Tim Bonner: Animal rights extremists target the church

There is always a quandary about whether to discuss the actions of animal rights extremists. On the one hand it gives them some of the oxygen that they crave, but on the other it is important to be able to explain just how unpleasant, how limited in numbers and how far removed from normal society they are. A recent case in which the Diocese of Hereford was forced to cancel a hunt carol service on police advice to protect the personal safety of a local vicar is about as odious an example of extremist behaviour as is imaginable and therefore should be exposed.

To start with it is necessary to understand that such campaigns in no way reflect the views of the local population, or indeed the population of the country as a whole. In fact, one of the consistent traits of such campaigns is that most online abuse and intimidation does not originate anywhere near the target of the campaign or often even from the same country. In this case, the online hate campaign was supported by activists from as far away as New Zealand and Canada. These people have no knowledge of the reality of events in a small Shropshire village, but they do know that their extreme animal rights views are only shared by a tiny proportion of the population in their own countries and that to have any impact they have to coordinate with similarly small groups across national boundaries.

This is a regular tactic of animal rights groups not only in targeting individuals and businesses associated with activities they object to, but also in attempting to influence legislation in countries around the globe. In recent years we have had to challenge the results of consultations on legislation in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland which did not differentiate between responses from their own countries and mass email campaigns from around the world. In one case it took a Freedom of Information request from the Alliance to reveal that a petition to the Welsh Assembly to ban pheasant shooting on Welsh public land - which animal rights groups claimed to have 12,706 signatures - included only 1,487 from Wales.

Another consistent tactic of animal rights extremists is the use of threats, often violent, from anonymous social media accounts. Again, this is not the behaviour of people confident in their arguments or their wider support. It is the retreat of cowards and bigots who hate for hates sake, and who have no way of making their mark other than through being deeply unpleasant.

So, whilst it might not seem like it to the vicar involved, to whom I am sure we all send our best wishes, or to the local community, the desperation of this sort of hate campaign is actually a clear indication that the hunt is not viewed with any sort of enmity by the majority of people. If it were, then the threats and the extreme behaviour would not be necessary. If there really was an issue then local people would have made their views known without the help of animal rights activists from the other side of the globe. In fact, the community rallied around and the carol service took place with a record attendance in a nearby venue conducted by another local clergyman.

Animal rights extremism is a product of the failure of animal rights arguments. If those arguments were convincing there would be no need for the threats, the hatred and the dishonesty. We should never rise to the provocation and give this small band of extremists the reaction they seek, but every now and then we should remind the world just how divorced from normal society they are.