id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-sport-aastshsrqsar-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Racial quotas don’t develop new players The quota system could lead to moving players from the regional teams who generally have less non-white players pilfering them from other unions, rather “Home growing” them [1] . Former Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, the first non-white person in that role, has described quotas as a “waste of time [2] ”. Depending on the exact phraseology of the rules, this could even allow black players from outside South Africa (from, for example, England) to be used to fill the quota. [1] McGregor, Liz, ‘New Year, new model for SA Rugby? Here’s hoping’, Books Live, 30 December 2013, [2] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013, | ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby
Even if it doesn’t increase the numbers at the grass roots and youth levels, it will create more players who can be selected by the provinces for Currie Cup competition. This, in turn, could give more non-white players the development and the experience they need to make it in to the national team. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-aastshsrqsar-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Quotas can drive players away. Policies of racial quotas can have the effect of driving players abroad. Such policies have had similar affects in cricket. Kevin Pietersen stated that racial quotas in domestic competition, requiring four non-white players per team, were a key reason for his decision to leave South Africa and move to England. Eligible due to playing in England for four years and an English parent, he successfully had an England career. In rugby union, Brian Mujati left South Africa to play in England as he did not want to be selected to fill a racial quota [1] . [1] Foy, Chris, ‘Last orders at the bar for master brewer – prop Mujati calls time on Saints career’, MailOnline, 19 April 2013, | ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby
Kevin Pietersen isn’t anything too unusual: English sporting teams have always had a number of South African and New Zealand rejects. It is natural for players to move to where they think they will be most likely to have the best prospects. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-aastshsrqsar-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Meritocracy It is a value of sport in general that it should be outside the sphere of social ills like racial, religious and political tensions. Sport should be based on merit only; those who play best get onto the team. Racial quotas will lead to any non-white player in a team in a competition where quotas are being employed to being under a suspicion that they are not good enough and were only selected due to their race. As Peter de Villiers, the first black coach of the Springboks, says “Everybody will believe that these players will be picked because people are looking out for them.” [1] The result could be more racial abuse of players, not less. [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013, | ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby
In a society where race affects everything, can there ever be such a thing as a legitimate meritocracy? Not everyone will get the same opportunities in life. You cannot pretend factors are not there when they are. Positive discrimination such as racial quotas helps to counter act some of these factors that are weighed heavily against non-whites in playing rugby helping to create a much truer meritocracy. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights European leaders must take a stand on human rights in their own back yard if they are to be taken seriously on the issue anywhere in the world. There are numerous human rights abuses in Ukraine; migrants "risk abusive treatment and arbitrary detention", Roma and people with dark skin in particular face governmental and societal discrimination and some xenophobic attacks and may be prosecuted for acting in self defense. [1] Amnesty International has highlighted abuse of power by the police “numerous cases in Euro 2012 host cities in which police have tortured people in an attempt to extort money, extract a confession, or simply because of the victims’ sexuality or ethnic origin”. [2] If Europe turns a blind eye to these kinds of abuses in neighbouring states without even a minor diplomatic snub it will not have the moral authority to confront worse abuses elsewhere in the world. States that are abusing their own citizens would shrug off criticism believing that European states will not back their criticism up with any action. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011. [2] ‘Ukraine: Euro 2012 jeopardised by criminal police force – New Amnesty report’, Amnesty.org.uk, 2 May 2012 . | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
Boycotting the football will not highlight Ukraine’s human rights abuses any more than they already have been by the international press as a result of the calls to boycott. Whether leaders boycott or not the human rights abuses have been highlighted. Choosing to attend will not show that leaders are unwilling to take action simply that this is not the way for them to take action. Leaders could attend the matches and still diplomatically rebuke Ukraine’s leader. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Europe must not give approval to this regime. Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency. [1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th. [2] Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable. [3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011. [4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011. [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16. [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012. [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 . | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
Attending football matches is not giving approval to a country’s government. Leaders when attending international football matches are simply supporting their team and often hoping that they will be seen as such giving them a good photo op for the audience back home. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Boycotting Euro 2012 is proportional Diplomacy is necessary with any regime almost no matter how oppressive they are however that does not show approval of a regime to the world in the way that high profile visits and events can. Just as the Beijing Olympics were the People’s Republic of China’s coming out party so Euro 2012 is an ideal chance for Ukraine to show itself off to Europe and the rest of the world. If there was not a boycott this would implicitly show that Europe approves of Ukraine and the actions of its government. In a list of possible diplomatic responses that range from verbal diplomatic complaints right up to sanctions a boycott represents a mid-point. A boycott is perhaps the best action that the European Union leaders could take is it takes away the shine that the event would otherwise give the Yanukovych. It will be denying him the political benefits of the Euros while highlighting rights concerns. A boycott is also proportional because it gives Ukraine’s leaders a chance to reform before beginning any further measures that would have a much deeper effect on diplomatic relations. | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
A boycott can’t be proportional because politics and sport can’t be linked. A proportional response would involve some real action that would hurt Ukrainian leaders such as freezing some of their corruptly gained assets rather than a symbolic boycott. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A boycott won’t help resolve the issues at question European leaders need to consider whether their methods are likely to achieve the result they want. What Europe’s leaders want is first of all Yulia Timoshenko released and secondly improvements in Ukrainian human rights. Timoshenko is unlikely to be released as she has been convicted on charges of abuse of office and sentenced to seven years in prison; the best that could be hoped for is an improvement in her treatment. Similarly the result is not likely to be positive for human rights and democracy. There might be an improvement during the games while the eyes of the world are on Ukraine but long term there will be no impact unless Yanukovych is persuaded that improvements are in his benefit. This would require more concrete and long term actions than one off boycotts. Past boycotts have demonstrated a lack of success in changing the situation on the ground. In the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow during the Cold War the USA boycotted in response to the 1979 invasion by the USSR of Afghanistan. The result was that the Soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan, won most medals in the Olympics and retaliated by boycotting the 1984 games held in Los Angeles. [1] [1] Gera, Vanessa, ‘Boycott of Ukraine During Euro 2012 Carries Risk’, Associated Press, 11 May 2012. | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
Because these issues are domestic to Ukraine European nations cannot directly resolve them however actions such as boycotting of the tournament show that the international community wants these problems resolved. Without any action at all how will the issues ever be resolved? You don’t prevent human rights abuses by brushing them under the carpet. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Europe needs to prevent Russian influence in Ukraine If Europe shuns Ukraine then Yanukovych has an obvious alternative he can turn to; Russia. Putin, the newly re-elected President of Russia, is holding out the option of a customs union with Ukraine which Yanukovych despite initially rejecting [1] is now showing more interest in joining. [2] Only a few years ago Ukraine was being touted for possible NATO membership and Vice President Biden called Ukraine a “European country where democracy rules”. [3] A turn towards Russia therefore represents a failure of the European Union and NATO’s policy towards its eastern neighbours where the aim is to promote democracy and human rights. [1] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Putin: Yanukovych statement Ukraine will not join Customs Union conveys political emotions’, Kyiv Post, 16 September 2011 . [2] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Official: Ukraine shows keen interest in Customs Union’, Kyiv Post, 15 March 2012 . [3] ‘Biden: U.S. supports Ukraine’s NATO bid’, USA Today, 21 July 2009 . | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
Russian influence in Ukraine is not a real concern. Given the possibility of joining the European Union or a Russian lead customs union any Ukrainian government even one lead by a pro-Russian such as Yanukovych would choose Europe. The Ukrainians know that the Russian’s price is likely to be high and so will continue to try to balance between their two larger neighbouring blocks. As a result any boycott will not seriously affect long term relations. [1] [1] ‘Call foul, Viktor Yanukovych’s thuggish autocracy is heading in a dangerous direction’, the Economist, 5 May 2012 . |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Boycotts did not take place for the 2008 Olympics despite the far worst human rights background It would be hypocritical for European leaders to boycott the Euro 2012 finals because of Ukraine’s recent human rights record. It an absurd overreaction when the focus is on the poor treatment of one woman, Timoshenko. Countries with poor human rights records have hosted major sporting events before without there being boycotts. President Bush was urged by some in the US such as former president Clinton to boycott the Beijing Olympics and only a few countries boycotted on human rights grounds. This was despite China having a considerably worse human rights record than Ukraine and engaged in a violent crackdown in Tibet in the run up to the games. [1] Similarly Russia will be hosting the next Winter Olympics in 2014 should leaders essentially commit to boycotting these games too? [1] ‘Bush will attend opening of Beijing Olympics’ CNN, 3 July 2008. | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
