Hate Crime Legislation

First I will very quickly deal with my opponent's points, which unfortunately were largely based on a misunderstanding of the law and my model. Then I'll work my way through my points, where my opponent made some more interesting responses.1. ArbritraryMy opponent has a warped view of hate crime law. Many fat people are not fat by choice. Most hot people are not hot by choice. If I commit a crime against these groups on the basis of one of their circumstances, that's an example of a hate crime. Most of my cited examples from round one will cover all of these bases. My model (as defined in my third paragraph, round one) takes every group into account, not an arbritrary selection. Therefore this claim, while perhaps problematic for some jurisdictions (such as your own, with the Matthew Shepard Act), is not problematic for my much broader model of taking all hate crime into consideration. He also says it's not about the reason. First, yes it is. All criminal law is based on proving both the crime and the reason [3]. Second, yes it should, because particular reasons cause massive social harms. I've outlined these at length. For more details see my substantive points.2. Waste of litigation resourcesIt is not the defendant that needs to prove motive, but the prosecution [3]. This is already the case for the vast majority of criminal offences. If you propose changing all criminal law just so that you can reject the motion, then I'd like to hear your counter-model.3. Wrong ConvictionHow do you prove it was a hate crime? You look at the intention, as I said. That is normal practice for all criminal law, as I said. This argument appears to be nothing more than a summary of your previous two arguments. If it isn't, please clarify.4. No proof that it worksErr . .. what about all my analysis! ? His sole source is South Africa, which doesn't have enforced hate crime legislation [2]. Obviously my model won't achieve anything if not enforced, but worse still is if justice against hate criminals is not able to be enforced because there is no legislation. Now on to my points. ..1. MulticulturalismMy opponent accepts that hate crime legislation is good for multiculturalism, but rejects that multiculturalism is good. My opponent has three objections. First, he says other hate is legitimised. No, hate towards Bengal Tigers is not increased by increasing sentences for beating someone on the basis of their skin color. My opponent does not show the causal link. Second, that different groups with incompatible views cause conflict. Naturally, some groups don't like each other. The good thing is, however, that with hate crime law they won't kill each other. I think people will come to like each other over time, make concessions and eventually compromise, but even if they don't, hate crime law helps prevent a serious harm. Third, that we are no better off if we can't voice our hate. Actually, we are. Me not being able put up a cool billboard saying "Kill Transgendered People! " makes transgendered people a lot better off. I do not advocate controlling thoughts. People have freedom of conscience, and I respect that. Hate crime legislation ensures nobody is afraid to exercise their equally-important right to freedom of expression, religion, and so forth. It does not mean I will not think a religion is bad, but it might mean I don't go blowing up their house of worship. Thinking will never be a crime under my model, but wrongful action based on certain beliefs will. My opponent also does not contest the self-evident veritable good side of multiculturalism I said in paragraph one. First, it is inherant to democracy. Second, it is vital for social happiness. Unless these are fully rebutted, multiculturalism is good.2. Social BenefitFirst, the legality of certain groups does not increase the size of those groups. I agree. I don't think everyone will hate gays and blacks without hate crime legislation. I do think, however, that hate crime laws lessen the resolve of those people who do subscribe to those views to commit terrible crimes against these helpless marginalised groups. Increasing sentences will discourage criminals. My opponent has not really engaged with that point. Second, while lynching is a crime, once it has been committed the harm has been done. Hate crime legislation prevents a major mechanism that incites people to commit such heinous offences. If you'd like to see the rate of such terrible crimes increase, vote con. I reject that because of hate crime legislation, fat people etc are targeted for lynching under the status quo. I showed you, clearly, why retailatory crimes increase without hate crime laws. Third, in my opponent's country hate crime may be unconstitutional (but defamation is legal, creating a double standard) but ibn the United States, there are strong media restrictions on broadcasting hate speech [1]. Second, my argument is precisely that the KKK is taboo BECAUSE it is illegal. Finally, without analysis, my opponent claims "natural order" prevents genocide. Oh, that worked so well for Rwanda, right?3. Why this is a justified limitation on speechMy opponent's argument here is absolutely wonderful. The only little problem - it's an argument not against hate crime legislation, but against defamation legislation. All I had to prove was that the two crimes were fixing the same social harm. This isn't a debate about defamation, which is already well-accepted in our society. This is a debate about whether hate crime legislation is justified, in particular, whether such restrictions on free speech are valid. Even if we were to reject the premise that defamation is good, it is still a double standard of governments to accept defamation and reject hate crime. My opponent offers no response to this, the crux of my case. That, rather than pandering to certain groups, is the reason why it is justified. Then he makes the beside-the-point case that though justified, the law is unjust. He says it's unfalsifiable. Even if true, why does this validate your right to speak? Have we no right to speak falsifiable things? Can scientists be jailed for making a hypothesis? This is a stupid test for determining what we can and cannot say. The real test, as I told you, was the third-party harms directly caused by our words. I described at length the mechanism by which that works. My opponent does not engage with this lengthy analysis. That's my standard, as I actually directly told you, not the fact we're making judgements about others. He also says I'm restricting the freedom to choose to hate. No, people still have that choice under my model. I'm just restricting the advertising of hate (on that note, advertising standards in most countries don't allow hate speech either). He also doesn't respond to how I described alternative ways of stating the same point, and the social benefits thereof. Finally he asks "is it then wrong to state that certain figures or people are evil? " Yes, that's called defamation. That's what this whole case was based on. That proves my opponent doesn't understand the argument. In conclusion. .. Because I have shown you that multiculturalism is pretty cool, and because I have shown why there are more horrible crimes without hate crime laws, for worse reasons, and because it fixes the double-standard with defamation, and because my opponent has raised no other problems with the societies which, under the status quo, have similar laws, I believe my burden of proof has been met. None of my opponent's harms stand, my benefits do, I am therefore most proud to affirm. I look forward to the final round. Sources1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://lezgetreal.com...3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...