query: Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.  Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one.  Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society.  In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.

positive: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech It is simply unfair to ask people to be the victims in a societal experiment on the basis that it will all be okay in the end. In a context like this the language used is not only offensive but also threatening. This legislation may not be great constitutional theory but provides very real protection of people’s safety and quality of life.  In addition to which, homophobia long enjoyed the sanction and protection of the state it is interesting that when that is reversed just a little it becomes an assault on free speech.

negative: The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.  Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.  A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.  With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]  So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.  [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  , accessed 08/14/2011

negative: ethics life house believes right die Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.  When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people [i] . It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing.  Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments.  However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice.  The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans.  [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify A ban will further marginalise young members of impoverished communities  Hip hop is an extremely diverse musical genre. Surprisingly, this diversity has evolved from highly minimal series of musical principles. At its most basic, raping consists of nothing more than rhyming verses that are delivered to a beat. This simplicity reflects the economically marginalised communities that hip hop emerged from. All that anyone requires in order to learn how to rap, or to participate in hip hop culture, is a pen, some paper and possibly a disc of breaks – the looped drum and bass lines that are used to time rap verses. Thanks to its highly social aspect, hip hop continues to function as an accessible form of creative expression for members of some of impoverished communities in both the west and elsewhere in the world.  Point 7 suggests that free speech flourishes when we respect believers but are not forced to respect their beliefs. Free Speech Debate discusses this principle in the light of religious belief and religious expression. However, it is also relevant when we consider how our appraisal of an individual’s background, culture and values affects our willingness to accept or dismiss what she says.  The positive case for banning- or at least condemning- hip hop often rests on its ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes of impoverished and marginalised communities that are propagated by majority communities. Critics of hip hop note that black men have often been stigmatised as violent, uncivilised and predatory. They claim that many hip hop artists cultivate a purposefully brutal and misogynist persona. The popularity of hip hop reflects the acceptance of this stereotype, and further entrenches discrimination against young black men. This line of thinking portrays hip hop artists as betrayers or exploiters of their communities, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and convincing adolescents that a violent rejection of mainstream society is a way to achieve material success.  Arguments of this type fail to recognise the depth of nuance and meaning that words and word-play can convey. They are predicated on an assumption that the consumers of hip hop engage with it in a simplistic and uncritical way. In short, such arguments see hip hop fans as being simple minded and easily influenced. This perspective neglects the “recognition respect”, the recognition of equality and inherent dignity that is owed to all contributors of a debate. Moreover, it also bars us from properly assessing the “appraisal respect” owed to the content of hip hop and other controversial musical genres. When hip hop is seen as being inherently harmful, and as being targeted at an especially impressionable and vulnerable part of society, we both demean members of that group and prevent robust discussion of rap lyrics themselves. Academics such as John McWhorter see only the advocacy of violence and nihilism in lyrics such as  “You grow in the ghetto, living second rate/ and your eyes will sing a song of deep hate”.  But these are words that can also be interpreted as astute observation on the brutality that is bred by social exclusion. In point of fact, there is little in the previous verse, or those that follow it,  “You’ll admire all the numberbook takers/ thugs, pimps and pushers, and the big money makers”,  that could be interpreted as permitting, popularising or endorsing violence. That is, unless the individual reading the verse had already concluded that its intended audience lacked his own critical perspective and understanding of social norms and values.  Even if an observer were ultimately conclude that a particular hip hop track had no redeeming value, a broad interpretation of point 7 suggests that he should, at the very least, credit its artists and listeners with a modicum of intelligence and reflectiveness. When we approach music with a custodial mind-set, determined to protect young listeners from what we see as harm or exploitation, we prevent those individuals from access a form of speech that may be the only affordable method of expression open to them.  Just as we allow individuals the right to be heard in a language of their choosing (see point 1), we should also accept that perspectives from marginalised communities may not appear in a conventional form. Under these circumstances, it would be dangerous for us to curtail and marginalise a form of speech geared toward discussing the problems faced by impoverished young people that has, against the odds, penetrated the mainstream. We are likely to deepen existing prejudices by viewing rappers and their fans as infantile, impressionable and in need of protection.