In a global event such as the Beijing 2008 Olympics of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi many more nations would need to boycott to have an effect. In Euro 2012 by contrast liberal democracies who claim to be concerned about human rights make up the majority of the participants making their actions much more significant. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The boycott would affect Poland and the Ukrainian people as well as Yanukovych A boycott of Euro 2012 even if it was meant to be limited to Ukraine would negatively impact on the whole tournament. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tust argued "It is in Poland's undisputed interest to hold the games in Poland and Ukraine without a hitch and to prevent politics from ruining the great effort", [1] any boycott would unnecessarily move the attention away from the games itself towards politics. It should also be remembered that Viktor Yanukovych does not represent the whole of Ukraine and only won by a narrow margin with 48.95% of the vote compared to Yulia Timoshenko’s 45.47% in the second round. [2] Arseniy Yatsenyuk leader of the Front for Change has urged leaders not to boycott "The best scenario would be if the European leaders attended the championship, but did not meet President Yanukovych. It's supposed to be a visit to Ukrainians, not to Yanukovych". [3] This would show that European countries support the Ukrainian people and their democratic aspirations and even hope they may be eventually will join the European Union while showing displeasure at Yanukovych’s policies and lack of support for democracy. [1] ‘ Poland slams calls for Ukraine Euro 2012 boycott’, The Warsaw Voice online, 4 May 2012. [2] Nesterov, Andrei, ‘How the News is Reported in Russia’, School of Russian and Asian, 19 February 2010. [3] Dorosh, Svitlana, ‘Ukraine fights Euro 2012 boycott’, BBC Ukrainian, 9 May 2012. | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
A boycott of the events in Ukraine could even be good for the events in Poland as more will go there instead. It is difficult to see how the Ukrainian people are negatively affected by foreign leaders not attending matches in Ukraine. This is an action that only affects the elite. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-otshwbe2uuyt-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: This is a sports event not a political event Sport and politics are separate and should be kept separate. This is the position of the organisers “Uefa has no position and will not take any regarding the political situation in Ukraine, and will not interfere with internal government matters.” [1] Euro 2012 is a football tournament that is about entertainment and bringing nations together in a common love of a game in a non-political sphere. Even pro-democracy activists such as Vatali Klitschko are “against the politicization of sports”. [2] Politicization would be exactly what politicians are doing by engaging in cheap political stunts, such as a boycott, to promote their own human rights agendas. [1] Scott, Matt, ‘Sports minister Hugh Robertson could boycott Ukraine during Euro 2012’, The Telegraph, 2 May 2012. [2] Keating, Joshua, ‘European leaders consider Euro Cup boycott over Tymoshenko’, Passport Foreignpolicy.com, 1 May 2012. | olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko
Sports and politics have always been intertwined and so can’t be separated. That political leaders were thinking of attending in anything beyond a private capacity proves the linking of international football and politics. Yanukovych himself no doubt hoped for a political payoff and has opened the new stadia such as the Olympic Stadium declaring “The successful reconstruction of the NSC Olympiyskiy has become the most telling project for Ukraine's image.” [1] [1] Buga, Bogdan, ‘Olympic Stadium opens in Kyiv’, uefa.com, 8 October 2011 . |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Hosting stimulates regeneration in local areas Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impact and have looked favourably on cities that locate their Olympic Villages and stadia in deprived areas in need of regeneration. The 1992 Barcelona Olympics were used as a means to completely overhaul the port and coast of the city creating an artificial beach and waterside cultural area that became a lasting tourist attraction. Along with cleaning up areas and new stadia, Olympic Villages release between 5,000 and 20,000 new homes which governments can chose to hand over as low-cost housing (as is proposed for London 2012). Whilst these projects could be completed without the Olympics, the need to provide an overall package (transport, accommodation, stadia, greenery etc.) for a set deadline means that there is far more incentive to get the projects done. An example of this in London is the plan for a new £15bn underground rail system called ‘Crossrail’, first proposed over 20 years ago but only now being developed because of the attention surrounding the London 2012 bid.1 The fact that international scrutiny will follow the building program means that it is far more likely to be completed to a high standard (consider the detailed coverage of the preparations for Athens 2004). 1 Hayes, S. (2011, April 19). Crossrail will leave a positive legacy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Wharf | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a legacy (Carlin, 2006).1 Controversially, a large part of this (£625 million) is being financed by London’s own citizens through a rise in council tax bills (Buksh, 2007).2 Jobs are promised, but there is no guarantee that these jobs will last beyond the Olympics itself. Furthermore, the £15 billion Crossrail system planned for East London is money not spent on fixing the increasingly fragile Underground lines currently servicing Central London. Regeneration is also only available to those areas who are fortunate enough to be hosting Olympic events. This typically means a couple of areas of one city, using funds derived from a much larger population spread over a far greater territory. The East London regeneration expected for 2012 threatens merely to substantiate the already expansive North-South divide in the United Kingdom (Ruddick, 2011).3 1 Carlin, B. (2006, November 22). Cost of London Olympics could hit £10bn. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Telegraph 2 Buksh, A. (2007, March). Grey rebellion against Olympics Levy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News 3 Ruddick, G. (2011, April 1). North-South divide exists on whether games will benefit whole of UK. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Hosting creates a 'feel-good' factor Hosting creates a 'feel-good factor'. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds international sporting events. Think of Paris during the World Football Cup in 1998 or Sydney during the 2002 Olympics. Even sporting success abroad can unite a nation (for example the England Rugby Union Team's victory in the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia). Governments are aware of the huge potential for boosting national pride and national unity. The Paris 2012 bid has used a well-known footballer, Zinedine Zidane, who is the son of an immigrant to stress how hosting the Olympics would bring Parisians of all backgrounds together. It is partly because of this 'feel-good factor' that so many people want their city to host the Olympics (97% of Parisians and 87% of Londoners want the 2012 Olympics). | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
There is no guarantee that a city will experience a 'feel-good factor'. In Athens many of the events had empty seats as the Greek team failed to do well enough to capture the local imagination. Where tournaments and games have successfully created a 'buzz' it has been because the host nation has done well (England reached the semi-final of Euro 96, France won the World Cup in 1998). The fact that this 'feel-good factor' can be had even if the team is winning on the other side of the world means that there is no need to host the Olympics in order to get it. Furthermore, a study of British youth in 2011 found that 70% were not inspired to take part in more sport despite the media attention given to London 20121. In any case, any Olympic excitement will be short-lived compared to the years of disruption and congestion which a host city will suffer in the run-up to the games, due to the massive building work and security worries which are now necessary. 1 Magnay, J. (2011, June 21). London 2012 Olympics: British youth not inspired by Games, survey shows. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from The Daily Telegraph: |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: COUNTERPOINT Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a le The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point because of the intense media scrutiny that accompanies the games. During the Cold War both Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 were used by the USSR and USA to show their economic strength. Seoul in 1988 used the games to demonstrate South Korea's economic and political maturity. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are seen by many as evidence of China's acceptance into the global community and a way for her to showcase her economic growth and acceptance of the West. For New York, the 2012 bid is a way of showing that the post-9/11 healing process has been completed and that the city is 'open for business' despite the terrorist attacks. | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
The Olympic spotlight is not always a positive experience for the host nation and its government; for example, the run-up to the Beijing Games in 2008 was hijacked by the issue of Tibetan autonomy. The event designed ostensibly to celebrate China's coming-of-age was instead framed through their poor human rights record. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were sufficiently concerned to boycott the opening ceremony in protest, causing significant embarrassment for Olympic organisers. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Hosting has wide-reaching economic benefits Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immediate profit, the cost of the regeneration and improved infrastructure means that this is not a big problem as long as the losses are not huge. The Olympics showcases the host nation to the world and most hosts have seen a boost in tourism in the years after the Olympics (Australia estimates it gained£2bn extra tourist revenue in the four years after Sydney 2000). During the games between 60,000 (Paris 2012 estimate) and 135,000 (New York 2012 estimate) jobs are created providing skills and training to local people. | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
Hosting does not leave a beneficial legacy. As a study found in 2010, 'there is insufficient evidence to show that major multi-sport events benefit or harm the health and economy of the host population.'1 The demands of the Olympics are very particular, an 80,000 all-seater stadium, pools, horse tracks, beach volleyball etc. Many of these stadia will never be used again after the end of the games. Even in Australia, which has a very strong sporting ethic, underused stadia in Sydney are costing the taxpayer $32m a year in maintenance1. In the long term, the money spent on these stadia would be much better off used to build affordable homes and transport infrastructure which is designed with local residents in mind rather than with the intention of impressing IOC members. As far as tourism goes, Greece may even have lost out economically in 2002-03 as potential visitors stayed away, frightened off by stories of disruptive building works, security worries and fears of over-crowding. 1 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters: 2 Davenport, C. (2004, September 1). A post-Olympic hurdle for Greece: the whopping bill. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Christian Science Monitor: |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land The bidding process takes too long. Bidding officially takes only two years (unless a city fails to make the shortlist), but most cities spend nearly a decade working on their bids. Obviously the bidding process costs money but it also ties up the land needed for any future Olympic Village or stadia from being developed until the bid outcome is known, as well as diverting government funds away from other sporting events and activities. Furthermore, the way the IOC works with each member deciding which city they wish to vote for means that personal relationships and international tension can count for more than the quality of the bid. For example, American foreign policy is thought to be disadvantaging New York in the 2012 bidding process. Given that the Olympics are 'rotated' between continents, if a city fails to be selected it will be 12 years before it has another chance. | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Hosting is very expensive Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event. | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
