A hunting lobby group claims fox hunters meet the criteria for an ethnic minority and deserve protection under equality laws, something a legal expert has said it will be “extremely unlikely” to succeed with.

Ed Swales, chairman and founder of the Hunting Kind, made the claim to an audience at Game Fair 2024, a hunting event, in Warwickshire, that was held from July 25 to 27. A video of a sit-down interview with Swales and his Hunting Kind colleague, Ronan Brown, was uploaded to Field Sports’ YouTube channel on 14 August and, as of Thursday, has been viewed over 1,200 times.

While being interviewed by Charlie Jacoby, Swales claimed a top human rights lawyer – who he did not name – has agreed “unequivocally” that hunters qualify as a “protected minority group” under the Equality Act 2010.

“The qualifications of an ethnic group, there are five of them, and we hit every one straight in the bullseye,” Swales claimed, before explaining: “The work we’ve been doing is in the legal space under the Equality Act 2010. And no work has been done to protect hunting or the minority group of people that partake in it like us since that Act has been created.”

The 55-year-old former army captain says he has spent three years gathering evidence to argue that people who are pro-hunting deserve protection.

He has also suggested that hunters could be given “intangible cultural heritage” status by UNESCO based on recognition of the community’s spoken word and oral tradition, The Telegraph reported last week.

“We’re actually as much, if not more, ‘animal people’ than the animal rights activists,” he told the publication, adding: “We live it, eat it, breathe it and sleep it – it’s our life. It’s not just some sort of weird hobby.”

He went on to tell the publication that those who hunt have most of the characteristics of a protected philosophical belief or an ethnic minority, including “a long and shared history or culture that is distinct from wider society, distinct customs, a common geographical origin, common ancestors and common language or literature.”

Swales said he had asked a King’s Counsel to review his arguments, and claimed he was told “based on the evidence provided, you absolutely qualify in all aspects,” the publication reported.

BBC presenter Chris Packham was among the first to respond to Hunting Kind’s claims, asking his followers on X on August 15, “What shall we call them – I’ll go first: ‘barbaric savages’”. The activist has vowed to fight Hunting Kind’s legal attempts which he branded an “outright insult”.

On its website, Hunting Kind urges visitors to “join us in our minority belief campaign” and complete a questionnaire.

Under a “statement of philosophical belief”, Hunting Kind suggests that “natural and traditional hunting with animals for pest control and wildlife management is sustainable, ecologically sensitive, naturally selective and humane”.

The Hunting Act 2004 makes it illegal to hunt wild mammals with dogs, though it still permits “trail hunting” – letting dogs follow a pre-laid scent trail.

The new Labour Government has pledged to close this loophole, but repealing the ban is the ultimate goal for Swales who has described Tony Blair’s Hunting Act 2004 as, “The single most devastating law ever to have affected the countryside, or at least the hunting element of it.”

Despite Swales’ claims that a KC has backed his arguments, other experts have dismissed it along with Hunting Kind’s ecologically, and animal welfare arguments.

---

Not an ethnic group

Hunters unsuccessfully argued that they deserved protection in 2007, with the Countryside Alliance and other groups claiming the Hunting Act infringed on their human rights.

In rejecting the move, the House of Lords commented that “the hunting community is in no sense ethnically based” and “it is the activity of hunting with hounds for sport that has been singled out for differential treatment, not participation in it … by people having a particular characteristic”.

Joe Wills, Associate Professor of Law at Leicester University, told Byline Times that given the previous ruling, “I think the prospects of claiming they (Hunting Kind) are an ‘ethnic group’ for the purposes of the Equality Act are extremely unlikely”.

Legalities aside, many may find the idea of fox hunters being an ethnic minority a difficult concept to grasp, given it has typically been an upper-class pursuit and has the support of wealthy political figures and landowners such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Richard Drax.

“The attempt to gain some kind of protected status for fox hunters is laughable,” said Rowan Hughes, spokesperson for the Hunt Saboteurs Association.