negative: Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field  People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] .  Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process.  [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011.

negative: A one way street  Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant.  Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence [i] , the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed.  Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction.  For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers [ii] , could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives.  The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue [iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all.  If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.  Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration.  [i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009.  [ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037.  [iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.

negative: ‘It will come out eventually’  Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. That does, of course, raise the issue of who writes the final draft. On the basis that historians still argue about the events of centuries and millennia ago, the notion of a final draft may be absurd; however conclusions will be drawn at some point. Politicians trying to hold back historical judgement is a little like trying to hold back the tide, even if the facts are not all available the void will be filled with speculation to explain the gap.  Ultimately information will emerge and will be assessed. The question seems to be when that should take place. Those states that make use of a ‘thirty year rule’ or something similar to protect particular documents such as cabinet minutes do so to allow the free exchange of ideas in the present. [i] Such a length of time seems sufficient to let politicians and civil servants operate without endlessly focussing on their legacies.  However, beyond that trying to control the assessment of history seems to be an exercise in futility. Even the deepest, darkest secrets tend to be extrapolated when they’re not demonstrated. Imprisoning historians and banning things only tends to confirm the view that they were right and there is something damning being hidden. Ultimately, it’s self-defeating.  [i] BBC News, ‘Secret papers face faster release’, 29 January 2009,

negative: Freedom of religious observance  Most cultures respect the right of adults to practice the religious observances of their choosing and to raise their children within that tradition. The prohibition of blood transfusion is a part of the observances of JWs and is worthy of the respect that might be expected of other religiously motivated decisions.  There are other religious observances that have medical implications, for example the rejection of certain vaccines, but society accepts that it is appropriate for parents to inculcate their children with the values in the practical outworking of their faith [i] .  The refusal to accept blood products may seem reckless to outsiders but there is no suggestion that parents take their decision lightly; it would be difficult to conceive of how they would do so. What then is the alternative? Allowing the state to sanction which religions are acceptable or which practices of those religions? Such an act would strike not only at the freedom of religious practice but at the very principle of freedom of conscience more generally. If the state can challenge these views because it does not like the consequences, then why not social or political opinions? This is the first step on a road to tyranny.  [i] Jennifer Steinhauer. New York Times. Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines. 21 March 2008.

negative: Blasphemy a free expression  Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion.  Blasphemy occupies a distinctly different position in public debate and discussion than civil, respectful discourse about religion. The forms of blasphemy law that were maintained in the legal systems of western liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century criminalised only the most extreme and intentionally provocative forms of religious expression – images of religious figures involved in humiliating or sexualised scenarios; statements about a religion that amounted to hate speech; and words that were intended to mislead and deceive the naïve, credulous or doubting. The English blasphemy case of R v Boulter drew on the conclusions of the sixth report of the commissioners on criminal law, which had observed that a criminal charge could only arise when “irreligion” took the form of an “insult to God and man”. The judge in the case remarked that “if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked with tout the writer being guilty of blasphemy.”  Ruling in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon, heard in 1977, a senior English judge remarked that blasphemous libel, although thought to have fallen into disuse and irrelevance remained useful in safeguarding “the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.” This principle appears to be an antecedent to the public order justification for hate speech legislation – speech that spurs people to commit violent or disruptive acts should be curtailed to protect public safety. That case restated the idea that “It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent in temperate language.”  This is the sense in which the proposition side will discuss the term “blasphemous”. The proposition side does not intend to limit free speech, but has every intention of ensuring that free speech is not undermined or delegitimised by allowing the unobstructed broadcasting of hateful and provocative statements. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, socially valuable ideas may emerge and concerns that might otherwise be hidden can be expressed. By contrast, language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to any wider exchange of ideas and concerns. Blasphemy does not appeal to reason, and by being directly exclusionary and offensive, it limits that ability of believers and non-believers to engage in structured debate.