The economic benefit of the event is in its legacy. Regarding London specifically, a lot of the money will be spent on the regeneration of parts of East London that are currently underdeveloped. When the games are over the new facilities will still benefit the local communities and the prestige of hosting the games should bring new life and investment to the area. Furthermore, London's reputation as a tourist destination has taken a knock from the threat of terrorism since the underground bombings of 7/7. The games will be a way of bringing international attention back to the positive aspects of the UK's capital, bringing foreign visitors and their spending power back to Britain. London's population of 7.7m people is expected to be temporarily expanded by 12% during the Olympics alone1. 1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business: |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-ybfgsohbhog-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Hosting only affects one city In large countries like the United States or China, the benefits of the Olympics are almost entirely focused on the host city. Even in smaller countries, the benefits of a event played outside the host city or a training camp are negligible. Capital cities are often chosen (after failed bids from Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000 the IOC told the United Kingdom that only a bid from London was likely to win), which concentrates growth and development where it is least needed. 90% of the economic impact of London 2012 is expected to come to London1; not surprising given that 'seventy-five pence in every pound on the Games is going towards the regeneration of East London.'2Furthermore, house prices have been seen to rise in host cities like Barcelona and Sydney around the time of their Olympics, without comparable rises elsewhere in Spain and Australia respectively2. As such, hosting only serves to entrench geographical economic divides. 1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business: 2 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters: | y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good
Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. During Beijing 2008 for example, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong, drawing both tourism and prestige away from Beijing and towards other parts of the country. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions are a part of the game. First, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball. They have been part of the game for a very long time. Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time. “Some things are part of the game. There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career. [1] Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.” [2] And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.… When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.” [3] As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.” [4] Second, home plate hits are an essential element of playing the game hard. Without them, baseball would be much less deserving of its nickname “hardball.” One commentator notes, “[An injury is] extremely unfortunate, but it's the result of a hard-nosed play that is as old as the game itself. To take away the potential for a high-intensity, physical play in an otherwise non-physical sport would be a mistake.” [5] In that vein, collisions are also part of the dynamic between the offense and defense that, once removed, will make the game much poorer: “A baserunner wants to get there at all costs, whereas a catcher wants to protect it at all costs. The mutual discomfort that's evoked in both the catcher and the baserunner as a play at the plate develops is one of the intriguing peculiarities that makes the game of baseball so great.” [6] [1] Antonio Gonzalez, “Posey’s injury stirs debate on baseball collisions,” Associated Press, May 27, 2011, . [2] Ibid. [3] Jayson Stark, “On a collision course,” ESPN.com (Rumblings & Grumblings blog), May 28, 2011, . [4] Ibid. [5] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011, . [6] Ibid . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
Collisions are much less a part of the game than people believe. The notion that collisions have been in the game for ages is a widely held misconception. In fact, collisions were specifically banned in baseball’s early history, and the collisions we see today came about only since around the late 1960s. Bill James, one of the best-respected authorities on baseball, wrote: “Basepath obstruction was a major problem in the 1880s and nineties, when baseball was in danger of becoming a contact sport. In 1897 the rules on obstruction were tightened up, and the principle of free access to the bases met with general acceptance at the other three positions. There was always something of a problem with catchers blocking the plate, but there were always limits.... I think it has changed a lot just in the last fifteen or twenty years. . . . I don’t remember [well-respected catchers] Elston Howard or Bill Freehan doing some of the things that [catchers] do now [in the 1980s].” [1] Clearly, collisions are not a necessary part of the balance between offense and defense. Baseball did quite well for decades without allowing runners to crash into catchers. Just because something is now erroneously regarded as a “tradition” does not make it deserving of respect. Toughness in baseball is better measured by playing hard every day, rather than by meaningless, destructive collisions. [1] “The MLB Rulebook, Bill James, and the Buster Posey–Scott Cousins Collision,” Misc. Baseball, May 26, 2011, . |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions are exciting and fun to watch. Baseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate. As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes [1] —it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer. One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting. We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball. As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.” [2] Other sports—like American football, ice hockey, and rugby—feature plenty of violent hits. Baseball has so few of them that when they do happen, they are doubly entertaining. It is just not necessary for baseball to prohibit a small dose of something that is extremely common in other sports. [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011, . [2] Nick Cafardo, “Let’s keep rule change off our plate, please,” Boston Globe, May 29, 2011, . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons. Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves. It’s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes. Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so. Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport. Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy. Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be. Some hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not. One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision. Personally, I can’t think of one.” [1] In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport. Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt. Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury. Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury. It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury. Moreover, catchers are trained to position their bodies in ways that minimize the injury risk from crashes. [2] If catchers do as they’re trained, they’re very unlikely to get hurt. [1] Joe Janish, “Buster Posey Aftermath: What Should Be Done?,” On Baseball, May 30, 2011, (internal quotation marks omitted). [2] See, for example, “Relays, Cutoffs, and Plays at Home,” Baseball-Catcher.com, . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
Collisions increase the risk of injury dramatically. Though it’s true that most collisions do not result in significant injury, they result in a higher rate of injury than almost any other baseball play. And just because a collision doesn’t necessarily result in an injury that derails a player’s entire career does not mean that it didn’t take a toll. This is especially true now that we’re learning more about concussions, which might be suffered without someone immediately realizing it. After a catcher on his team suffered a concussion in a collision, Yankees manager Joe Girardi referred to this type of injury as “so unpredictable. That’s what’s so scary.... You just don’t know what’s going to happen” with a concussion. [1] When catchers are trained to block the plate, they’re taught how to reduce the risk of injury, not how to eliminate the risk of injury. No matter how a catcher positions himself, there will still be a risk of injury, and it will still be much higher than for any other play in baseball. (Opposition Point #1 elaborates more upon the risk of injury.) [1] Mark Feisand, “Yankees manager Joe Girardi not counting out catcher Francisco Cervelli for postseason roster,” New York Daily News, Sept. 17, 2011, . |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage. There are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths. Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner. A commentator describes this dynamic very well: “If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher—similar to the ‘slide or avoid’ rule employed in amateur baseball—it would give the advantage to the catcher. The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would—perhaps more importantly—have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision. If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond.” [1] Allowing collisions is the fairest, most even match between the catcher and runner. [1] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011, . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
In the match-up between catchers and runners, home plate should be treated like the other bases. At first base, second base, or third base, fielders are expected not to block the base and runners are expected not to collide with the fielder. By imposing both of these requirements, neither the catcher nor the runner would have an unfair advantage. Each player would be required to contribute to a situation that allows both of them to avoid a collision. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.” [1] Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance. [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011, . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
Some level of violence is called for in baseball. Just because most plays in baseball do not involve contact does not mean that no plays should involve contact. It has been a part of the game for decades, so it is false to argue that it is not part of the game, or to assert that baseball is not a contact sport at all. There is also a clear difference between violence that is intended to injure an opponent—for example, in a boxing match or an ice hockey fight—and physical contact that is aimed at a valid objective, such as scoring a run. A beanball is not a way to achieve a valid objective. In addition, a beanball is much more dangerous than a collision at home plate. A beanball has resulted in a fatality at an MLB game [1] ; no home-plate collision has even come close. [1] “Beaned by a Pitch, Ray Chapman Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1920, . |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions heighten antagonisms. When someone gets hurt in a collision at the plate, the injured player’s teammates are more likely to hold a grudge—and to try to get even. There are numerous opportunities to do that, whether by aiming a pitch at that player, or by seeking another opportunity to hurt him. When Posey was injured, the Giants’ General Manager Brian Sabean said, “If I never hear from Cousins [who hit Posey] again or if he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we’ll all be happy.... We’ll have a long memory.” [1] This is exactly the unsportsmanlike behaviour engendered by these dangerous and unnecessary plays. Former MLB catcher Mike Matheny noted that catchers don’t forget when they get hit, saying, “I think you just put a mark in the column that that kid took a run at a catcher. To me as a catcher I know the next time I get the ball I'm going to stick it to him. You make those notes as a catcher.” [2] [1] “Source: Joe Torre to call Brian Sabean,” ESPN.com News Services, June 3, 2011, . [2] R.B. Fallstrom, “Matheny critical of Cousins’ hit on Posey,” Associated Press, May 30, 2011, . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
