[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

That depends on whether most non-smokers actually object to other people smoking, or don't care whether other people smoke.

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.

True to a certain extent. However, society as a whole very rarely agrees what is wrong and right, so majority rule has to be used sometimes.

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.

True, and I personally agree with the protection of rights for everyone. Otherwise we would end up with dictatorship. However, protecting minority rights does have a limit. What if the "rights" of a minority included ritual sacrifice of humans (extreme example I know)?

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.

Tony doesn't seem to have listened much to left wingers before. How come he is doing it now? It's probably true that some left wingers, and some politicians on both sides have leapt on this for publicity (that seems to be the nature of some politicians though - if a view seems trendy, make out you agree), but I suspect quite a few actually do object to fox hunting itself, rather than the people who partake.

BTW, in case you haven't guessed, although I am not left wing, nor would I ever vote for the Labour party, I don't agree with fox hunting.

I do find it odd, however, that it's been on the backburner for years, then suddenly becomes an issue when a General Election is near (ish).