negative: y free speech debate free know house believes western universities ‘Separation of town and gown’  There are two parties involved in this interaction, the state and the university. To pretend that is an entirely one way process is to ignore reality. Contrary to the belief of many Senior Common Rooms, states do not exist for the convenience of universities. Indeed universities quite happily accept the political and economic stability provided by states at exactly the same time as criticising the methods they need to use to maintain it.  However, ultimately universities are service providers from the point of view of the state, training and skilling the workforce. The university provides its expertise in exchange for funding and student fees. Where, exactly, the opinions of the faculty enter into such an equation is not clear and appears to have been assumed by proposition. Of course individual academics and students have the right to their own political views but the idea that a university as an institution has rights distinct from, say, a supermarket chain is impossible to justify. If a supermarket announced that it should be free to ignore local laws and adopt those of its base state instead, that would clearly be rejected. Just as when a food chain invests in a country for, say, beef, the arrangement is predicated on the understanding that both parties benefit and each has a little room for negotiation. [i] The same should apply here. If prop were to argue that Asian nations should relax there approach to cannabis so that it students could enjoy a more genuine ‘Western student experience’ the statement would be the subject of ridicule, so should this be.  [i] Smith, David, ‘Tesco should give us some of these billions’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2009,

negative: Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable  Banning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage.  Appearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands.  This ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people.  [1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011,   [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012,

negative: crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender  Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons. [1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole.  [1] Women in Prison. Statistics. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Women in Prison .

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] .  [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011,  on 16/09/11  [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010,  on 16/09/2011.  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011,  on 09/09/11

negative: computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join Facebook encourages socialisation  One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems.  Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1)  Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2)  (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012   (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012

negative: The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped  The internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information. [1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised. [2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks.  [1] Gross, Doug, ‘What the Internet is hiding from you’, CNN, 19 May 2011.  [2] Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M., ‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence’. JPSP, 1979, no.37, pp.2098-2109. Summary from faculty.babson.edu.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify It is usually the task of movie classification organisations such as the MPAA and the British Board of Film Certification to judge whether the content of a film should be cut or altered. In most cases these groups will be politically independent, but may be politically appointed. They will make the decision to cut content based partly on the criteria described above. A movie will only be censored if it contains shocking or offensive images used in a way that suggests that violence is glamorous, entertaining or without consequences.  There is a broad consensus in western liberal democracies on what constitutes a highly shocking or offensive image. For example, in even the most permissive societies, open and public images of sexual intercourse would be considered problematic. Similarly, graphic depictions of violence against vulnerable individuals would be open to wide condemnation. The thing that unifies each of these categories of image is that they can be easily understood and interpreted by the majority of people. Even a casual observer can understand that pornography is pornography. This is part of the reason why some states try to control extreme images – because they are both powerful and emotive, and easy to produce, display and distribute.  However, music and lyrics are different from images. Language contains a degree of abstraction, depth and nuance that only the most unconventional (and non-commercial) film could replicate. This is problematic, because it is much harder for censors and members of the general public to agree on an exact definition of an offensive statement or form of words. Complex legal processes are used to determine whether or not offensive statements are sufficiently offensive to be classed as hate crimes. Even more complex are the legal procedures used to determine when an individual’s reputation has been damaged by allegations published in books or periodicals.  It will be much harder for ratings or certification boards to decide when a particular song is violent or offensive due to the range of meanings and ambiguities that are built into language. For example, the verse  “Got a temper nigga, go ahead, lose your head/ turn your back on me, get clapped and lose your legs/ I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder/ ‘til I bust a clip in your face, pussy, this beef ain’t over,”  can either be seen as a series of boastful threats, delivered directly by the musician, but it could also be reported speech – a lot of hip hop music is based on narratives or performer’s accounts of past events. It could also be intended to invite condemnation of the behaviour of the character that the speaker has assumed. Hip hop artists frequently use alternative personas and “casts” of characters to add depth to the narrative dimension of their tracks.  Under these circumstances, the process of classifying and censoring potentially violent lyrics is likely to become laborious. More important than the expense that this process will entail is the possibility that the chilling effect of a prolonged classification process will cause music publishers to stop promoting hip hop, metal and other genres linked with violent imagery. Lack of funds will curtail innovation and diversity in these genres.