A clean hit will not heighten tensions between teams. Players recognize when a collision is “dirty” and when it is entirely within the rules and spirit of the game. After the Posey hit, a baseball columnist summed up “the consensus viewpoint” of baseball professionals and journalists: “It was a clean play.” [1] In the 2011 playoffs, Texas Rangers Mike Napoli was barrelled over by Sean Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Angels. Napoli said afterward, “It was a fine, clean play. He was trying to score. I’m going to try to do the same thing if I’m trying to score and a guy is blocking the plate in that moment.” [2] As long as a player is not intending to hurt another and does not use unnecessary force, players on both teams are unlikely to hold grudges. The threat of retaliation for “dirty” hits is actually a useful deterrent to gratuitous force. Players are much less likely to hurt each other if they know that there will be consequences for that behaviour. [1] Bruce Jenkins, “Buster Posey’s injury provokes anger, reflection,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2011, . [2] Richard Durrett, “Catcher Mike Napoli fine after collision,” ESPN.com, October 5, 2011, . |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions are unnecessary. Baseball doesn’t need collisions. By requiring the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases, or disallowing catchers to block runners’ paths, or—best of all—requiring both those steps, baseball can eliminate collisions. Unlike in football or rugby, hits at the plate are not a necessary component of the sport. The game is played quite well at the amateur level without such brutal physical contact. [1] Collisions occur relatively infrequently, and the complexion of the game will not be dramatically different without them. Yet the benefits of improved safety are dramatic. [1] See, for example, American Legion Baseball Rules, Rule 1(E), . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
Collisions are an occasionally necessary part of the game. When two professional athletes are involved in a dramatic, exciting play that could change the direction of a game (or decide the outcome of the entire season), they will do whatever they can to ensure the play turns out favourably for their team. That means that collisions will occur. To try to remove this aspect of baseball is to ask the players to do something that is completely at odds with their objective: to score, or to prevent the run from scoring. Though home-plate collisions are prohibited in amateur leagues, the stakes are different. MLB players are paid millions of dollars to score—or prevent—runs. They should be permitted to do what they’re handsomely paid to do. |
arguana-qrel-test-sport-tshbmlbscac-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury. Ray Fosse and Buster Posey (mentioned above in the Introduction) are just two examples of players who suffered major injuries in crashes at home plate. Texas Rangers star Josh Hamilton, reigning Most Valuable Player of the American League, broke his arm when he collided with a catcher in 2011. In August 2010, Cleveland Indians catcher Carlos Santana suffered a season-ending knee injury when he was hit by Red Sox runner Ryan Kalish. To go back a few more seasons, Braves catcher Greg Olson was having a career year in 1992 until Ken Caminiti broke his leg in a collision. There have been literally dozens of severe injuries suffered in bang-bang plays at the plate. This high rate of injury should come as no surprise, given the physics involved in this type of play. A simulation with a crash-test dummy wired with sensors showed that a catcher can get hit by a runner travelling 18 miles per hour, resulting in 3,200 pounds of force—much worse than an American football hit, with much less padding. [1] Teams make heavy investments in their players, paying them millions of dollars a year. Thus, serious injuries are very expensive, both because of the treatment required and because the player is missing many games. This is why the Oakland Athletics instructed their top catcher, Kurt Suzuki, to avoid blocking the plate—because their investment in him is worth more than whatever runs he allows by failing to stop the runner from scoring. [2] When players are injured in these plays, it’s also bad for fans, who will lose the opportunity to see their favourite athletes on the field. As Bruce Bochy, Busty Posey’s manager with the Giants, told the media after he lost his star catcher to injury: “And here’s a guy that’s very popular in baseball. Fans want to see him play, and now he’s out for a while.” [3] [1] Joel Siegel, Barbara Pinto, and Tahman Bradley, “Catcher Collision Ignites Baseball Rules Debate,” ABC News, May 28, 2011, . [2] Buster Olney, “Billy Beane issues home plate directive,” ESPN The Magazine, June 1, 2011, . [3] Tim Kawakami, “Bochy on Posey’s injury: ‘Hopefully the guys are not happy—I’m certainly not happy,’” MercuryNews.com (Talking Points blog), May 26, 2011, . | team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions
Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re made out to be. (Proposition Argument #3 is directly relevant here, though it’s not repeated in this cell.) People remember vivid example of injuries in home-plate crashes, but that does not mean that they happen as often as people believe. This is a textbook example of the availability heuristic: people believing that an event is much more likely because they can think of an example of it very easily. [1] Yes, those injuries were quite bad, but it was their very severity that leads people to overestimate the frequency and severity of home-plate collisions in general. Any simulation of a hit at home plate will be imperfect. In a game situation, a runner will have to make a split-second decision of whether to slide around the catcher or to barrel into him, and this will often reduce his speed or remove the decisiveness of his impact. The catcher is also wearing protective pads. The crash-test dummy does not accurately represent reality. If a team does not want its catchers to be involved in collisions, it can instruct them to avoid collisions, just as the Oakland Athletics did. This is their choice; they have decided that the risk is not worth it. But this is not a reason for MLB to step in and change the rules. Fans want to see players playing their hardest. A player is much less exciting to watch if he’s always worried first and foremost about whether a particular action is going to injure him. Yes, there’s always a risk of injury, but fans understand that, and they still want to see collisions and players giving their all. [1] See Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 4, pp. 207-232, . |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-magghbcrg-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible. Community radio relies on the power of its ideas and the thirst for those ideas among its audience. It accepts the notion that it is the exchange of information and views, freely given and received, that is more important than the ideas themselves. It doesn’t require massive budgets and radio waves can be received on equipment that costs pennies; more importantly it can be shared. For all of its pretensions of accessibility the devices used to access the Internet tend to be expensive and they also tend not to be shared – unlike radios [i] . To give some context to this, even paying Western prices, a small radio station can be started for as little as $10,000 with monthly costs of $1,000 [ii] . Some of that, of course, relates to government issued licences, clearly this does not apply if the station is planning to be ignored by the authorities. These costs can be further reduced when the founders have a pre-existing knowledge of radio engineering or work with a partner organisation such as the BBC World Service or the various NGOs who specialise in the field [iii] . [i] Plunkett, John, Community radio: A rare success story. The Guardian. 9 March 2009. [ii] Prometheus Radio Project. [iii] Wikipedia. Community Radio. | media and good government house believes community radio good
While it is inexpensive to set up and run this is relatively expensive for the community compared to commercial radio, which is free to the user and perfectly capable of promoting the ideas of the free market which have had a proven benefit to democratic structures the world over. In addition to which, realistically, democratic participation will end up involving larger national bodies such as trades union, political parties and civil society organisations who need to operate on a nationwide basis but also have larger budgets. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-magghbcrg-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Community radio gives voices to the people rather than imposing those of the powerful. The events of the Arab Spring (and previous events such as the revolutions of 1989) have shown that effective means of communicating are vital. In a country where people have heard only one perspective, anything that can break the monopoly is to be welcomed. As Orwell put it, 'In an age of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a subversive act'. Community radio can both encourage an initial outpouring of democracy and, just as importantly, ensure that a diversity of opinions means that one autocratic regime is not just replaced by another. In almost all other forms of mass communication, genuinely democratic voices are easily swamped by those with either the power or the money to drown out the competition [i] . As the focus of community radio is public service, rather than profit, responsible to – and frequently produced by – their listener base there do not have commercial advertisers’ aversion to upsetting authority – either political or cultural. As a result they are free to eschew the bland lowest common denominator approach that is so typical of commercial radio. [i] AMARC (World Association of Community Radio) booklet. What is Community Radio? 1998. | media and good government house believes community radio good
Community radio can indeed do the many wondrous things that Prop seems to trust it to do. It can also do more or less anything else. If proposition is trying to demonstrate that community radio, per se, supports democracy, then it needs to demonstrate how it does so more than, say, libraries or coffee shop discussion groups. It may be a public service that is responsible to the community but that does not mean that it cannot be infiltrated and controlled by the state like any other service. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-magghbcrg-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Community radio evens the playing field against state and corporate broadcasters. Autocracy has, at its root, the premise that only one perspective, or group of perspectives is legitimate. Certain assumptions are unquestionable, certain rules inviolable and, more often than not, certain voices unchallengeable. It’s all too easy for that state of affairs to be normalised. Community radio offers another voice. More to the point it offers many. As well as the value of the messages themselves, the very fact that they are there and broadcast is a powerful statement against autocratic assumptions. The process of establishing and running a community radio station is, in and of itself, a powerful fillip for community cohesion. Giving voices to communities supports them as groups in their own right; cohesive, engaged and worthy of respect. In doing so it can provide a focus which increases the homogeneity of those communities without requiring the approval of a central structure of control [i] . In addition to well known examples such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radio stations across the Middle East And, especially, Africa have been key movers in the shift to democracy [ii] . [i] Siddharth. Riding the radio wave; Community radio in South-East Asia. Culture360.org 18 February 2010. [ii] Buckley, Steve, President, World Association for Community Radio Broadcasters. Community Broadcasting: good practice in policy, law and regulation. UNESCO. 2008. | media and good government house believes community radio good
Once again, Proposition is conflating things that tend to go along with community development and those that cause it. The fact that vibrant and active communities, duly engaged in wider society, frequently set up institutions such as community radio in no way demonstrates that it encourages civic participation. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-magghbcrg-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Radio is yesterday’s technology. Proposition is right to point out the role that has traditionally been filled by relatively small scale radio – providing a relatively cheap method of getting in touch with anybody willing to listen. However, that has, effectively, been rendered redundant by Internet technology. The power of Facebook, Youtube and other sites to disseminate ideas and information as well as phone texting has not only matched that role but surpassed it. With no capital costs in an era of internet cafes and omnipresent cell phones, the free exchange of information through digital and portable technology has met exactly the needs and concerns Proposition highlights. [i] Suggesting that community radio will somehow supplement or enhance that process it taking a step backwards; support for the relatively monolithic radio model runs all of the risks of empowering extremists already mentioned without even equalling the benefits of texting and social media [ii] . [i] Helling, Alex, ‘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’, freespeechdebate.idebate.org, 18 May 2012. [ii] Hood, Michael, NPR CEO: Internet will replace broadcast radio in 5-10 years. Blatherwatch, 3 June 2010. | media and good government house believes community radio good
