A good rule of thumb
Mark Steyn draws attention to a column by Elisabeth Eaves, in which she articulates a splendid rule of thumb to use when attempting to sort out whether or not a proposed law should be considered legitimate:
Here’s a good litmus test for whether a Law makes any sense: If the “crime” in question can only be described using the word for an emotion, like “hate” or “phobia,” then we have wandered into thought-police territory.
One could make the argument that something like hatred is immoral, and one could even make the argument that certain forms of irrational fear (e.g. phobias) are immoral as well, or at least have some basis in something else which is immoral (which could include hatred).
But it’s not up to the law to tell us what is and is not moral. And any law which flirts with doing just that is not a law that should be on the books. Ditto any law which attempts to regulate what our hearts and minds think and feel.
(hat tip)
Steynian 319 « Free Canuckistan! (January 31, 2009, 2:52 pm).
[...] HYNEK SAITH: “Mark Steyn draws attention to a column by Elisabeth Eaves, in which she articulates a [...]