negative: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist It is simplistic to assume that the problems women face now, are the same that they faced in the 1920’s. All they have in common is that, in some sense, women are used for men’s ends. In the 1920’s it was primarily as housewives, but now, it is as sexual objects. The kinds of images of women employed in advertisement and most kinds of media testify to this, and in pornography these views are expressed in a particularly forceful way.  Furthermore, it is a misconception to say that pornography can lead to revolutionary gender stereotypes when fundamentally it depends on stereotypes, the sexy teacher/nurse/friends’ mother being common themes. Through pornography, the best women can achieve is to jump through one label to another. Why? Because it is an industry fundamentally controlled by men, for men.  As a result, furthermore, there can be no self-expression when you are doing what a director (often male) tells you to do.  Even if the feminist movement has in fact succeeded in promoting their values in a portion of pornographic films, this will have no effect if people do not watch it. There is nothing to indicate that soft, female-friendly pornography will be more appealing to men than what is currently all over the net: over 100,000 sites offer illegal child pornography, and over 10,000 hard-core pornography films are released every year and the numbers increase exponentially (Techmedia Network). [1]  [1] Techmedia Network. Internet Pornography Statistics. TopTenReviews, n.d.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Hate speech  The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it.  The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years.  Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups.  Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces.  Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities.  It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms.  [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012.  [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.

negative: nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.  The role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest [i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship.  Many perceive commonly held positions in the mainstream churches – let alone more extreme sects – to be offensive or reactionary and, in some cases, a cover for homophobic, illiberal or sexist opinions.  If religious opinion is to be granted this airtime for the benefit of a small, if vocal, minority then it seems both unfair and unprofessional for that broadcaster to be constrained by that groups views in relation to the rest of its output.  The BBC, like most major broadcasters, meets the challenge of divergent or conflicting views by providing some output that is considered likely to be of interest to each viewpoint.  [i] National Secular Society. Press Release: “BBC Must Not Become the Evangelical Wing of the Church of England.” 9 February 2010.

negative: Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.  Asha Jennings began a boycott of misogynistic music in hip-hop, resulting in the 'take back the music' campaign supported by essence magazine. Jennings claims that this type of rap/ hip hop music is 'telling people [black women] are bitches and hos and sluts and not worthy of respect [...] And that's exactly how society is treating us'1. She continues that images of women 'tends to be objectified, degrading, very stripper-like' or as nagging vicious and manipulative money grabbers1. Jennings' worry is that in these videos women are depicted as menial, subservient and purely as the object of men's entertainment. The lyrics that go with these music videos compound these ideas of women as undeserving of male respect e.g. 'wouldn't piss on fire to put you out' (Eminem), 'Then I straight smoked the ho [...] and she thanked me' (NWE) (All lyrics in full are in the scrapbook). These images in themselves are violence towards women, as they dehumanise them. As this becomes a dominant image in society, young people who look up to these rappers mimic their behaviour and believe it is ok to disrespect women,2 as that is what they have been exposed to. This works in the same way for young girls, who cannot relate to the male rappers and so instead mimic the women they talk about, while also following their views on women. This idea that women are not deserving of respect must affect the levels of violence towards women as if you abuse someone you cannot fully respect them. Therefore if music depicting violence (and for this argument, disrespect) towards women was banned, then violence towards women in the real world would be reduced and this must be seen as a good thing.  1 CNN, Hip-Hop Portrayal of Women Protested, 2005  2 Burnham, L. Nightmares of Depravity. Durland 21 June 1995.

