, who used, in the old days, to be run often, sometimes in handicaps where they had to give away lumps of weight, are now only run three or four times a year. The chasers and hurdlers who work so hard during the winter are given a long summer holiday, idling away the days in the field, with the sun on their backs.

That they love it and are bred for it is not a good enough argument, according to the sages on Twitter. The fact is, no one consults the horses, so they cannot make a moral choice, and then they die. But the loving it argument must carry some weight. Anyone who has ever worked with horses will tell you of the excitement on race days. Some horses are so sensitive to routine that they know when they are to run, and turn from dopey old dolts in the box to fiery competitors, before they are anywhere near the racecourse.

The great Desert Orchid loved racing so much that he often used to run away with his jockey on the way to the start; there is wonderful old footage of poor Colin Brown getting carted down the track, desperately trying to pull up, the Orchid was so eager to get going. Years after he retired, when he was a very old gentleman indeed, he would be brought back to Cheltenham or Kempton to take place in a parade. He would throw his head up in the air, and start dancing down the turf like a three year old, his great age forgotten, because he quite clearly remembered that this was the place where he had all his joy. Yet he risked death every time he set foot on the course. He was a very wild jumper in his novice years, and suffered many crashing falls, one of which laid him out on the grass for ten minutes, so that his owner and trainer did indeed fear he had killed himself.

The argument from cruelty has other flaws. Racehorses have good lives. They are kept in warm boxes lined with straw, mucked out every morning, fed like princes. When they do their work, they do it on the wide open spaces of Lambourn and Newmarket, with the wind in their manes. There are tragic stories about broken-down horses being found starved in sheds, but they are rare. Mostly, jumpers are pensioned off with their grateful owners, put out to grass, or used as riding horses.

The more egregious implication in the cruelty argument is that of intent. On Saturday night, Paul Nicholls and Willie Mullins will have gone home to the awful gaping space of an empty box. I know, from experience in a racing yard, where we too lost horses, what that feels like. The whole stable, particularly the people who looked after the horses, will have been devastated; the owners left bereft; the jockeys heartbroken. Are the vengeful furies on Twitter really saying that these are cruel men and women, who intentionally send their horses to their deaths, and don’t care? All the people connected with those two horses are not only having the pain of sudden loss to deal with, but are being told that what they do is brutal, unconscionable, and hideous. They are essentially being told that they are bad people. There can be no pity for them.

Meanwhile, a promising young jockey called Peter Toole, lies on life support in hospital, after a fall at the meeting. There was not the same savage outcry in the media for him. Presumably this is because he is one of the brutes who takes part in this ghastly spectacle.

Racing is tough, and dangerous. It is a sport of risk and speed and courage, of tragedy and triumph. It carries dangers for animals and humans both. It also contains a lot of joy, and love. The same cannot be said of, say, battery farming. But chickens are not as pretty as horses, and do not appear on television, so there is no Twitter petition for them. I wonder how many of the people who shout about animal cruelty keep cats? Do they have no place in their fierce hearts for the million birds a year who are killed by felines? Or do the songbirds not count?

It’s a tough, moral argument. There is a case that humans have no right to keep animals in the first place, imposing human agency on them, taking them out of their natural habitat. Run that to its logical conclusion, and there would be no more thoroughbreds at all. But I can only take the cruelty argument seriously from a Buddhist vegan who has never kept a cat.

 

Oh, I am glad that I got that off my chest. Thank you so much. And PS: I know that some of my most faithful readers are cat-lovers. I'm not having a go at felines, but at hypocrisy. I am a bit of a red in tooth and claw person, when it comes to animals. My own regal ladyships used to love nothing more than killing small rodents when they were younger and racier. I felt that was a food chain thing. I could not get exercised over the death of a mouse, when the dogs were simply following their natural inclinations. I do, however, refuse to eat battery chickens, because there is nothing natural about that.

Really am stopping now. And I DO have some pretty pictures of blossom for you, as a reward for ploughing through far too many words.

The last of the viburnum. It flowered bravely all winter, cheering me up in the dark, cold days. Now this is the very final blossom:

1

And it is all going to leaf:

2

The first of the blossom:

2-1

2

The limes are starting to put out acid-green leaves:

3

4

11

The daffs are finally in their pomp:

6

7

8 

The Duchess feels she must investigate thoroughly:

9

While the Pigeon has a little lie-down:

10

Then there is the sunbathing:

11-1

15-1

The hill, quite lovely in the dazzle:

15

Monday, 21 February 2011

More happy news, with a little side order of controversy

Posted by Tania Kindersley.

