It is not the function of the criminal law to impose the taste, judgments or morality of the majority on a sane and responsible minority. Imposing morality on the minority was the policy of Cromwell's republic, and look where it got them. If imposing the morality of the majority was still the function of the criminal law, homosexuality and abortion would still be banned and we would probably be moving to ban Halal forms of butchery and many other things. That point was made by a large number of speakers on Second Reading and I shall not repeat it. It would bring the law into disrespect and a vast section of the community would think it unfair.
Democracy requires respect for the rights, beliefs and traditions of the minority.
The second principle against which the Bill offends is that criminal statutes must be clear and unambiguous so that our citizens can know what they may and may not do. I shall draw attention to one or two particular points on which it fails. Under the Bill, a person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog. As has been said, there is no guidance in the Bill as to what constitutes hunting. It can mean to pursue an animal for the purposes of catching and killing it.