negative: Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is misleading to try and conflate blasphemous statements with statements that lack intellectual merit, are bigoted or hateful. The proposition side attempt to exclude “decent and temperate” questioning of religious values from the scope of anti-blasphemy laws, but they fail to recognise that language is a broad, imprecise and malleable tool. Words that may be understood as temperate and even-handed by one speaker may deeply shock another. Even a simple and plainly stated denial of God’s existence was interpreted as tantamount to blasphemy by the early liberal philosopher John Locke. Locke saw acceptance of the core truths of the Christian bible as being a vital indicator of and individual’s trustworthiness and willingness to comply with social norms.  It is easy to envision scenarios in which adherents of certain religions may find any attempt to dispute the historical and philosophical foundations of their faith deeply offensive, no matter how calmly and respectfully the dissenting position is communicated. Discussions of natural selection have become one such battleground. Despite the measures taken by philosophers and scientists to highlight the compatibility between religious faith and scientifically informed ontologies, despite the measured and carefully regulated court cases that have been used to decide this issue, many Christians regard discussion and teaching of evolution as part of natural history threatening and offensive.  Even irreverent humour or mockery can sometimes be used to make valid and useful observations about the structure and values of religions. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or the tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. Important aspects of our characters are revealed when we are invited to adopt aggressive or defensive attitudes. It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to social discourse; it is up to the individuals engaged in that exchange. It is not acceptable, in the absence of an intention to expose a particular group of people to a real risk of physical harm, to allow debate and free speech to be curtailed by the use of legal force.  The meaning of words need not be plain and obvious, either. Implication and allusion play an important role in language. Implied meanings and innuendos have done much to complicate the legal processes used to protect individual reputations against slurs and falsehoods. In a criminal, rather than a civil context, similar principles are likely to make blasphemy prosecutions expensive, unwieldy and inconsistent.

negative: Blasphemy laws are unlikely to promote social harmony as readily as the proposition side claims they will. Accusations of blasphemy can enflame tensions between antagonistic groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. Communities with diverging beliefs are unlikely to engage in discussion and negotiation if statements aimed at promoting peace can easily be used to launch expensive libel prosecutions. Exchanges and debates between different communities will not take place if participants fear that they might be arrested if an audience member choses to take offence at their words.  Anti-blasphemy laws would undoubtedly control group violence of the sort that followed the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons”. But they would also spur further social division, and deepen misunderstandings about religion. Anti-blasphemy laws would remove debate on religion from the public sphere and leave both bigots and zealots to propagate their distorted interpretations of religious belief unchallenged in private. To the case more simply, debate and discussion on the nature of religion and the nature of the sacred will always occur. Even if the proposition side successfully extend hate speech laws to encompass blasphemy, they will not be able to prevent private discussion these concepts without abolishing democracy wholesale and advocating the creation of a surveillance state. A blasphemy law would only serve to prevent groups with differing ideas from being brought together to engage in debate and conversation. Contact between groups would cease, because of concerns that allegations of blasphemy might lead, at the very least, to unwelcome and intrusive police and prosecutorial investigations. But discussion of controversial ideas about other faiths would continue. In the absence of dissenting voices, closed and concealed dialog would be vulnerable to manipulation and inaccuracies.  While words can be powerful it is preferable to allow people to speak freely, even if what is said is not always constructive. The alternative is to make the courts and justice system complicit in creating a culture of victimhood and vexatious litigation.  Debate is also likely to suffer under this mechanism. By allowing a group that has been the target of a religious slur to feel victimised and justified in deploying the force of law against their opponents, we disincentivise these same religions from engaging with blasphemers and offering clear and robust justifications for the offence they feel.  The argument that blasphemy laws would bring different parts of society together is nonsense; firstly such laws tend to favour the largest religion in a society which would be to the detriment of minorities but also just because certain discourse is blocked does not mean that individuals will inherently become more educated about other cultures and beliefs. This is the case for example in Pakistan where minorities are rarely protected by blasphemy laws and are often persecuted by it, buts being a member of the Ahmadi sect is synonymous with being blasphemous to Islam and without having to prove intent the law is therefore used to persecute them and other minorities. (Mehmood, ‘Pakistan blasphemy laws retake center stage’, 2011)

