Yes, it is the typical clash between human rights and democracy.
Democracy is equated with a human rights regime very often, when in fact, they are not the same.
While in a democracy, the word of the majority is what counts, the majority does whatever the hell it wants.
On the other hand, in a human rights regime, there are certain rights and liberties with which the 'angry mob' -using ayase's wording- cannot, or dare not meddle with. Of course, this means the representative of the majority, the government.
The UK, like all other EU countries, strikes a balance between the two systems, albeit a very, very poor one.
In the case of a system leaning towards human rights, matters are mostly decided objectively, namely, whether it poses harm to anyone in any way.
Provided it does not, its ok.
Whereas in the case of a democracy bias... well, you see what's happening, right?
I personally am for human rights. Actually, my views seem to be identical with that of ayase. I don't see why should anything harmless be criminalised, solely because a bunch of pissed 'citizens' disapprove of it... for no real reason. Especially considering that under modern EU law, under the ECHR namely, it is thought that a person does not have a right not to be offended by something.
Just an example:
There is a gay procession in your town. Just for the sake of argument, lets say you are homophobic. You may feel offended by the procession, but you have no right not to be. There is no law compelling the organisers of the procession not to offend you.
The case is similar with about everything non-harmful.
Bah. That was a long rant lol, sorry, my second personality, the rabid liberal took over again.