My brilliant and very tall friend N is getting married to his boyfriend. The official invitation is out, plans are being set in motion, and I must buy a frock. I got a picture of the happy couple by email last night, and they are bathed in joy.

It should just be a thing, shouldn't it? Another lovely piece of good news; more love in the world; two delighted people. In my mind, that is exactly what it is. But as I contemplate the delight, I am haunted by an article Melanie Phillips wrote last week about how letting gay couples marry is immoral and wrong. The headline set it out in stark terms: Making a Mockery of Marriage, it screamed. I was going to write about it at the time, it made me so cross, but in the end I thought: it's just Melanie Phillips being furious, and it's same old same old, and even embarking on the subject makes me feel inexpressibly demoralised.

Now, though, it's personal. Ms Phillips, who is an intelligent, highly paid commentator, is telling me that my friends are attacking the Bible with their bare hands. They are, apparently, with the connivance of the Prime Minister, on a mission to 'erode society's core values'. They are not just making a lifetime commitment to each other, oh no; they are 'overturning centuries of Biblical understanding of the sacrament of marriage'. Oh, and for good measure, they are 'destroying moral and sexual norms'. I wonder if they knew that this was what they were doing, as they got out of bed this morning. What with all that undermining morality and turning the Bible on its head, I wonder that they have time to do a job.

I'm a bit puzzled by this basing our entire morality on the Bible thing. The Bible is not my book, but I know that many kind and intelligent people regard it as a great book, and the King James version contains some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. It's just that it also contains some things that we mostly don't do any more, for fairly good reasons. Is Miss Phillips suggesting that we should still sell our daughters into slavery, to be maidservants or concubines, as it says in Exodus? Exodus also says that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. By not writing this into statute, is Mr David Cameron going even farther in 'eroding society's core values'? And, since we are on the subject, am I to presume that Miss Phillips spends half her time giving up burnt offerings, as Leviticus instructs her at amazing length? (The instruction about the bullock and the ram and the exact manner in which the blood should be sprinkled goes on for chapters.)

It seems to me that most Christians understand very well that their book was written a long time ago, by men who lived in another time and another place. So, they cherry pick. They take the brilliant stuff about loving thy neighbour and turning the other cheek, and the wonderful parables about the good Samaritan and the friend in need, and they leave the parts about stoning people who blaspheme, or the keeping of slaves, or killing girls who are not virgins on their wedding night. There is nothing controversial about this. It would be really weird, and most unChristian to go about slaughtering all the non-virgin brides. (Deuteronomy says it must be done by stoning, and by the whole town, which would be logistically tricky, to say the least.)

I am no theologian, as you may have guessed by now. It just seems strange to me that Miss Phillips is so insistent on the purity of marriage because it is in the Bible. Is she going to get furious with my friends because they wear clothes made of two different threads? Shall she race around the restaurants of London attempting to stop people eating cockles and mussels because the Bible says that is an abomination? Will she insist that all the mediums be put to death? I'm just asking. I may be being a little sarky about it, because she's bashing people I love, but on an intellectual level, I am genuinely confused.

On an emotional level, I wish she would stop making unkind accusations about a man I have loved for twenty-five years. He is a good and honourable fellow, even if he does sometimes eat shellfish on the weekends.

You see what happens? I was just going to write about a bit of good news, and then I got cross. Now I shall clamber down off my hobby horse, take a deep soothing breath, and give you some nice nature pictures.

Leaves and stump:

21st Feb 1

(It is another dreary old day, but for some reason the moss is as green as Granny Smith apples.)

The burn:

21st Feb 2

Beeches:

21st Feb 3

Older niece's miraculously beautiful ducks:

21st Feb 5

21st Feb 6

Bark:

21st Feb 8

Trees:

21st Feb 7

21st Feb 10

Ladyships, most elegantly taking their ease in the long grass:

21st Feb 9

21st Feb 9-1

Now for today's hill. The whole point about photographing the hill every day was to watch how it changes over the year, to see how each morning it looks quite different. Since the dreich set in, it has looked exactly the same; quite invisible behind a low grey veil of cloud. Forgive the monotony:

P2204974

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin