We must resist the attempts of gay activists to restrict our freedom of expression

It saddens me to see this resolution today and it saddens me more to know that this section of the bill was not passed. Let me begin by destroying my opponent's case with language from the bill itself; "In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred." http://www.opsi.gov.uk... My opponent's fallacious argument relies on the opinions and worries of those who have not read the bill. Frankly I do not appreciate that my opponent is trying to sabotage this bill with the opinion's of comedians. I would like to begin by talking about the immediate need for action to protect the gay community. The only countries that identify hate crimes based on sexual orientation are Canada, the US and Sweden. In Sweden, hate crimes based on sexual orientations are the second most common in the country, accounting for 21% compared to the 12% of hate crimes spurred by religious discrimination. Perhaps one of the most terrifying statistics come from the United States, where a homosexual is 850 times more likely to the victim of a hate crime than a heterosexual person. The United States is one of the worst places in the the Western to live if you are a homosexual, second only maybe to the United Kingdom. This evidence is a shocking illustration of why action must be taken -now.- I think it is immediately apparent as soon as one reads the bill that my opponent is, in fact, opposing these same rights that are already in place for minorities and religious groups. My opponent's argument therefore reads, incorrectly, that it is okay to give up free speech to protect religious denominations and ethnic minorities, but not homosexuals. That, in my opinion, is nothing short of disgusting. To have someone say that every single majority and minority in the nation is better than the gay community makes me nauseous. What's more is that my opponent is basing this on a faulty presupposition. He is making the claim that our free speech must be sacrificed for this bill to pass, which is inherently false. With the forgiveness of everyone reading this debate, I will illustrate an important point; Nigger. It's a foul, dirty and unpleasant word that demeans every person in the world. It is one of the last remaining phrases on earth that inspires cringing amongst the general public. That being said; IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. One is well within their rights to say it. What's more, one is permitted to use it in even more horrible contexts. One may say that ethnic minorities deserved to be deported or punished, which is the type of vitriol that the insufferable Nick Grffin has spewed. However, he is not imprisoned right now. Why is that? It is because he still has freedom of speech, despite hate crime legislation that, by opponent's definition, should make his platform illegal. However, he makes sure to never directly incite violence against minorities or immigrants. That is to say that if he got up in front of his supporters and instructed them to lynch every immigrant, he would be tried with the hate crimes bill. It is a brilliant way to stop atrocities before they begin. I refuse to see exactly how this will infringe on my opponent's free speech, unless of course he intends to instruct people to attack homosexuals. Considering that my opponent is a well-intentions, if misguided, person, I sincerely doubt he would incite violence. Furthermore, since my opponent's debate that is in question merely is discussing an issue and not inciting violence, it would be not only permissible by British law but encouraged as a means of public discussion. I would also wonder about the anecdotal evidence of one Lord's grandmummy be visited by the big bad police in regards to the hate crimes bill, even when my opponent has admitted that it is not now, nor will it be in the foreseeable future, made into law. So were the police investigating the crime with the assumption that it would become law? I think this is a little misdirection on the part of my opponent. Let me put these ideas in context. Here in Canada, we have arguably more anti- hate speech legislation than anywhere else in the world. This includes anyone who can be distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. This has led to a protection of all of these equally. We do not try people more for advocating violence against gays as we would try someone who is suggesting violence against Jews. I would like to conclude my remarks by imploring my opponent to drop the childish term 'militant gay activist.' With all due respect, of which you have not given me, you sound like a child. A person of you intellect should know not to create hyperbolic scarecrows to conjure up the image of the big bad gays, coming to steal all your freedoms. While many of us due look rather cute in uniform, I assure you we have no plans to take over the United Kingdom other than to ensure that we receive the same rights that you do. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.opsi.gov.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.statcan.gc.ca... (pdf) http://www.religioustolerance.org...