A variation of the 'why are you talking about x when you should be talking about y' trope is recently being trotted out in regard to the anti-foxhunting legislation. "Congratulations to the Parliamentary Labour Party on a magnificent victory in the class struggle," quips Harry, suddenly bristling with faux radicalism; others approvingly quote Polly Toynbee - "The left should wonder why they are unable to summon up a fraction of that anger about the things that really matter." What needs to be said in response to these non-arguments has, thankfully, been said by Norman Geras:
There are so many types of suffering and injustice in the world that any single person can only be active in protesting about and opposing a fraction of them. Given this, it can nearly always be said that you shouldn't be wasting time on this when what really matters is that. But everything that matters really matters. The fact that some things matter less is only an argument for ignoring them if you think that everybody should be constantly mobilizing over what matters most. Thus: unless you're protesting and active over (just for example) Darfur, you're not entitled to speak out about anything.
See also here, under 'Turkey'. Anyway, let's hope we've laid that inane and disingenuous little rhetorical ploy to rest.