Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: THBT hate speech should be a crime

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 18:20, 17 July 2008 (edit)
Vladislav (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:35, 17 July 2008 (edit)
Madi (Talk | contribs)
(No)
Next diff →
Line 44: Line 44:
-About goverment point about laws. In RF now is prohibited to drow svastica and the punishment is 5 prison yaers, but the number of svastica in public places incriced for 1,5%. In France - 2002. Law against h.s. But the number of hate speech increaced in 2 times. In England - 2003. Law against h.s. - increaced in 2 times. LAWS ARE NOT WORKING!!!!! In Wales - no punishment for 10 years In Israel - 1 punishment for 8 years In South Irland - no punisments for 21 year. So, why we need such laws. +About goverment point about laws. In RF now is prohibited to drow svastica and the punishment is 5 prison yaers, but the number of svastica in public places incriced for 1,5%.
 +In France - 2002. Law against h.s. But the number of hate speech increaced in 2 times.
 +In England - 2003. Law against h.s. - increaced in 2 times.
 +The Netherlans - 2004. Law against h.s. - the number of victims increased in 2 times.
 +LAWS ARE NOT WORKING!!!!!
 +In Wales - no punishment for 10 years
 +In Israel - 1 punishment for 8 years
 +In South Irland - no punisments for 21 year.
 + 
 +So, why we need such laws.

Revision as of 19:35, 17 July 2008

Write debate main question here...

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Dear ladies and gentleman!

4 teenagers were arrested for attacking North Koreans and beating them in Vladivostok in December 2006. And it happened because hate speech against other nationalities made the people hostile to foreigners and in the end led to conflicts. According to the professor in international communications in Amsterdam Gees Hamelink: “Genocide never starts with one suddenly deciding to start killing people. The international community must bring perpetrators of hate speech to justice before actual killing takes place”. We fully agree with professor Hamelink that’s why we state resolved that: “Hate speech should be a crime”. Let’s first define the key words: • Hate speech – speech that is intended to insult an individual or group based on their sex, race, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, national and ethic origin, and is intended to convey hatred or contempt. • Hate crime – violence that is motivated by a bias against other races, sexes, handicaps, religions, sexual orientations and ethic origins. Our criterium is: welfare of the society. We want to prove today that if we consider hate speech to be a crime, then we will improve the welfare of the society and we want to prove it by our arguments:

In the first argument we claim that I should consider hate speech to be a crime because it leads to crimes & violent actions.

Yes

It’s easier to prevent a disease, than to cure it. Hate speech in many cases leads to violent actions against minorities, including their killing and also moral and psychological damage. Laws and punishment will prevent such actions. For example in Russia from 2005 – 2007 the number of hate crime increased by 6 times. And it’s only official statistics. Young neofascists organizations proclaim hatred to other nationalities and ethic groups, they wear symbols and special clothing, that unites them; and their hate speeches result in more young people joining these organizations. If we make h.s. a crime, it will prevent them from speaking publicly and it will decrease the number of people who will join such organizations, & it means, we will prevent the increase in hate speech & hate crime. Neofascists not only express their ideas orally, they proceed to violent actions. They beat and even kill foreign and ethnically different students studying in Russia. That’s why nowadays Putin and The government have proposed to introduce longer sentences for such actions and heavier fines for publishing racist and xenophobic material. So, if we decrease the number of hate crimes, we will improve the welfare of the society.





No

About this case I can say that hate speech not always leed to violence actions. As one South African writer said, that it,s beter to give chance to speak, when it's word. If we will prohibite people to say there opinion, to express there emotions in this way it can cause serious problems in future by actions. So, if you give a person chance to say - it's stopes on the level of word. If person safe his opinion, violence in his or her mind - it can and cause harm.


About goverment point about laws. In RF now is prohibited to drow svastica and the punishment is 5 prison yaers, but the number of svastica in public places incriced for 1,5%. In France - 2002. Law against h.s. But the number of hate speech increaced in 2 times. In England - 2003. Law against h.s. - increaced in 2 times. The Netherlans - 2004. Law against h.s. - the number of victims increased in 2 times. LAWS ARE NOT WORKING!!!!! In Wales - no punishment for 10 years In Israel - 1 punishment for 8 years In South Irland - no punisments for 21 year.

So, why we need such laws.





Write Subquestion here...

Yes

H.s. may lead to conflicts and riots and in the end undermine stability in the society. For example in Rwanda, it lead to genocide 13 years ago, when Hutu(majority) killed 800.000 Tutsis in a FEW months. Before it, Hutus & Tutsis had lived in peace, speaking the same language & inter – marrying. Yet hate speech helped turn neighbors into enemies. Media campaign exaggerated their cultural differences. Hutu extremists through radio & TV announced that the Tutsis were subhuman traitors & called them ‘ cockroaches’. As a result, it led to genocide. According to professor Hamelink, if a hate campaign had been stopped at an early stage, future genocide could have been prevented. So, it could have prevented the war & poverty in the country. So we see, as soon as h.s. undermines stability & the welfare of the society, we should criminalize it. According to Rojer Erepa, h.s. does double harm. Firstly, it hurts individuals and groups, leading to physiological and moral damage. Secondly, it damages social and moral structure of the whole society. It’s this double harm that is stressed by the Supreme Court of Canada as s factor, justifying the existence of laws against h.s. in the country. Such laws also exist in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and some other countries. So, if we protect the society from h.s. we will improve the stability of the society.



No

Laws against hate speech can be used in the political sphere. Politics will use such law to stabilize there position in the country. For example: Margaret Tetcher used simular laws to prove her authoritet in her country. It was studential demonstration against she. As a result - 4 students were arested and brought into prison for using HATE SP:EECH. So, why we need law, which is not working, which is used against people. And finally, contradicts WDHR. artical#20 says that each person have right for freedom of speech, expression... . Why we need such law. No answer.

Moreover politics can express there opinion and ideas in different way. For example Meer Kahane in Israel (he is a chairman in congress) exprest his ideas by h.s. But then law - and exprest the same ideas without h.s. So, the result is the same but the source...

So, it wouldn't cause stability in the society.





Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Even such things as computer games, cartoons and so on, if they contain offensive remarks against other groups, may lead hot only to conflicts within the country, but to international ones. For example, such computer games as “Intervention into Iran” and Danish cartoons of the Muhammad led to a new wave of terrorism in Europe. So, if we make h.s. a crime, we can bring tolerance to society. If we avoid such conflicts, we will improve social welfare.




No

Dear Ladies and gentleman. The cartoons and computer games can't be the root cause of terrorist acts. They just wanted reason point which will justify there actions. And it happened. Cartoons were just a point for them.It, s the same that the USA is trying to find nuclear weapon in IRaq. Every bodo know,, that it,s not like that. The same with cartoons. So, hate speech is not a cause of terrorist atacks.





References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.