For all of its potential, the idea that the Internet is a worldwide force is something of a Western conceit. That fact is doubly the case when discussing the social media sites that Op seems to think are such a panacea. These sites – and the Internet in general – are overwhelmingly white, Western and wealthy. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-magghbcrg-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Community radio is just a platform, there is nothing innately democratic about it. To associate a medium with a particular virtue is missing the point. Radio has been used for atrocity and tyranny (Rwanda would be an obvious example) just as much as the promotion and development of democracy. Equally the suggestion that community radio has a more significant role to play in this regard as opposed to, say, the BBC world Service, is ignoring the facts. Particular media cannot be said to support democratic renewal any more than particular languages can. Equally, the revolutions of 1989 demonstrated the reality that taking control of the national radio station is, in some situations, more important than seizing the Presidential Palace. Neither the ‘community’ element nor the ‘radio’ aspect are innately democratic. Different media have, undeniably, produced different types of social change – but they all have possibilities for democratic progress [i] . [i] Sedra, Mark, Revolution 2.0: democracy promotion in the age of social media. The Globe and Mail. 2 February 2011. | media and good government house believes community radio good
It is a platform, but it’s a platform with history – one that has allowed small or marginalised groups to have a voice. Of course a radio station won’t build democratic strength on its own but it is an important tool in normalising the concept that the voices of those communities have both worth and power. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-magghbcrg-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Community radio just gives a megaphone to extremists. Experience suggests that the airwaves, unregulated, tend to attract pedagogues seeking followers more than democrats seeking the views of others. Particularly in areas of high sectarian divisions, technologies that propagate the views of every mullah with a mic are unlikely to help democracy in the middle east. Indeed the experience with the nearest equivalent in the US, talk radio, shows how fantastically divisive it can be. [i] Community radio in areas that do not have a history of plurality and diversity of opinion would be likely to see the spread of radio stations pandering to the specific views of every shard and splinter of opinion, reinforcing that particular set of beliefs while ignoring all others – it is difficult to imagine a more toxic – and less democratic – option to encourage in the Arab world [ii] . The difficulty, as shown in the reference given in the previous paragraph, is that exactly the same ease of access applies to fanatics as to democrats – who may, frequently, be the same people. In the instance of Rwanda, extremists inciting violence (almost entirely Hutus) had acquired small scale radio equipment. The government couldn’t afford the jamming equipment (the US jamming flights would cost $8500 per hour) and sought assistance from the Americans. The UN objected as such actions were clearly sectarian. However, the wide use of Radio – initially funded by the West – which, in part at least had lead to the genocide then left a toxic legacy of fanatics dominating the airwaves, those involved were eventually convicted in 2003. [iii] [i] Noriega, Chin A, and Iribarren, Francisco Javier, ‘Quantifying Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio’, Chicano Studies Research Center, November 2011. [ii] Wisner, Frank G., ‘Memorandum for deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, national security council, Department of Defense, 5 May 1994. [iii] Smith, Russell, ‘The impact of hate media in Rwanda’, BBC News, 3 December 2003. Dale, Alexander C., ‘Countering hate messages that lead to violence: The United Nations’s chapter VII authority to use radio jamming to halt incendiary broadcasts’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol 11. 2001. | media and good government house believes community radio good
Opposition is letting state-sanctioned media off the hook fantastically lightly. Just staying within the Arab world, the number of broadcasters that sully the name of journalism by acting as apologists for butchers and torturers is astonishing. One example of this – selected utterly at random from an embarrassment of riches – was the state media’s declaration of historic victories by both Milosovich and Saddam Hussein after both had received drubbings from Western allies [i] . There is at least a chance that a broadcaster won’t be just a voice for the state if it isn’t funded or run by the president or one of his closest allies or appointees. [i] Ash, Timothy Garton, Facts are Subversive. The Strange Toppling of Slobodan Milošević. Atlantic Books. 2009. This account is one of many, many others that highlight the importance of the control of media centres in democratic shift. However, it highlights the Serbian state media’s proclamation of Milošević’s ‘victories’ against the west but also the impact of this when, fallowing the dictator’s fall, it was the seizure of the state TV and Radio stations, rather than parliament or the presidential palace, that denoted victory. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
Proposition are obfuscating attacks on the right to a free expression of religious faith, free of ridicule or threat for doing so behind the BBCs obligation to be fair. This right is established in national and international law where it is not treated as comparable to what someone might find interesting as part of the nights viewing. The latter is clearly trivial by comparison to the former. Those leading the protests have been quite clear that they have no objection to free speech and discussing, and disagreeing with, various religious themes – so long as that is done in a respectful manner. It was offensive that it had been shown at the National Theatre and then in Cambridge; for it to be broadcast on the de facto ‘flag carrier’ of British broadcasting is simply unfair to the many Christian licence fee payers who help fund the BBC’s output [i] . [i] The Christian Voice. Statement from their website in 2005. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it. The allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000 [i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast. Therefore, those who watched it made a choice to do so – and it seems reasonable to consider that an informed choice. A free society is predicated on the fact that adults have the right to make choices. In turn that is based on the shared understanding that those choices have consequences; which may, potentially, cause some degree of harm to the person making that choice. Having been warned that watching the broadcast may cause them offence, viewers still chose to and some, it seems, were duly offended. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the shock was either feigned or a matter of pretence. Which leaves the matter of blasphemy; an offence against a belief system. There was no secret that religious issues were likely to feature in the broadcast and no secret was made of the fact that those views were likely to be both critical and forthright. Tuning in, specifically to be offended by something that the viewer had been warned they might find offensive seems perverse. By contrast, art lovers who wished to see the production - which had received four Lawrence Olivier Awards among other tributes – had the opportunity to experience a theatrical work they would have had a limited opportunity to witness had it not been broadcast nationally. It would be bizarre to disadvantage those who wanted to – and actually did – see the performance (about 1.7 million [ii] )because of the views of those who neither wanted to see it or refused to do so [i] Wikipedia entry: “Jerry Springer: The Opera” [ii] BBC News Website. “Group to Act Over singer Opera.” 10 January 2005. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
As Proposition suggest, the broadcast had been widely discussed in the media before the event and there had been reviews of the stage performance as well as coverage of the subsequent awards. It cannot have come as a huge surprise that this would attract attention from, and cause great offence to, many people with an interest in the popular portrayal of religion. The trick of deliberately stoking allegations of blasphemy and obscenity to improve the ratings of a fairly obscure art form is as old as it is contemptible. Equally there is a secondary level of impact in terms of how the deep beliefs of people of faith will be represented to those who choose to watch and are not offended. They are hardly likely to have their perceptions of those beliefs enhanced by seeing matters portrayed in this way. There is, therefore, the risk that the interaction between those two groups will be effected in a deleterious way. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art. The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development. The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million [i] . That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast. It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust. [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
It is wrong to suggest that the BBC has any duty on account of its relative funding freedom to give a platform to controversial works of art. On the contrary the BBC has a higher obligation to viewers not to offend them because they are also licence payers. Highlighting the BBC’s global audience also has little meaning as the global audience did not all have the opportunity to watch the programme – the numbers are global and include radio. The 1,500 protesters outside BBC studios was a small slice of the tens of thousands who voiced their protest in one form or another. These protests took place outside productions around the world involving Christians from many walks of life as well as the numerous complaints. However the BBC, dominated by an out of touch urban elite, clearly had little interest in the huge amount of offence that it had caused. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests. The BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme. As a result, although some of the responsibility for avoiding offence lies with the broadcaster at least an equal share must lie with the viewer. Even at the more basic level of ‘will I like this’, responsibility lies with both parties. The BBC undertakes to provide a diverse range of programming so that there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming majority should be able to find something of interest but does so on the assumption that people will watch what they find interesting. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that people will not go out of their way to watch things that they already expect to find offensive. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
There is clearly a different threshold between the questions “do I like soap operas?” and “do I appreciate having my beliefs excoriated on national TV?” The difficulty here is that many who took offence saw the programme as a direct attack on themselves personally, their beliefs and the others who shared their faith. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect. As an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group. If 50,000 to 60,000 users of any other brand registered their protest or objection to a product put forward by that brand, it would cause chaos, resignations, sackings and a rethink of whatever strategy had caused the problem in the first place. In the case of the BBC, it caused a few slightly dismissive comments from senior managers, one editor resigned because he felt that the protesters comments were not being taken seriously and the organisation continued as though nothing had happened. The sheer arrogance required for that response beggars belief. The BBC, as a public institution has a duty of care that might be thought of as greater than that of a private corporation. And yet it gave the impression of acting like it was just one of the other venues who had staged the opera. There is clearly a difference between a theatre that I choose to attend or not – and choose whether to support financially – and the national broadcaster which is beamed into people’s living room paid for by a compulsory licence fee. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
