I’ve just read the following on Simon’s blog:
I was going to post something about the vote to ban fox hunting, but I think I’ve written quite enough for today! Suffice it to say that, in a liberal democracy, I believe a government should keep legislation that forces people to do something, or bans people from doing something, to an absolute minimum.
Perhaps Simon would care to explain to me if legislation that “forces people to do something” should be kept to a minimum, what other kinds of legislation are there?
2 thoughts on “Hmmmm1 min read”
I’m glad that you read my “Latest News” page!In a liberal democracy, which is what we purport to live in in the UK, the aim is to keep legislation to a minimum. Government is seen as something which “frees” people to live their lives, without threats from other people. The opposite view of government is a government which restricts people. A government that takes this line to extremes is known as a totalitarian regime, in that it seeks to have total control over citizens’ lives.Liberal theorists will say that, provided people are not harming the interests of those around them, they should be free to go about their lives as they wish, without restrictions from a government.The legislation to ban fox hunting is more typical of a totalitarian government than a liberal democracy, since it criminalises an activity which people have been free to engage in for hundreds of years, and which does no harm to other people. My point was that the ban on fox hunting is not something one would expect from a liberal democracy.As I said in my original post, I have no interest whatsoever in fox hunting; I have never been fox hunting, nor do I intend to go. My concern is purely that the implications of this piece of legislation, from a constitutional perspective could be very far reaching. After all, if the government is prepared to use the 1911 Parliament Act to ram through such a ridiculous bill, what else are they prepared to do?I find it absolutely amazing that the Labour government thinks that fox hunting is such an important issue, anyway. Are there not more important things they could be thinking of?I’m still predicting a climb down on this, anyway. Tony Blair has been hinting that there may well be a compromise anyway, in which hunting is allowed, but is tightly regulated. Could this be yet another u-turn for the most despicable government Britain has seen for many, many years?Incidentally, just as a parting shot, did you realise that the last European leader to ban fox hunting was that animal-loving vegetarian, Adolf Hitler? Couple that fact with the article in The New Statesman (a left-wing, Labour-supporting magazine) from August 2003, in which Tony Blair was analysed by a leading psychologist and revealed to be a psychopath, and we have a rather worrying situation…
I agree with you Simon, I was only speaking tongue in cheek!As for there being more important issues — well, I think it’s just a smokescreen really. Make the main issue fox hunting, and then perhaps people will forget about… well, the myriads of other things the government has made a cock-up of, for example Iraq!