Hate Crime Legislation

I reject the premise that I need to prove that hate crime legislation causes more harm then good. First, the burden of proof is equal. He has to prove that hate crime legislation benefits society and I have to prove that it harms society. I will show that hate crime legisation is unjustified, counteproductivce, and is a waste of money. 1) Protected classes are arbitrary: Justifies hating certain people Why would a person commit violent crimes against a person? Well, it’s because he or she hates the person. This is obvious. However what hate crime legislation states is that you can get charged with harsher penalities and another crime, based on the arbitrary reason why you hate the person. Why should it matter why you hate the person? One is charged with a hate crime If he or she attacks a person based on If the person is part of a protected class. However, these protected classes are arbitrary. For example some places contain protected class based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or political affiliation. Other places exclude other protected classes. But what does it mean to be a protected class? It means that If you assault the person then If you hate the person based on X, then you should be charged with a hate crime. If you hate a person that is not a protected class, then you just only get arrested for assault. For example, let’s say a person hates a person from the following groups: fat people, skinny people, flat-chested, ugly people, beautiful people, etc. and decides to punch a person that belongs to this group, then he or she is just charged with assault. However If a person hates a person based on race, or gender then the person is charged with a hate crime and is charged with a second offense and harsher crime. Why? In both scenarios the person is assaulted for something that he or she cannot control. Assaulting and attacking a person is a crime within itself. It’s a horrible crime. That’s why a person should be arrested and convicted for the assault itself, not why he or she committed the assault. Through such an arbitrary system, hate crime legisation only legitamizes hating certain attributes, people and not others. This is unjustified, and counterproductive. 2) Waste of litigation resources If, for example, a straight person is arrested for punching a homosexual, then he or she must not only defend him or herself from the assault charges, but also the hate crime charges. So this means that the person has to prove that he or she hit the person, not because he or she was a homosexual, but for another reason. Obviously, trying to defend against a hate crime charge is a more difficult task, since proving motive is difficult. The person could even actually plead guilty to assault, but not guilty to the hate crime charges, just exacerbating the trial process. . This is a waste of time and money. The state could use the resources in much better ways: Balancing the budget, improving infrastructure, etc. 3) Wrong Conviction Let’s say I punch a black person, but only punched the person because he was fat. Now I am unfairly getting charged with a hate crime, when the only reasons I punched the person was because he was fat, not black. 4) No proof that it works Does hate crime legislation mke us less likley to hate certain groups? There is insufficient proof. For exaple, evevn though South Africa has hate crime legislation, lesbians are raped by homophobic groups[1]. Rebuttal: 1) Forced multiculturalism is morally wrong As stated earlier, hate crime legislation doesn't stop hate, but only makes certain forms of hate and discrimination more 'acceptable' then others. All violent crimes should be punished. My opponent states that his policies will encourage immigration, yet provides no proof that immigration is inherently good. I reject the premise that multiculturalism is innately good. Societies have different forms of value and belief systems. If groups of people with different values and belief systems come together, the result is disastrous and conflict. For example, one culture does not believe that property rights should exisit while another group does, is that really a good idea? Second, Is society really better off If we are forced to like one another? If both group hates enough, but is afraid to say anything, are they better off? No, they are not. It would be better if the groups lived segregated from one another, since they would both be happier, rather than living a lie of multiculturalism and become worse off. My opponent believes that through controlling certain thoughts, socially desirable results can occur. Let's say multicultralism is good. Should we then make it acceptable to then prevent political beliefs. Religous people are more likley to give[2], should we then force people to be religious? A nation should accept multiculturalism If it’s citizens are ready to accept multiculturalism, not forced through its throats through legislation. 2) Does not Benefit society: PRO uses a slippery slope fallacy. First, legalizing an idea does not legitimate the ideas. If I believe that “2+2 =5”, the speech is legal yet certainly not legitimate and I will only be ridiculed. Likewise, a racist living in an integrated world will likely not be taken seriously. While there are members on DDO that have racist attitudes, this has not spiraled into a racist community. The KKK still exists in the United States, yet the US has not spiraled into a racist society and elected a black president. Second, my opponent states that if the KKK lynches, then others might retaliate. However lynching and violence is a crime within itself. Needing addition legislation so that it is a greater punishment to lynch certain groups but not others only makes it more acceptable to hurt other people like the overweight, socially awkward people, etc. Third my opponent states that “The reason the media doesn't tell you what the latest KKK propaganda campaigns are is that the KKK is taboo. ” My opponent contradicts himself in two ways. First, hate speech is legal in the US. Second, notice that my opponent states its because “the KKK is taboo” not because “it is illegal”. Thus natural order prevents this. 3. Why this isn’t a justification of limited speech My opponent states that “Mr. Nayamoto Is Possessed By Satan! " is a form of defamation and one should be sued for this action. However, there are many problems with this. For one, this statement is unfallsifiable, so it is impossible to know If the statement is indeed false. Likewise the statement “Japanese are evil” is subjective and depending on what one considers evil, could be true. If one believes that eating meat is evil. The Japanese eat meat, and through extension, are evil. Through Con’s own standard stating that “My. Nayamoto is an Angel” or “The Japaneese are good” should both be liable, since these are both possibly false statement. The current and past presidents of the United States can be quoted as evil, yet none of these websites are liable for defamation. My opponent believes that such statements will cause people to believe the statements to be true. Yet a person maintains their right to believe claims to be true or false. Nobody forces one to believe a statement to be true. Second, If a person starts spreading hateful statements with dubious proof, then the person tends to be disliked, and is naturally punished. Punishing speech through whether they speak ill about one another is wrong since it violates basic freedom of speech. If it is illegal to state that “The Japanese are evil” is it then wrong to state that certain figures or people are evil? Is it then wrong to crititize others? Can no acts be considered evil? Should it only be legal to say "nice" stuff about others? This is what PRO implies. . http://www.reuters.com...[1] . http://www.hoover.org...[2]