In the same way that the BBC is routinely criticised from the political Right for its Left-wing bias and from the Left for a supposed favouritism to the Right, maintaining balance in any sphere of life is difficult. Freedom of speech demands that such a balance is maintained, however hard to do. That balance can mean that last week’s bosom buddies may be this week’s fiercest foes. The reality of both free expression and a public service ethos mean that one cannot, constantly yield to the cry of ‘more of what I like’. Any broadcaster could not show a greater disrespect to its viewers than by assuming they could not be capable of dealing with new ideas. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded. How can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer? The charge of blasphemy is far more than saying ‘I didn’t enjoy this’ or ‘not my kind of show’, it is a deeply held belief that what has been said is a deliberate and willful attack on values and beliefs that the viewer holds sacred and fundamental to who they are. All major broadcasters, including the BBC, routinely test shows and monitor audience response and yet, in this particular regard, feel relaxed about producing material that certain viewers would consider it not only uncomfortable but sinful to watch. By definition, those viewers cannot watch those shows or, quite probably, that station and yet they are still expected to pay for it. Even if a British viewer were to choose never to watch the BBC again because of the offence caused by programmes such as Jerry Springer: The Opera, they would still be paying the salaries of those who had caused the offence in the first place. That cannot be reasonable by any standard. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
The BBC may be unusual but it is designed to fulfill particular functions. The very reason for its existence is to provide a platform for the free expression of a wide range of views, tailored to a wide range of viewers. Within that context, it cannot be expected that everyone will feel equally comfortable with every programme – indeed if that were the case, they would be breaching their own commitments to reflect diverse, often special, interests. There are other services and broadcasters who receive support from the licence fee, so those who wish to view elsewhere are not throwing away their investment. [i] [i] Holmwood, Leigh et al., ‘Digital Britain: BBC licence fee to help fund broadband and ITV local news’, the Guardian, 16 June 2009. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbbsbfb-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards. A week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed [i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin. Christian symbols and imagery are routinely profaned by major broadcasters, publishers and others in a way that would simply not be tolerated if they were directed at ‘minority’ faiths in the UK. Article Four (4) of the BBC’s charter [ii] stipulates quite clearly that all of the UK’s communities should be reflected in all of its activities. Despite this the interests of the community that is represented by the established church of the country, headed by the monarch, receives the least support or consideration from the institution. [i] [ii] BBC Charter. | nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme
BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, who is himself a practising Christian, said that he found ‘nothing blasphemous’ about the programme [i] . The protests were small and overwhelmingly organised by one group. There is simply no case for a right not to be offended by something you’ve seen; far less for something you haven’t. This would equally apply if the programme had been offensive to some Muslims as it does to a programme that is offensive to some Christians. [i] BBC News Website. “Protests as BBC Screens Springer”. 10 January 2005. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The people are interested in the health of their leader The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors. This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy. 1 1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012, | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The head of state/government must be accountable to the people Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue. 1 1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012, | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information. | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1 1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A lack of transparency can endanger the leader A person is most likely to survive when they have an accident, a heart attack, or some other condition if they get prompt treatment and doctors are aware of any underlying conditions. Mills may well have lived, or lived longer if there had been more transparency about his death. There had been no prior warning that the president might be rushed to hospital despite the doctors having been called in the previous day. For the same reason his outriders were not available leading to indecision over whether to send off the ambulance. And finally he was initially turned away from the emergency ward because they did not know it was the President they were being asked to treat. 1 Transparency would allow procedures to be in place and advance notice given possibly gaining a few minutes and enabling survival. 1 Daily Guide, ‘How Mills died: Sister tells it all’, My Joy Online, 31 August 2012, | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rivals could misuse the opportunity While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup. 1 1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008, | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Damages diplomacy to be too open Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal. 1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76 | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Markets like stability Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment. Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change. 1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005, | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Denial of privacy to the leaders The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader. The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1 1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006, | free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-yfsdfkhbwu-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A bargaining chip In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public [i] . The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library [ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change. [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges. [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010 | y free speech debate free know house believes western universities
A bargaining chip, by definition needs to be part of a bargain. Using it to demand a change in the structure of the state as a whole is hardly reaching a bargain – it’s dictating a fiat. An invitation from a country to a university is a big step in expressing an interest in how that institution works and the values it promotes. Using that as an opening to demonstrate the strength of those ideas is an opportunity that should not be dismissed. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-yfsdfkhbwu-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The academic tradition of the West The growth of universities as beacons of free speech has been a fundamental part of their history in the West; notably during the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment. The democratisation of that process with the expansion of the university sector in recent decades is merely the latest stage in an ongoing process. However, that entire process has been driven (along with the artistic, cultural and scientific changes they have inculcated) on the basis that universities allow for the free exchange of ideas and flourish in environments where that approach is standardised throughout society [i] . Marxist scholars have gone further in calling for a critical pedagogy in which perspectives other than academic orthodoxy are normalised within universities. Such institutions produce the best graduates because they have the best academics and the best academics will stay where they are free to publish whatever their research is and express their own views. For example in the 1990s 55.7% of those who had immigrated to the USA from the USSR described themselves as academics, scientists, professional or technical workers. [ii] Those academics in turn respect the intellectual tradition of dissent and critical scrutiny of which they are the inheritors. To take something else and slap the name ‘Yale’– or for that matter Oxford, Harvard or ETH Zurich – on it and pretend that nothing has changed devalues the qualification. Without the intellectual dissent and freedom of academic inquiry it is intellectually dishonest to call the degree the same thing. [i] The Nebraskan. Doug Anderson. Learning depends on the free exchange of ideas, Nebraskan says. [ii] Harvard, ‘Russians and East Europeans in America’ | y free speech debate free know house believes western universities
Universities also survived the inquisition, the French revolutionary terror and the tyrannies of twentieth century Europe. The issue being discussed here is not in the same league as any of those. There is, as a result, clearly nothing innate that requires an appreciation of free speech for universities to operate. Furthermore universities do not locate or relocate en masse depending on the direction of the political wind. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-yfsdfkhbwu-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Maintaining the value of the degree Employers and others expect certain degrees to mean certain things; they are more than just an expensive badge. In the case of elite western universities part of what that means is a critical approach to the world and the willingness to challenge ideas, regardless of the authority that holds them. Part of their exclusivity derives from their admission standards, partly from the academic rigour of their scholars and partly from the simple fact that there are only a relatively small number of graduates. In other areas universities are all too aware of selling their reputation – impartiality, avoiding plagiarism and so forth – the same should be true here. If a degree from a western university does not mean that it recognises issues such as creativity and free thinking then it devalues the degree itself. As a result the very governments that are so keen to acquire the creative, critical skills offered by graduates of western-style education will end up undermining the very thing that they seek. This impacts not only the graduates from Asian campuses of western universities but also their peers at the home institution [i] . [i] US-China Today. Jasmine Ako. Unraveling Plagiarism in China. 28 March 2011. | y free speech debate free know house believes western universities
Employers measure degrees by the academic results they indicate. The level of political engagement of the individuals is not critical – or even relevant – to that measure. In a global market of tens of millions of students graduating every year [i] an increase of a few thousand in those graduating from top universities will do little to dilute their iconic brands while taking advantage of communications technologies to justify their global reputation. University Senates determine whether degrees can be awarded in their name and it is scarcely in their interest to damage their own reputation. [ii] [i] There are approximately 150 million students in the world and for the purposes of this debate, that number has simply been divided by three. Source material can be found here . [ii] Jones et al., ‘The Academic Senate and University Governance in Canada’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol.XXXIV, No.2, 2004, pp.35-68, p.50, 57 |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-yfsdfkhbwu-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: ‘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, | y free speech debate free know house believes western universities
