Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scastle
I may be over simplifying here, but isn't the law supposed to reflect what the average person would consider acceptable? Therefore, if the majority of people object (or agree with) fox hunting, isn't it perfectly reasonable to assume that the average person would largely agree with the majority?
|
By that measure, smoking, a passtime enjoyed by fewer than one in three people and faced with mounting evidence of harm even to those who don't partake, should have been declared illegal years ago.
The Law should seek to prevent that which society as a whole considers dangerous or objectionable, particularly those things which by their nature threaten society itself. It should certainly not be used to ban on a whim those pursuits that are enjoyed by the minority simply because the majority don't like it. That's not democracy, it's abuse of power.
Quote:
|
Or have I got it wrong, and is democracy (and the law) supposed to reflect the minority opinion (which is what you appear to be saying)?
|
It's not an issue of whether democracy should reflect minority opinion, as I said above, there is more to democracy than the bigger group of people telling the smaller group of people what to do (or not). But, as you mention it, I do think it is the responsibility of a democratic society to
protect minority rights. If minority rights and views are not safeguarded, then pretty quickly you don't have a democracy any more.
Because a cabal of left-wing idealogues are hiding behind the smokescreen of animal rights to ban something they dislike on the basis of it being a 'symbol of the aristocracy'. Banning something because you don't like the background of those who take part in it is intolerance of the worst kind and sets a worrying precedent.