Why Ignoring Failings in the League Against Cruel Sports Is Cowardly
In the fight against animal cruelty, we often see the world in stark terms—those who stand against cruelty and those who enable it. The League Against Cruel Sports (the League) has long been seen as a beacon of the former. But the past several years have cast a shadow, revealing the ugly truth: the real danger isn’t just the betrayal of wildlife by the League, but the silence of its supporters.
The Perils of Blind Loyalty
The League has been embroiled in numerous controversies—not over its campaigns, although they are increasingly a concern, but for how it silences those within its ranks who dare to have ethical concerns. Members, trustees, vice-presidents, and even an employee were expelled after raising concerns about the League’s pension fund investments in vivisection—a practice it publicly opposes—and a director’s attendance at hunt fundraisers, all backed by the senior management team and trustees. Rather than confront these issues, the League shut down dissent to protect its brand.
But the real scandal isn’t just at the top. It’s in the silence of the supporters who stand by, saying nothing. This blind loyalty is dangerous and deeply immoral. It’s a betrayal of the very principles the League was founded on. Former CEO Eduardo Gonçalves once said, “We [the League] are an organisation that is all about compassion, compassion towards animals, we are also an organisation that looks to be compassionate towards each other.” Yet compassion has been replaced with ruthless self-preservation, and supporters who stay silent are complicit in this shift.
The Courage to Speak Out
True commitment to a cause means holding those we support to the highest standards, even when it’s uncomfortable. It means calling out wrongdoing, no matter who’s responsible. By staying silent, supporters show a dangerous disregard for the truth and undermine the very cause they claim to support.
Martin Luther King Jr. wisely said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Ignoring the League’s failings doesn’t just harm the organisation—it weakens the entire movement. Criticising hunts and their supporters for their behaviour while turning a blind eye to corruption in our own ranks is the height of hypocrisy.
A Call to Integrity
It takes guts to criticise an organisation you care about, especially when there might be consequences. But this kind of courage is essential. As John Stuart Mill said, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Silence in the face of corruption is complicity, not neutrality.
The League members who spoke out against vivisection investments, unethical sackings, and hunt fundraisers showed real courage, only to be cast out and publicly denigrated. Their treatment is a harsh reminder that loyalty doesn’t mean blind obedience—it means ensuring the cause remains just and true.
Demand Better
Supporters of the League Against Cruel Sports must demand better. The ends do not always justify the means. If we truly care about ending cruelty, we must hold the League—and ourselves—accountable. Criticism, offered in good faith, is not a threat; it’s an opportunity for growth. The real harm comes from pretending everything is fine when it’s not.
Those currently in charge of the League—whether it be the senior management team or the trustees—have had years to demonstrate that they have learnt from their mistakes. However, personal ambition, greed, and a bloated sense of self-importance have shown they are incapable of doing what’s best for the League and the animals they claim to champion. Turning a blind eye to their behaviour is not an option. The future of the League—and the trust of its supporters—depends on making the right choice.