Singapore in this particular instance is securing far more than a ‘service provider’ from a university whose foundation precedes that of the state by over a century. Yale is an internationally identifiable brand, as would any other major university be, and Singapore and NUS benefit from that association. Yale is in a strong position here to argue for things that stretch well beyond the lecture theatre. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-yfsdfkhbwu-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Argument One: Contact leads to the dissemination of values There is certainly some evidence to suggest the view that trade with a country can benefit human rights as increased wealth provides many with more choice and better standards of living. [i] Certainly that argument has been made by governments and multi-nationals based in the West. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this may relate to academic cooperation as well, as Richard Levin suggests in the introduction. However it seems likely that in this latter case, as in the former, that a gradualist approach is the sensible one to take. We build on existing strengths while agreeing to differ in certain areas. To extend the trade example, China, the US and the EU all manage to trade with each other despite differing approaches to the death penalty. They trust that through cooperation over time, changes can be achieved. This will happen slowly in some instances – as with the ‘drip, drip’ affect in China - or quickly in others as has been the case in Burma [ii] . On key difference to note with the shift towards establishing elite universities around the world rather than shipping the world’s elite in to attend them in the UK and the US is that it opens opportunities to a much wider social group. For decades a small handful – children of the wealthy and political elite - have had the opportunity to have a Western education before returning home as well-educated tyrants and sycophants. Expanding the learning opportunities to the rest of the nation seems both just and reasonable. [i] Sirico, Robert A., ‘Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case for Engagement’, CATO Institute, Trade Briefing Paper no.2, 17 July 1998 [ii] Education has long been seen as a critical starting point for the development of human rights in any country as is examined in this UNESCO report . | y free speech debate free know house believes western universities
There is gradualism and then there is inertia. Refusing to cooperate with governments where individuals can be banned from addressing a group of students would seem to be setting the bar relatively low. In this particular instance, the bar doesn’t appear to have been set anywhere. The example given by opposition is of one between states, this is between state actors and organisations who rely on the free expression of ideas as part of their raison d’etre. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | 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. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Classification, not censorship We should expect fans of an art form that is subjected to public criticism and vilification to leap to its defence. Some of these aficionados- whether the medium in question is cinema, fine art or pop music- make the case for the value of their favourite mode of expression by overstating its positive effects. Hip hop has long been the focus of controversies surrounding violent music. Hip hop is closely associated with low-level criminality, as noted above. A number of highly successful hip hop artists have been attacked or killed as a result of feuds within the industry and links between managers, promoters and criminal gangs. As the academic John McWhorter has pointed out in numerous [1] publications [2] , the positive political and social impact of rap music has been massively overstated, as a result of highly charged media coverage of hip hop-linked violence. As a result, attempts to address some of the hips hops most objectionable content- lyrics that are misogynist and blankly and uncritically violent- have been condemned as unjust assaults on the right to free expression. Attacks on negative content in hip hop have been made all the more emotive, because they appear to be an attempt to restrict the speech of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities. Side proposition agrees with McWhorter that listening to music that contains violent themes will not, in the absence of other factors, cause individuals to behave in a violent way. However, the content of rap, and its strong links with the youngest inhabitants of marginalised, stigmatised urban areas mean that it damages the developmental opportunities of teenagers and young people, and harms others’ perceptions of the communities they live in. Hip hop trades on its authenticity – the extent to which it faithfully portrays the lived experience of the inhabitants of deprived inner city areas. The greater the veracity of a hip hop track, the greater its popularity and cache among fans. Musicians have gained public recognition as a result of being directly involved in street crime and gang activities. 50 Cent, a high profile “gansta” artist owes his popularity, in part, to a shooting in 2000 that left him with 9 bullet wounds [3] . This supposed link to reality is the most dangerous aspect of contemporary hip hop culture. Unlike the simplistic make-believe of, say, action films, the “experiences” related by rappers are also their public personas and become the rationale for their success. Rap, through materialist boasting and sexualised music videos tells vulnerable young men and women from isolated neighbourhoods that their problems can be solved by adopting similarly nihilistic personas. The poverty that affects many of the communities that hip hop artists identify with does more than separate individuals from economic opportunity. It also confines the inhabitants of these communities geographically, politically and culturally. It prevents young men and women from becoming aware of perspectives on the world and society that run contrary to the violence of main stream rap. With television dominated by the gangsta motif, marginalised youngsters are left with little in the way of dissenting voices to convince them that hip hop takes a subjective and commercialised approach to the lives and communities that rappers claim to represent. In effect, controversial hip hop is capable of sponsoring violent behaviour, when it is marketed as an accurate portrayal of relationships, values and principles. Under these circumstances, adolescents, whose own identity is nascent and malleable can easily be misled into emulating the exploits and attitudes of rappers [4] . Side proposition advocates the control and classification of controversial forms of music, including but not limited to hip hop. Consistent with principles 1 and 10, classification of this type will follow similar schemes applied to movies and videogames. Assessments of the content of music will be conducted by a politically independent organisation; musicians and record companies will have the ability to appeal the decisions of this body. Crucially, the “ban” on music containing violent lyrics will take the form of a categorisation scheme. Content will not be blocked from sale or censored. Instead, as with the sale of pornographic material in many liberal democratic states, music found to contain especially violent lyrics will be confined to closed off areas in shops, to which only adults (as defined in law) will be admitted. Its performance on television, radio and in cinemas will be banned. Live performances of restricted music will be obliged to enforce strict age monitoring policies. Online distributors of music will be compelled to comply with similar age restrictions and intentionally exposing minors to violent music will be punishable under child protection laws. This approach has the advantage of limiting access to violent content only to consumers who are judged, in general, to be mature enough to understand that its “message” and the posturing of singers does not equate to permission to engage in deviant behaviour. [1] McWhorter, J. “How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back.” City Journal, Summer 2003. The Manhattan Institute. [2] McWhorter, J. “All about the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can’t Save Black America.” [3] “What’s In a name?” The Economist, 24 November 2005. [4] Bindel, J. “Who you calling bitch, ho?” Mail & Guardian online, 08 February 2008. | living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify
Crime and deviance existed in marginalised communities long before the creation of pop music or hip hop. Side proposition is attempting to claim that a particular genre of hip hop is harming efforts to improve living standards and social cohesion within these communities. Many of the problems associated with poor socialisation and a lack of social mobility in inner city areas can be linked to the closed, isolated nature of these communities – as the proposition comments correctly observe. However, these problems can be traced to a lack of positive engagement between these young people and wider society [1] . Violence may be discussed or depicted in popular culture for a number of reasons, but it is still comparatively rare- especially in mainstream music- to celebrate violence for violence’s sake. Violence is discussed in hip hop in a number of contexts. Frequently, as in British rapper Plan B’s single Ill Manors, or Cypress Hill’s How I Could Just Kill A Man, descriptions of violent behaviour or scenarios serve to illustrate negative or criminal attitudes and behaviours. These forms of conduct are not portrayed in a way that is intended to glorify them, but to invite comment on the social conditions that produced them. As the opposition side will discuss in greater detail below, the increased openness of the mainstream media also means that impoverished young people can directly address mainstream audiences. Proposition side contends that the impression of the world communicated to potentially marginalised adolescents by pop culture is dominated by the language and imagery of gangsta rap. Proposition side’s argument is that, in the absence of aggressive and negative messages, a more engaged and communitarian perspective on the world will flourish in schools and youth groups from Brixton and Tottenham to the Bronx and the banlieues. By controlling access to certain hip hop genres, young people made vulnerable and gullible by the desperation of poverty will supposedly start to see themselves as part of the social mainstream. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because efforts at including and improving the social mobility of these young people are underwhelming and inadequate. Social services, youth leaders and educators are not competing to be heard above the din of hip hop – they are not being given the resources or support necessary to communicate effectively with young people. The nurturing environment that proposition side fantasises about creating will not spring into being fully formed if hip hop is silenced and constrained. The existence of an apparently confrontational musical genre should not be used to excuse policy failures such as the disproportionate use of the Metropolitan Police’s stop and search powers to arbitrarily detain and question young black men. [1] “Keeping up the old traditions.” The Economist, 24 August 2003 . |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech The intervention of the state is necessary in order to ensure that aggressive forms of hip hop remain accessible only to adults, especially in neighbourhoods and home environments that are not part of a cohesive, caring community. Some degree of public control over the content of hip hop will also help to preserve the diversity, accessibility of the genre in the face of commercial dominance by violent forms of rap. Mainstream success in hip hop has become synonymous with gangsta rap, and with artists who have backgrounds that lend veracity to their lurid verses. However, many of these supposedly “authentic” experiences consist of little more than exaggeration and invented personas. When being interviewed about the controversial content of her son’s single “Fuck tha’ police”, the mother of rapper Ice Cube commented that “I don’t see [him] saying those curse words. I see him like an actor.” The existence of pornography attests to the market for forms of media that fulfil base and simplistic human fantasies. Much the same can be said for the violent and cynical content of rap singles. Unlike the relationship between cinema and pornography, however, many commentators appear to regard gangsta rap as being synonymous with hip hop – a position as deceptive as a film critic claiming that all movies are inevitably tied to pornography. The significant public profile and poor regulation of hip hop have meant that gangsta rap fans have become the genre’s dominant class of consumer. The amount of money that fans are willing to spend on singles, albums, concert tickets and associated branded goods means that labels that cultivate relationships with gangsta rappers have become the gatekeepers of the hip hop genre in general. “Conscious” rappers, who do not glorify violence, along with musicians working in other hip hop genres must work with labels that promote acts containing violent lyrics in order to publish their own music. Either consciously, or by design, the terrain of contemporary hip hop is hostile to musicians who are not prepared to discuss “guns, bitches and bling” in their work. This constitutes a significant barrier to rappers ability to communicate novel messages and listeners’ ability to receive them. It could be called a market failure – the pervasive public presence of gangsta rap has effectively denied an audience to other rappers. Classification has the potential to maximise the freedom and effectiveness of musical expression by hip hop artists who choose not to trade in brutality and misogyny. The alternative is to allow hip hop to continue to be dominated by businesses such as Death Row Records, Low Life Records and Machete Music. This will lead to hip hop as a medium becoming inextricably linked with violent lyrics and the dubious businesses practices of gangsta labels’ bosses. Popular disengagement is much more likely under these circumstances, and will actively deny a voice, and opportunities, to musicians with a different perspective on hip hop. | living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify
