Hate Crime Legislation

Ladies and gentlemen, we live in an age where society is becoming increasingly integrated and multicultural. This is a more tolerant and liberal era than any in human history - in most of the world, people of every nationality, religion, age, gender, gender identity, sexual identity, language and social status are not only accepted, but valued. On side affirmative, I contest that this is a very good thing. This is for two reasons - first, freedom is at the heart of democracy, which is fundamental to our political reality. Second, it makes people happy. It ensures their fundamental human right to self-expression. These are self-evident verities that I doubt my opponent will contest.What kind of legislation are we talking about here? We're talking about laws such as the Spanish and Swedish Penal Codes, which increase sentences if the crime was done on the basis of bias against the victim's circumstances. We're talking about laws like the Kazakhstani constitution, which prohibits propaganda promoting ethnic superiority. We're about US laws such as the Matthew Shepard Act, which makes hate crime an aggravation in any circumstance [1]. I will openly admit that hate crime isn't a big problem that needs to be solved right now. Not banning hate crime, however, will undo the good work we have done in establishing our multicultural society.Where do we draw the line? The line is drawn at the point of fact. If hate towards a particular group aggravated an attack, or caused one to utter hate speech, then that should at the least be taken into consideration by the courts. However, if I say "white people aren't as good as black people at running" then that is simply a statement of fact (if you look at the men's 100M Olympic finals over the past century). Even if the fact is misinformed, the point is that I did not intend to promote the inferiority of white people, but rather summarise what I knew about Olympic athletics. As with any criminal trial, consideration must be given to the Mens Rea.In order to win this debate, my opponent needs to prove to you that hate crime legislation, a fact under the status quo, is actually causing some harm to our society. My opponent must then show that this harm would not exist without hate crime legislation. Additionally, he must show that this harm outweighs the numerous benefits I will bring you. My burden of proof is to undermine my opponent's problems and show why anti-hate-crime laws are vital to our tolerant society.1. Importance to multiculturalismThe mechanism by which anti-hate-crime legislation works to ensure multiculturalism is three-fold. First, it acts as a counterincentive to people's natural xenophobia and thus ensures people's fear of foreigners does not translate into higher crime rates when people immigrate there. For instance, people will be more likely to think twice about how they phrase messages that they graffiti if it can yield higher penalties. Second, it encourages foreigners to move there. When people in Turkey see that France has an anti-hate-crime policy, they are more likely to want to move to France. This potentially means more foreigners in France, creating multiculturalism and normalising the Turkish culture in French society. Third, it fixes the double standard by the government that I alluded to earlier. Democratic governments are based around being able to take any idea to the legislature with a fair and equal process. When participants in this process are allowed to discriminate, the process is no longer democratic.2. Benefit to societyEven if multiculturalism is not a good thing, it is the reality we live in. Taking away a policy of supporting multiculturalism ensures society is able to be fractured along ethnic, religious, sexual etc lines. Persecuted groups become angry at perceived injustices, dehumanisation and degradation. History shows us that this is a recipe for disaster. Hate crime polarises our communities in three ways. First, it legitimises ideas about society to the people that commit it. If the KKK is legal and conducts ceremonies, members of the KKK will strengthen their belief that black people should be lynched. Second, in hurting others, hate crime has the ability to breed resentment and possibly retaliation. For instance, after the KKK goes around lynching some blacks, black people might rise up and seek to attack known KKK members. Third, when these messages are legal, it becomes more likely that the media will report on them. The reason the media doesn't tell you what the latest KKK propaganda campaigns are is that the KKK is taboo. By legitimising the group to the eyes of the media, you help spread their polarising messages to new audiences. What does this lead to? Essentially, we jump straight to step five of the genocide scale of Gregory Stanton [3].3. Why this is a justifiable limitation on free speechHate speech is classed by every western country (save for the United States) as a crime under the status quo [2]. I'm going to argue what it seems everybody in the world (except the US Supreme Court) can see - that this is a legitimate time to restrict people's free speech. Let us take a typical example of hate speech - "The Japanese Are EVIL! Invade Them!" - and replace the subject with some random person - "Mr. Nayamoto Is Possessed By Satan!". Now, Mr. Nayamoto is probably going to sue me after this debate, for I have committed the crime of defamation (funnily enough, against the law in the United States). Defamation is almost universally considered to be a classic reason for restricting free speech. In this sense, hate speech is doing nothing different. The difference is that whereas defamation protects people against lies told about them, hate speech protects people against others inciting hate crimes against them. What makes it a justifiable limitation, however, is in the reasoning. The reason for defamation crimes is to protect people from others who may buy in to the defamatory material. It is significantly harmful to the individual because they have no control over it. Hate speech, however, conforms to exactly this line of reasoning. The reason for anti-hate-speech law is to protect people from others who may buy in to the hateful material. It is significantly harmful because they have no control over their sexual identity, age, ethnicity and so on.Even if they did have control, however, the speech must actually be hateful. In this way no group is actually prevented from stating their point. It's perfectly okay to make an economic argument for why Mexicans should not be hired in Arizona, for instance. That's different from inciting others to hate Mexicans, but rather to not hire them. This is good, because it fosters intelligent debate and allows Mexicans to respond without having people torch their houses. It also encourages hate groups to use their freedom of speech more intelligently rather than appeal to emotional arguments about racial superiority.With that said, I look forward to reading my opponent's opening statement, and wish him the best of luck for the debate.References-1 - list of hate crime laws: http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...