negative: Trans fats are uniquely unhealthy  One of the purposes of government is identify possible threats to health and protect the people from these threats. The fact that some government regulations seem 'silly' or misplaced, or cannot easily be understood by lay-people is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all, or for not having regulations in the case of trans fat. The commentators who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what, if any, regulations or styles of regulation they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commentators think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgements about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts can make recommendations based on the likely responses and desires of the average, informed citizen.  Non-specialists’ capacity to absorb information on complex chemical and biological subjects is quite limited. The majority of us are reliant on the research of others for most of what we know.(5) The opinion of the experts on the dangers of trans fats is conclusive: trans fats are unsafe.  The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe.' This allows the use of trans fats in whatever way food producers desire. ’Safe’ for the FDA means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use', which no longer applies to trans fats. This 'generally regarded as safe' status should be revoked which in turn would greatly restrict its use in food.  The other option would be to allow local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, but this would be more costly and lead to a patchwork of regulations.(1) The most effective method of controlling the use of trans-fats is through centralised, nationally applicable policy making. The poor and young are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of trans fats; at the very least, the threat posed to these groups justifies the use of informed regulation. Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health said in 2010: "There are great differences in the amount of trans-fats consumed by different people and we are particularly concerned about young people and those with little disposable income who eat a lot of this type of food. This is a major health inequalities issue.”(6)  The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harms that they are not best placed to understand or avoid themselves, and so a ban on trans fats would not only save lives but would also be legitimate under the government's role to protect when citizens cannot reasonably protect themselves.

negative: This solution – if it is one - is now out of date.  We are happy to concede that in the glacial world of academic journals, the right of reply mostly works. Two experts clarifying exactly what was said by whom and being appraised by an equally expert readership can make sense of this process through article, response, and counter response. That’s why it already happens.  In the world of political, economic and scientific monthlies and weeklies, the idea would make sense some of the time. This is why it already happens some of the time.  In the cut and thrust of daily newspapers with rolling news on their websites and newsblogs from most of their contributors and journalists it ceases to make any sense whatsoever. So it is not surprising they don’t do it. In the developed world, the days of people reading the same paper in the same way every day are mostly gone [i] , news comes from a variety of stories with readers often following one story through different outlets rather than digesting many stories from one. Where should a correction be posted? Just on the first site to mention it or on all the ones that subsequently pick it up. Does this cover blogs or just outlets that also have a printed edition – and if not, why not? This is an answer to a question nobody is asking.  [i] The Canadian Journalism Project. Belinda Alzner. A quick look at news mediums (sic) and international development. 24 August 2012.

negative: Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

negative: Ineffectiveness of Parliament  While the Parliament is able to hold the Commission to account in a somewhat limited manner, the institution as a whole is rendered ineffective by its structure. As the parliament is largely elected by Proportional Representation, compromise is required in order to pass resolutions. In most parliaments the two largest groupings would square off against each other and try to dictate policy with the help of smaller groups, thus allowing for varied opinions to come to the fore. Instead in the European Parliament, the Socialist and the Center-Right groupings have dominated proceedings since the first elected Parliament sat in 1979, with the success and failure of resolutions being contingent upon these two groups being able to find compromise, they even share the presidency. [1] This means that once the compromise has been reached, the resolution passes with a large majority and smaller groups such as the Greens and the Liberals are unable to voice opinion on the matter effectively.  This reduces the ability of the Parliament to function effectively as a scrutinizing body, preventing a full discussion of issues with a view to establish as close to a full consensus as possible with as many groups agreeing as possible. The development of a ‘Grand Coalition’ has hamstrung debate in what Proposition hopes to be the primary body in the European Union. If more powers are awarded to the Parliament in its current form, then policies affecting many millions of people will be decided on account a pre-arranged agreement between two major groupings that tend to share very similar aims with the Commission, not affecting real change in how the European project works.  [1] Taylor, Simon, ‘Deal on Parliament’s presidency holds firm’, EuropeanVoice.com 11 June 2009,

negative: computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join There are immense problems with using Facebook to facilitate protests in oppressive regimes. Firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it would be extremely easy for government forces to disguise themselves as being protesters and find out future protest locations, thus allowing them to be one step ahead every time to crush the protest before it starts. Second of all, if all of these fail, the government could always shut down ISPs (Internet Service Providers), exactly in the way the Egyptian forces did. Their mistake was that they didn’t shut them down soon enough, but it won’t be repeated by future oppressive governments as they have the Arab Spring’s example.(1) [1]  Surely, it is of great importance that people express their opinions through any means possible, even through mass protest. For this reason, over time western societies were shaped to encourage any discontented individual to express his or her view. We allowed the media to be free, it being the so called “fourth estate” due to its ability to pinpoint and underline any problem regarding government policies or actions. There is no need for Facebook or Twitter or any kind of social network to reveal any discontent in the population as we already have the media who is doing this. All the news agencies and TV stations are always looking for the sensational, looking for places where the government has failed in order to attract audience. One of the best ways of doing this is by polling and trying to reveal any group of individuals who were either discriminated or hurt by the government. As a result, if there are the necessary reasons for people to start protesting, we shouldn’t worry about people not finding out that other individuals share their views as we have the media, one of the most influential elements of the society who is actively trying to do that.  (1) Marko Papic and Sean Noonan “Social Media as a Tool for Protest” ,Stratfor, February 3, 2011   [1] For more on this see ‘ This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non-democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities ’ and ‘ This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those involved in uprisings ’

