I believe that there are no absolutes in cultural, political and moral  factors. 

MORALITY AND CULTURE

 What is moral in one culture may well be immoral in another.  Many such conflicting moral standards have grown out of differences between  cultures which originate from different necessities of economic well-being. 
For instance, a milk producer's economic well-being is dependent upon a Rural sub-culture which accepts the several days of suffering that a cow endures when her mental state is disturbed by the removal of her calf. On the other hand, a factory  owner's economic well- being depends, in part, upon living in an Urban  sub-culture, (which would believe it immoral to take the calf away  from its mother), but would accept the equally important necessity of,  for instance, converting a piece of country into an environmentally dead area for an efficient factory on a "greenfield site". Separating calves and development on greenfield sites both have their detractors, but both  are necessary to the economic well-being of their perpetrators. It seems inevitable that these different and conflicting necessities will shape different and conflicting sub-cultures and thereby conflicting moral standards  .

CULTURAL CONFLICT IS BEHIND THE FOXHUNTING DEBATE
 

In my view, the debate about Foxhunting is essentially a conflict between  an "Urban Sub-Culture" and a "Rural Sub-Culture" within "Western Culture". 
"Urbans" can be defined, broadly, as those that are predominantly spectators of natural processes and participate in them  only to a limited extent (eg. gardening). Therefore, they suffer relatively  little economic damage from competition from wild creatures and plants  (eg. squirrels, weeds). Consequently, most "Urbans" are highly susceptible  to the propaganda of the animals rights (AR) lobbies. In particular the  AR line that all wild creatures have a right to live out the full extent  of life of which the species is capable.
"Rurals" can be defined, broadly, as those that participate in natural processes. Therefore, they can suffer relatively severe economic damage from competitors in the natural world  (eg. weeds, rabbits,  foxes). It follows that most believe that wild creatures and plants which interfere with human economic well-being have no such right to  a full life. The weakness of the AR line is shown by the fact that most concede that wild creatures should lose that right if they attack humans  or are killed for food. The issue is confused by the fact that many Urbans,  who believe that some control of predators is acceptable, also believe  that shooting foxes is less inhumane than chasing them and catching them with dogs. I have explained why this is not the case.

THE  MORALITY OF FOXHUNTING

 Foxhunting is considered immoral by the majority of those imbued with Urban sub-culture. In stark contrast,  it is viewed as morally acceptable by those imbued with Rural  sub-culture. For the reasons that I have discussed  already morality is not absolute, but merely a product of a culture. Thus views on the morality of Foxhunting will vary inevitably depending  upon the culture of the person whose view is being sought.  Foxhunting is not a practice where moral standards will be similar between virtually  all cultures, (e.g. those that proscribe actions where  individuals  deliberately harm other individuals outside wars). Rather, it is a practice which does not affect the physical or economic well-being of other  individuals. In very many such cases moral standards differ widely between  sub cultures. 

 I do not like the idea of Halal slaughter, but it is part of Islamic  culture which does no harm to those imbued with other cultures.Therefore,  I would strenuously oppose a ban. Smoking does harm those around the smoker  through passive smoking. Therefore, I support bans in public places. In  my view Foxhunting is like Halal slaughter, rather than smoking. 

POLITICS AND CULTURE.

 Politics is the art of the expedient. This implies that policies are  strongly influenced by the culture of those people whose support is perceived as vital to maintaining or obtaining power for the politician(s) concerned. It follows that political values are aspects of the associated culture, rather than absolute. 
The implications of political involvement in the cultural clash behind the Foxhunting Debate (and other matters stirred up by ARs) are wide ranging. For instance drastic legislation about any Country Sport or established farming practice would create a highly undesirable state of "dynamic tension"  in the UK between those imbued with our "Urban Sub-Culture" and those with our "Rural Sub-Culture". The long term political consequences of such a conflict  are hard to estimate, but they are highly likely to harm the aspirations of Labour to move from being "champion of the less well off" to being  a "one nation" party. 

A SOURCE OF CONFUSION. 

I believe that much of the rather confused thinking that clouds the  debate between "Town and Countryside" springs from viewing the differences, between the UK's Urban and Rural sub-cultures, in geographical terms.  After all, many persons who imbue our Urban sub-culture, live and are  welcome in rural parts of the UK. In truth, the differences spring from  the fact that these sub-cultures have grown out of different necessities of economic well-being. 

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

It might be thought that the approximately 4% of "Rurals" (not to be confused with the 17.5% who live in rural areas) are such a small (and shrinking) cultural minority that the political and economic risks of  banning Foxhunting are worth incurring in the interests of keeping and gaining the support of the animals rights lobby and of those of the voting public who subscribe to the AR line on Hunting with Dogs.

POLITICAL REALITY

The cavalier attitude towards a cultural minority, that is implicit in a Hunting Ban, is highly undemocratic and uncharacteristic of the traditions of the Labour  Party, which used to have a good reputation amongst minorities. In time a majority  of the voting public will come to see the criminalisation of those who Hunt  with dogs as a  gross infringement  of personal liberty.  They will also  rapidly come to  realise that a  parliamentary majority that  has voted for  such a proposal is verging on  dictatorial rule. Many other cultural minorities will  not vote for the  MPs and candidates  who subscribe  to such a dictatorial approach to ruling their country, with its tradition of tolerance.

WEAKNESS OF MINORITIES. 

 Unfortunately the UK's System of Government, as currently employed,  leads to a bias against minorities (such as those who practice Hand Gun  Sports or keep so-called dangerous dogs). Let me explain:- 

 Democracy is "Government vested in All of The People", this implies  "not just the majority". In contrast to many Heads of State and Upper  Chambers in other countries, when push comes to shove, the UK's monarch  and "upper house" only have an advisory role. Thus they have no real power  to check unwise legislation resulting from the majority in the House of  Commons occasionally reacting hysterically to tragic events and/or pressures from single interest factions and/or the media. Minorities would be treated  properly if more politicians understood that they were elected to Govern  Wisely on behalf of ALL of the people. Unfortunately, a belief has grown  up among many politicians that they are elected to represent the views  of the majority of their constituents, rather than to balance carefully the interests between all the Social Groups and all the Cultures to which  any of their constituents belong. In particular to tolerate the moral standards of any Social Group or Culture, so long as they do not impinge  on the physical and economic well-being of any other Social Group(s) or Culture(s). I have attempted to convince several politicians that the  House of Commons is not a House of Representatives and cannot be, because  the UK lacks the checks and balances built into other Systems of Government, but they persist in advocating the present situation which occasionally leads to " tyranny of the majority". 

CONCLUSIONS

 If a conflicting moral standard of one sub-culture (e.g. the "Urban" attitude on Foxhunting as exemplified by the animals rights lobby----ARs) is imposed upon those who live within another (e.g. the "Rurals" as exemplified by the Animal----Real----- Welfare lobby); resentment and cultural, social, economic and political damage will result.

 A REQUEST

How much better for the UK and the long-term interests of the Labour Party it would be if "Urbans" were to tolerate factory farming, hunting etc. (even if they cause stress within the limits to which the animals  concerned have become adapted; provided they have a useful purpose and are not grossly less humane than other methods of achieving the same ends). Likewise, if "Rurals" were to tolerate building on greenfield sites etc. (even if it is somewhat destructive of the rural environment ; provided all reasonable steps are taken to minimize impact on the environment and  economically attractive alternatives do not exist).