They are already part of the most protected demographic in the country, with wealth, land and friends in high places

Rowan Hughes, Hunt Saboteurs Association

---

Protection from discrimination

While obtaining ethnic minority status may be unlikely for hunters, gaining protection from discrimination may be less of a challenge. 

According to Swales, people have suffered discrimination for their belief in natural hunting such as hotels refusing to host hunt events and being targeted with online abuse.

He told The Telegraph hunters have “horrendous problems” and suggested that some animal rights groups qualify as “extremists, without a doubt” and “should be on the watch list of MI5”. 

The Hunting Kind is urging supporters to come forward with their experiences so it can bring several discrimination cases to court. The aim, said Swales, is to “establish the legal precedent of that protected belief in law”.

The Equality Act protects people from discrimination for their philosophical beliefs, but not all beliefs count. They can’t, for instance, undermine the rights of others, they must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and, unlike an opinion, must be substantial enough to influence how a person lives.

“If somebody is sacked for taking a pro-hunting stance, or denied a service, this may be unlawful under the Equality Act,” Wills explained.

Being “controversial” is not necessarily a barrier to meeting all the criteria for a protected belief; veganism, environmentalism, gender-critical feminism, and even opposition to hunting have all been protected. A belief that hunting is good could be protected, Wills explains, but is less likely if a person is advocating for illegal hunting.

While hunters can only legally chase scents, hunts frequently infringe upon the rights of others. A 2022 report by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) documented hunts causing many kinds of public disturbance including livestock worrying, trespassing on private land when asked not to, obstructing roads and railways, and terrorising and mauling people’s pets. 

Even if Hunting Kind succeeded in proving discrimination and gaining protection for hunters’ beliefs, the chance that this will lead to a repeal of the Hunting Act is “zero” in Wills’ view.

“There is no legal pathway to repealing the Hunting Act, only political,” he told Byline Times. “But given that the Act is politically popular, and the present government have committed to strengthening it, that also seems very unlikely.”

---

Unnatural hunting

Another point of contention is Hunting Kind’s claims on its website that hunting with dogs is humane or ecologically necessary.

MPs voted to ban hunting in 2004 because, following public and expert opinion, enough of them considered hunting to significantly compromise the welfare of hunted animals, mainly foxes. 

While foxes are not a protected species and can be shot for “pest control” by farmers and property owners, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 protects them from “unnecessary suffering”.

Again, the requirement that a belief not conflict with the rights of others could be important, as Wills explains: “Who are ‘others’ for this purpose? Should it be interpreted as only including humans … Or could it be interpreted to include other sentient beings as well? If the latter interpretation is correct, then arguably a belief in natural hunting isn’t worthy of respect in a democratic society because it violates the fundamental rights of animals.”

Trevor Williams, founder of the Fox Project, added: “Forcing an animal to run for their lives in fear of being caught by dogs, and over distances they were not designed to run can never be humane”.

Adele Brand, an ecologist and author who has written a book on foxes, echoes this view.

“Mammals clearly experience stress and fear when chased and attacked,” she told Byline Times.

Despite the politics, this basic fact is actually very well understood across all of society, which is why abattoirs and vets do not destroy unwanted domestic animals by chasing them to exhaustion and allowing dogs to disembowel them

Adele Brand, ecologist and author

As for managing fox numbers, both Williams and Brand dispute Swales’ claim that hunting with dogs is necessary.

“Packs of dogs are a human invention,” said Brand. “Foxes did not evolve with packs of dogs in the landscape.”

Even when the UK had wolves, they wouldn’t have chased foxes like hounds do, she said. “In some circumstances, wolves actually increase fox numbers by providing them with a ready supply of carrion to scavenge.”

Studies have shown that culling has little effect on fox numbers and that the hunting ban didn’t lead to an increase in foxes.

“If there was a need for ‘wildlife management’, which there seldom is, it would be done by the most efficient and effective means possible,” said Williams.

He acknowledges that deer numbers need controlling to prevent them from overpopulating and starving, but said this is “regularly done by shooting, which is quick and efficient”.

“Hunting is not, in any event, about reducing numbers,” Williams concluded. “It is about the chase.”