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.  Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it.  The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition.  We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.  What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.  They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.

negative: Firstly, given the low % of offenders who commit serious crimes within 6 years is around 10%1, this seems like it may be a marginal issue.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that people who already know someone will stop associating with them merely because of their stigmatization. Family, for example, tend to be very forgiving, as are close friends, who are likely to believe their long-term view of somebody is more accurate and to forgive a mistake. Such people will be able to ensure a person is not alienated from all society.  This may also be a benefit; if an offender has a tendency to commit sexual offences within relationships, it may be useful to limit his relationships (or at least warn their partner of such a tendency), such that this is not likely to occur again.  Finally, it can be shown that if this policy does increase the deterrent effect to first-time offenders, this may be more important. This is because some people will be prevented from ever being imprisoned, associating with other prisoners, and acquiring a criminal record

negative: Oppression within religious communities  Blasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion.  Dissenters within a religious group may often face exclusion from their communities and hostility from friends and family. The current law of western liberal democracies ensures that social disapproval does not transform into threats or violent conduct directed at these individuals. In this way, liberal democratic states recognise the right to speak freely without fear of violent or disproportionate repercussions, irrespective of the social and cultural standards enforced by the community that an individual might belong to.  By criminalising blasphemy, proposition run the risk of discouraging religious dissent within religious communities. Heterodox thinkers who want to share their views on their religion with other believers, must now run the dual risks of effective exile from a social environment that they consider to be their home and prosecution by the state. Anti-blasphemy laws would give communities the ability to indirectly harm and intimidate anyone holding controversial opinions, by directing state power- in the form of prosecutors and the police- against them. Further, anti-blasphemy laws might simply discourage free expression of this type, the prospect of prosecution being sufficient to discourage controversial statements and discussions.  Religions- even if based on divine revelation- develop through human debate, thought and discussion. The proposition position would harm the development of religions if it were realised. It would balance the environment of collective discourse within a religion in favour of conservative and reactionary thinkers.  It should also be noted that it is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimizing others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time with previous cases showing their books being banned from libraries or their paintings from art galleries. Take for example the banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in numerous states around the world. (Bald, M. 2006)

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require Universal rights and collective compromises  Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative.  If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days.  Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority.  It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC.

negative: The interests of the majority  Although it may not prove the issue, it is certainly worth being aware of the fact that when referring to “theists”, proposition is talking about the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and then attempting to portray a small, fundamentalist minority as typical. Even talking mostly secular China into account – where determining religious affiliation is fantastically complicated – fewer than one seventh of the population of the planet profess no religious faith. A probable, although unproven, majority take their religion for granted but see it as no obstacle to free speech.  There is no need to indulge in majoritarian assumptions to accept the basic principal that the opinions of the overwhelming majority are at least worth treating with some respect. After all, with odds of 7:1 against, even the most hardened, fire-breathing of secularists would have to concede that they might have a point. For the rest of humanity, simple experience suggests that avoiding religious groups offending each other is a sensible way of avoiding wars [i] . So whether it’s an odds game for secularists or just altruistic self-interest for others not causing offence would seem to be the more sensible option.  [i] Wikpedia. Religious wars.

negative: The blasphemy charge looks suspiciously convenient for Putin  There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism [i] , uses force to crush unsanctioned protests, [ii] and locks up potential opponents. [iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law." [iv]  Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process. [v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive.  [i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012  [ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012  [iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010  [iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012  [v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012