• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Examine the clash between ideas of "Liberty" and "Democracy" shown in the current debate about the banning of fox-hunting

Extracts from this document...


Examine the clash between ideas of "Liberty" and "Democracy" shown in the current debate about the banning of fox-hunting Fox-hunting has been a major issue on the political agenda for the past ten years because both sides have strong emotions about either a foxes rights or human rights however the debate about fox hunting also raises questions about liberty and democracy and whether or not our political system is fair. During the debate in Parliament Mr Michael urged "the Lords to behave democratically" and this shows how the Status of the House of Lords and whether or not it is a democratic institution are being brought into the spotlight once more. The House of Commons is allowed to push a bill through the House of Lords even if it has been rejected using the Parliament Act and it looks as though this is going to happen but is this democratic? Some believe that the House of Lords play an important role in checking the Government and therefore the Parliament Act should not be used over an issue which most do not view as important as other issues such as pensions. ...read more.


It can even be argued that referenda are not fairer: just because the majority wants something does not mean it is necessarily the right option. If everything were to be done through referendums than minority voices, such as that of the disabled, would never be heard. In this case it could even be argued that fox-hunters (who are usually associated with the countryside) are a minority who are having their wishes ignored because people who do not even know anything about fox-hunting have decided that they are against it. In this country our Government tends to make decisions which look after minorities therefore implying that in our democracy the will of the majority of the people should be the line that is taken unless it puts other group's at harm. Fox-hunting is difficult because those who hunt claim that if the sport were to be banned then livelihoods and a way of life would be destroyed, they claim that they have a right to hunt and by banning the sport this right is being removed. The continuation of fox-hunting could be viewed as democratic because those who do the sport claim that if it is banned their quality of life will be reduced and therefore in this case the will of the majority should be ignored. ...read more.


as being removed simply because the Prime Minister wants to regain some of his popularity. However some believe that it is unfair to allow Hunters to have this right most believe this because they see hunting as the killing of a defenceless animal despite the counter arguments such as fox are vermin. Other moral questions are raised such as whether or not a fox has rights and how much pain they are in. Those who favour the ban argue that there should not be a freedom to fox-hunt and that it should be made illegal. This raises the issue of whether or not society is improved as a whole because of increased restriction and removal of liberties. Obviously restriction is important because it makes society safer (crime restrictions) and more prosperous (tax), however fox-hunting is complex to judge because its existence does not harm people or put people at risk it just offends them. Is offence a good enough reason to take away a liberty that has existed for centuries especially when most of those who want to impose a ban have not experienced fox-hunting first hand? ?? ?? ?? ?? Jenn Beales 13SW ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Compare and Contrast Positive and Negative Conceptions of Liberty.

    positive liberty into a justification for oppression - which is itself a fundamental opposite to liberty.

  2. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    This winds up allowing us to have a vast amount of negative rights, which tends to limit the amount of positive rights that can be granted. What rights we should have: If you give people strong negative rights that usually includes the right not to be deprived of their money.

  1. Evolution of Democracy and the Athenian Constitution

    to the assembly but the Areopagus still was the province of the aristocracy which, though restrained, exercised considerable authority. When Persia invaded and Athens was faced with the terrible choice of staying back and resisting or abandoning the city. According to Aristotle (p: 166)

  2. Communism VS Democracy

    Likewise, we tend to believe that the cloth of democracy must be cut according to our style or it is not a democracy at all (Editors Of Scholastic Magizine 67). We are governed by 51 different constitutions-the U.S. Constitution and 50 state constitutions.

  1. Does democracy bring peace?

    At the time of his writing, in the mid to late 18th century, Smith's argument had little relevance for Western Europe, where states such as France, Prussia and Russia, controlled by absolute monarchs were bitter rivals with strong barriers discouraging trade.

  2. Extent of key political ideas in directly influencing change and development .

    They genuinely wanted to help the poor, but they wanted to further their own careers as well. To quote Derek Fraser, " it had always been Lloyd George's intention to make a great stir, to do something really big that would attract public attention."

  1. Is consociational democracy democratic?

    standards means that "the organisations that are autonomous in name are, in practice, quasi-governmental agencies"30. Thus, it can be argued that the pillars are to an extent no longer democratically representative of the societies they act for. What of democratic stability?

  2. Indonesia: Transition and Prospects for Democracy

    Transplacement: Actors and Narrative For practical purposes, I will start by identifying the actors in the transition process, borrowing Huntington's (1991b) terms for them. Then, on the government side, I will examine how standpatters were weakened, and how the emergence of liberal reformers in government pushed the government towards a compromise on democracy.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work