Hate Crime Legislation

Thanks to my opponent for an engaging discussion. In this round I will offer a quick summary of what just happened. First, let's look at what pro said:1. ArbitraryMy opponent first tried to say I was only protecting some groups at the expense of others. I responded in round two by saying that my model clearly wasn't. Then he said that in Spain and Sweden, they do things differently. Even if true, this does nothing to rebut my more general proposal. However, by my opponent's own link, the Swedish code includes a provision for any "other circumstance" of the victim, which is precisely what I'm proposing. It was my understanding that the Spanish code was the same as the Swedish.Next my opponent tried to argue that all criminals do crime because they hate some class. This is not always true. We hear all too often of psychopaths who kill not out of hate, but lust or insanity, or something else. Second, he asserts all criminals target based on certain characteristics. I'm afraid to inform you that many criminals do not target. The 9/11 anniversary the other day was a good reminder of that. Many more criminals want to hurt people not because of their circumstances but their individual past actions. For instance, a murderer may want to kill his wife not because he hates all women who cheat, but because that particular woman cheated on him. That's not a hate crime.Lastly, he argued that "Hate crime just changes the basis of what characteristics are right to attack and which ones aren't." Not at all. Assault will always remain a crime. Some assaults are, however, indubitably worse than others. That does not make the less serious assaults "right" - again, my opponent has missed the causal link.2. Litigation CostsFirst he stated that money spent on proving hate could be better spent otherwise. I corrected a minor mistake and pointed out the this money is already being spent, because the prosecution already has to prove the intent in the vast majority of criminal trials. I asked my opponent if he would propose changing criminal law to save some money. He did not respond (so I'm assuming no), but rather accused me of not answering his points. You can't just ignore everything I say and claim I'm not saying anything!He also says that "If the jury sees a defendant on trial, then they might automatically think the person is guilty." They also might think they're innocent. I agree. Jury bias is a big problem. My model won't magically fix every problem in the justice system but it will fix one big problem in society. I call that problem "hate crime."3. False ConvictionThe point here is that some prosecutors are so great they can convict the innocent. This is true. Innocent people are convicted for murder, or any other crime. Should we therefore abolish crime? No. Crime and law enforcement is still important in maintaining our society. So if the possibility for false conviction does not prevent us from having laws against murder, rape and arson, why should the possibility of false conviction prevent us from having laws against hate crime?4. No proof that it worksMy opponent asks for an empirical example, to counter his US-specific example of a single man in Texas being hurt despite hate crime laws (abandoning South Africa, I note, probably on realising that it is a bad example). First, didn't you say the US didn't have any hate crime laws? Second, the US laws are nowhere near as comprehensive as my proposal. The best example is Sweden, where there are laws similar to my proposal, and hate crime has been on a decreasing trend [1].That's everything my opponent tried to tell you. Now let's move on to what I have consistently told you:1. MulticulturalismThis is really what the debate is about. I gave you plenty of solid reasons in round one as to why you need hate crime laws for multiculturalism. This analysis has gone uncontested. My opponent briefly stated that it was just asserted, which would be true if I had stopped at paragraph one - but, if my opponent had bothered to read any further, he would have noticed that I added analysis under the point of "multiculturalism" a few paragraphs later. Then in round two I told you why multiculturalism is so good, rebutting my opponent's view that it wasn't.All that he still argued, in the face of my comprehensive analysis, is two problems. First, he says it's not really multicultural if enforced. Even if true, I told you last round that it still prevents a serious harm - people beating others up because they're "different." I also disputed my opponent's narrative of a "thought experiment" before he actually did it, wherein I argued that diverse groups eventually compromise and learn to live together. Once, Asians and Maori were treated very poorly by settler colonials in New Zealand. I believe the story is similar with the American Indians. Now, we have compromised and live together much more peacefully. Whichever narrative you buy, however, I still win the point because either way the harm of people hurting each other is removed.Lastly he notes "his justification for hate-crime legislation is to control people’s speech to create multiculturalism." That's the argument my third point deals with. Asserting it here makes it no more valid.2. SocietyLet's go through this one backwards, just for fun. Lastly, I told you genocide can happen. Con told you genocides happen through governments. No, they happen by people, spurred on by hate, spurred on by governments. If you make the hate a crime, you therefore entirely prevent genocide. If you legalise it, as I told you in round one, you're one step away from genocide.Secondly, I told you hate crime prevents the crime before it happens. My opponent had no response to this point.Firstly, I said it discourages would-be hate criminals. My opponent said that we make scapegoats for ourselves. Wonderful argument. I agree. The difference is in whether we murder those scapegoats or live on happily without committing any crimes. I'd prefer the latter option. The point is that while you have proved hate will remain, I have proved hate-crime will go away.He did not otherwise engage with my points about backlash or media control.3. Free SpeechMy opponent now says that defamation should be banned (which, by the way, it blatantly is in the United States [2]). In doing so he is going against the unanimous judgement of his own supreme court [3] which found penalty-enhancing laws such as my proposal to be constitutional. He is also going against one of the oldest and most well-supported crimes in the world. Even so, I've already told you this debate is only about hate crime law. Even if it's not (check the motion, it blatantly is) then I've already told you the massive social harms not having defamation can bring, back in round one. No rebuttal was given to this analysis, therefore it stands.Then he cites my earnest view that "people do in fact have the right to state false things." Yes, but not when those things cause massive social harms. That's the real test, as I told you last round, not the falsifiability. You'll note that my opponent had no answer to this analysis. While we're on the subject, my opponent still has no answer to my claim that no expression is in fact prevented, only the manner of expression.ConclusionEvery culture benefits. Society benefits. Free speech is practically uninhibited. My opponent has been unable to point to any real problems with my model. That is why I win the debate. That is why you should vote pro.Sources1 - http://www.thelocal.se...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...