Death of the Emperor

There has been a lot of news coverage over the shooting of the red deer stag known as the Emperor of Exmoor. I have been to Exmoor many times and have seen the hunters out with their guns and, I admit, they represent one aspect of humanity that I am none too impressed with (aside from anything else, they just look ridiculous). But I am curious over the outrage at this shooting which, incidentally, is perfectly legal. The anger is a moral one, and so I am wondering what the moral arguments are here. One newspaper argued that it is wrong because the Emperor is 'wild and beautiful', but is this a good reason to not shoot it? Lots of things are 'wild', and should we really base our preferences on whether we find something beautiful or not? There is certainly no shortage of red deer roaming around Exmoor. Perhaps the standard utilitarian response works here: the pleasure of seeing this animal roaming around alive (not to mention the pleasure of the Emperor itself?) is much greater than that priovided by its antlers danging from the wall of someone's stately home?

The Limits to Rights

What are rights? Can they only be ascribed to human beings or also to animals... the environment... inanimate objects?

Jonathon Wolff, Christopher Stone and Kenan Malik discuss these questions on the BBC Radio 4 'Law in Action' programme.

It is definitely worth listening to this articulate and stimulating discussion.

Gay Rights, Faith and the Law

As many of you will have noticed, attempts to block the Sexual Orientation Regulations in the House of Lords have failed.

A number of faith groups had objected to the regulations. The rules mean that people who offer paid services to the public cannot refuse people, or discriminate against them, on the grounds of their sexuality.

To quote the BBC report on this:
Critics say the new rules mean hotels cannot refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for "gay wedding" receptions.

Is this - as some have reported - about gay rights vs 'Christian' rights? Clearly not all Christians feel this way - but the quote below shows how some feel...

Christian Voice - a pressure group - claims in its press release that:
'The Government and their 'gay rights' friends have no right to impose their morality, or lack of it, on the 99% of the population who are not that way inclined. Christians, members of other faiths and indeed of none cannot be forced to act against their conscience by providing services to those whose activities they find perverted, disgusting or simply against the clear, unequivocal word of God."

Gay Rights Campaigner Peter Tatchell said of faith campaigns against the regulations:
"The Christian fundamentalists who want these exemptions are demanding the right to discriminate against gay people, but they are not campaigning for the right to discriminate against adulterers, unwed mothers, thieves, murderers or rapists. They have a highly selective and overtly homophobic interpretation of Biblical morality."

Should people be 'forced' to offer services to all - or have the right to decline in the manner some seem to wish to?

Is this about rights at all?