That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism

Right-wing populist parties, individuals, and activists worldwide are a threat to minorities and to democracies. Side government solves this problem. I think courts should decide if these are right-wing populists using five criteria: 1. Nativism (ie. the scapegoating of immigrants and ethnic minorities) 2. Hostility towards elites (especially institutions like the media and the courts) 3. An accessible or authoritarian approach to law and order 4. A disregard for political correctness and truth 5. A shallow policy agenda designed to appeal to as many people as possible in order to spread their coalition What does it look like - Trump in the US, Duterte in the Philippines, the AFD in Germany. To deal with these individuals and groups, this house would institute a range of restrictions on the free speech of political parties and practice. That goes from shutting down websites and individuals which advocate on their behalfs like Breitbart, not reporting on them in the media or allowing them to speak in town hall events, banning them from social media or in some cases being happy to ban them from contesting elections entirely. That's an extension of the precedent set in the banning of the neo-nazi party in Germany and of states around the world in banning hate speech. It is important to note that while the unique phenomenon of right-wing populism is a problem today were a similar problem to arise with left wing populism I would support this policy there. I have two burdens in this debate: 1. To show you that this policy is justified 2. To show you that this is an effective way of dealing with the danger that right-wing populist present With that in mind, here are my three arguments: 1. I combat the threat to minorities 2. This harms the development of solutions to the problems which lead to right-wing populists coming about at all 3. This is a fundamental affront to democracy Before I move on to my first argument about how I actually combat the threat to minorities, there are two principal parameters within which this debate takes place: 1. That democracy necessitates a balance of Rights. The rights of individuals sometimes contradict each other. For example, my right to wave my wand in the air contradicts my friend's right not to get poked in the eye. I believe that protecting the most vulnerable from physical harm weighs up more than the ability of certain individuals to have freedom of speech. This will be principally dealt with in this argument 2. That democracy can only happen if it's truth led. When you have our anti-truth you forfeit your right to the protection of free speech. That will be dealt with principally in my second round. My first argument which is about how I combat the threat to minority groups. Right-wing populism thrives on riling people up and channelling that anger. That's because right-wing populists are overwhelmingly problem and not solution oriented. This is strategic because it means these parties are able to appeal to diverse coalitions of individuals often with very little in common. For example, someone living in a trailer park in northern Florida has basically nothing in common with a soccer mom living in the Midwest, but they united by being broadly disaffected with the status quo. However. the policy demands of these people economically and socially are very different. Therefore, in order to maintain this populist coalition right-wing populist parties do two things: Firstly, they promise very shallow things - they have very unspecific policies or unsubstantiated catch-all 'magic wand' policies. Secondly, they focus on the problems that their followers face as opposed to the solutions which divide them. In an attempt to flatten the causes of these problems into something can easily be solved they often blame minority groups for all of these issues. That is drug dealers in the Philippines, Mexicans in the US, Moroccans in the Netherlands are blamed for all of the problems which the followers of populist parties face. The reason that blaming minorities leads to increased violence is threefold. The first is that they take the anger that individuals have and they direct it at a minority for a political advantage. This anger goes beyond normal anger because the issues that these individuals are facing every single day suddenly becomes tied to minorities. Secondly, they change permission mechanisms because they make violent and racist views mainstream. That means people think it's okay to be or act racistly because views have been legitimized by others, whether in rallies or in votes. Thirdly, when these populist parties get in power - because they can't implement legitimate policies without alienating a segment of their voter base, they're forced to use discriminatory policies to distract from their failure to solve problems. So Trump is forced to try and implement a Muslim ban to distract from the fact that he can't actually solve the problems that his voters are facing without alienating other parts of his voter base. What are the impacts of this - you create a society where minorities live in fear. Fear of being attacked. Fear of being spat on on their way to school. Fear of not being able to get a job because they're discriminated against in interviews. In extreme cases, their freedom of movement is restricted when they're too afraid to leave their homes. Look, I don't think it's surprising that in the aftermath of the brexit vote hate crimes went up 40%! That during the US presidential election, hate crimes against religious and ethnic minorities went up 41%! That's not surprising, and my policy solves this by reducing the ability of right-wing populist to spread their hatred. My second argument is about how this harms the development of solutions which affect the disaffected. Look, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over some of these issues. I think disenfranchised people's concerns unquestionably should be listened to and there's a conversation that we should have about...for example, how undocumented workers are able to undercut wages. Why does the free speech of right-wing populist actually undermine that debate? Two reasons - first, because it drags politics to the right-wing populist gutter. Right-wing populist try to take chunks out of the voters of centrist parties by doing things like scapegoating minorities. Those centrist parties are therefore forced to move to the right in order to try and keep hold of those voters. The DPP in Denmark was able to pull the Danish Liberal Party right to the point when a party that previously was pro-immigration and asylum seekers ran on a platform of explicitly limiting the number of asylum seekers able to come into that country. The second way that right-wing populists distort politics is they harm the development of solutions. This is a lack of nuance in the language that these politicians use. Populist campaigners use charisma and shocking language to get free airtime and to show themselves to be saying what the people are thinking. Other parties, in order to compete, are forced to also use shock tactics. So One Nation in Australia was able to change the debate on immigration to the point when 'the yellow peril' was a phrase that was actually commonly used. You can't have a proper political debate when the language that you're using is ominous - when you're conflating asylum seekers and refugees and immigrants in a way that only populist parties force politics to do. On my side the house, we're able to escape the noise of populism. We're able to rise above the din, and we're able to have a conversation between centrist politicians which leads to actual, nuanced, legitimate solutions to these problems. In Canada, they were able to have a conversation about immigration free from the noise of populists, which means they were able to impose an immigration policy that is actually fair and that actually helps the individuals on the ground.