Banning one type of hip hop is not an effective way to intervene in a market that is in danger of dismantling itself. Governments are not record companies. They are not in a position to make nuanced judgements about the content, meaning and themes of singles and albums. In short, the state cannot be relied on to understand when a musician has produced a work of violent fantasy, or a piece of social commentary with broad appeal. The state can perform a positive correction for inequalities and failures in the hip hop market by subsidising niche or experimental performers, in the same way that is provides financial support to opera, theatre and the fine arts. The policy that proposition side seem to be advocating, however, would only do further harm the reputation of hip hop. Once officially censured by the state- which is still seen as a significant moral authority- it is likely that the public profile and popularity of hip hop will be further damaged. The ambivalent position of hip hop in popular culture, as both a commercially successful medium and the subject of wide scale condemnation, is a significant opportunity for the medium, rather than a spectre of its imminent demise. However, larger record companies will be more likely to disengage from hip hop culture if they believe that their businesses affairs might be compromised by intrusive government legislation. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A ban will be ineffective A new legal prohibition on any type of behaviour or conduct can only be set up by investing large amounts of political capital in order to transform vague proposals into a legislative document and then into a fully-fledged law. This expense can only be justified if the ban is effective – if it is seen as a legitimate use of a state’s power; is enforceable; and if it brings about some form of beneficial social change. The change being sought in this instance is a reduction in the violence, criminality and social disaffection that some people associate with hip hop music and its fans. Laws do not create changes in behaviour simply because they are laws. It is unlikely that the consumers of hip hop will refrain from listening to it. The ease with which music can be distributed and performed means that any ban on violent songs will, inevitably, be ineffective. File sharing networks and cross border online stores such as eBay and Silk Road already enable people to obtain media and controlled goods with little more than a credit card and a forwarding address. The total value of all of the music illegally pirated during 2007 is estimated to be $12.5 billion. The same network of file sharing systems and data repositories would be used to distribute banned music if proposition’s policies became law. Current urban music genres are already defined and supported by grassroots musicians who specialise in assembling tracks using minimal resources before sharing them among friends or broadcasting them on short-range pirate radio stations. Just as the internet contains a resilient, ready-made distribution network for music, urban communities contain large numbers of ambitious, talented amateur artists who will step into fill the void created by large record company’s withdrawal from controversial or prohibited genres. Although a formal ban on the distribution of music has yet to happen within a western liberal democracy, similar laws have been created to restrict access to violent videogames. Following widespread reports of the damaging effects that exposure to violent videogames might have on children, Australia banned outright the publication of a succession of violent and action-oriented titles. However, in several instances, implementation of this ban led only to increased piracy of prohibited games through file sharing networks and attempts by publishing companies to circumvent the ban using websites based in jurisdictions outside Australia. Similar behaviour is likely to result in other liberal democracies following any ban on music with violent lyrics. If banned, controversial music will move from the managed, regulated space occupied by record companies and distributors- where business entities and artists’ agents can engage in structured, transparent debate with classification bodies- to the partly hidden and unregulated space of the internet. As a consequence it will be much more difficult to detect genuinely dangerous material, and much harder for artists who do not trade in violent clichés to win fans and recognition. As discussed in principle 10, effective control and classification of controversial material can only be achieved if it is discussed with a high specificity and a nuanced understanding of the shared standards that it might offend. This would not be possible under a policy that effectively surrenders control of the content of music to the internet. | living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify
Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities. We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime. Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side. This reflects the state’s role in promoting and safeguarding free speech, by giving those who do not have access to public forums the means to have their voice heard, while ensuring that the principle of free speech is not abused or used to limit the liberal freedoms of others. These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant – states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify
This argument makes a claim of bias against academics and commentators who portray the audiences that hip hop music is targeted at as vulnerable. Unfortunately, this is a viewpoint that is closer to the truth than the aspirational narrative provided in the opposition side’s case. Hip hop emerged from environments that were extremely poor and that had been pushed to the margins of society. This situation has persisted until well into this century. The cyclical effects of racism and discrimination continue to be felt in minority communities. Although anti-discrimination laws now protect access to employment and government services, inequalities in cultural capital and high-impact policing have led to the exclusion of large numbers of young men from the social economic opportunities that are made available to middle class society. Under these circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to describe the adolescent inhabitants of impoverished urban communities as vulnerable. Poverty- either financial or of opportunity- breeds desperation. An individual placed in a situation of urgent need will not have the ability to reason clearly. This is especially true of young people undergoing the difficult transition to adulthood. Adolescence is characterised by a desire to test the boundaries of social norms and parental authority. Therefore, expression that legitimatises and encourages ever more dangerous forms of rebellion should be kept out of the hands of young people. They are unusually susceptible to the behavioural distortions that side opposition goes out of its way to deny. We limit the content of the media that children and young people can consume all the time, recognising that the process of education and socialisation changes the individual’s relationship to wider society and their ability to which forms of behaviour will best help them to live freely and happily. Children and teenagers are more impressionable than adults. Similarly, the rate at which individuals mature and develop can vary wildly. We recognise that, for example, exposure to pornography or violent cinema could have serious behaviour consequences for young children. Objections to the restricted availability of pornography are nonsensical, given that they do a great deal to protect children, and present only a minor inconvenience to an adult’s attempts to access such material. Although we do not place onerous restrictions on the ability of adults to access media of this type, we can be strict in regulating children’s access. This does not constitute a permanent form of censorship, but instead fulfils the broad remit that the state is granted to protect its citizens. Moreover, classification of expression that is geared toward protecting the vulnerable also aids in protecting the primacy and utility of free speech itself. Free expression- as has been restated throughout this exchange- can harm as easily as it liberates. In some instances, the state must temporarily restrict the access of certain classes of people to certain forms of free expression, in order to ensure that free, frank and controversial discussion and expression can take place in society in general. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Violent imagery can serve different purposes. Calls for a ban on music that references or glorifies violence are frequently based on an overly simplistic understanding of contemporary and popular musical genres. It is instructive that the loudest voices of protest raised against violent content in hip hop and rock music are, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, middle-aged newspaper columnists. Any ban created under these circumstances would reduce the diversity and depth of popular musical genres, by preventing musicians from commenting- in any way- on violent events. Banning particular musical tracks due only to the fact that they discuss violent acts would be damaging to the creative industries and would not reflect methods currently used to classify and restrict content appearing in other media. Criminal acts are punished when an act results in a damaging outcome and because that act is performed with a particular dishonest or malicious intention. Generally, someone cannot be found guilty of murder if they did not intend to kill their victim. Similarly, it is unusual for films or videogames to be censored or banned because they happen to depict violent acts. The intention that underlies the use of graphic images or words must also be examined. As BBC director general Mark Thompson noted when discussing the controversial religious content of Jerry Springer: The Opera with freespeechdebate.com “… Jerry Springer I saw without feeling that it was offensive to me because the intention of the piece was so clearly a satire about an American talk show host and his world rather than the religious figures as such.” Classification boards will look at the context in which an offensive act is shown. The violence of war is portrayed vividly in Saving Private Ryan, but the film has not been banned on this basis. Private Ryan portrays violence and suffering in order to remind us of the inhumanity that pervaded the Second World War. It uses violence to make a didactic point, to move its audience to sympathy and disgust. If a film were to use images of extreme violence or suffering as a form of entertainment, inviting the audience to take pleasure in brutality, a classification board would try to restrict or censor its content. Comparably, “violent” music can use brutal language and themes to make moving and engaging observations about the world. Violent music does not automatically glorify violence, nor does it cause its audience to see violence as something that is glamorous. Listened to out of context, without any attempt to critically analyse the imagery of the song and the intentions of the artists, it is easy to condemn many acclaimed examples of popular music as containing violent lyrics. By giving into the populist pressure that is represented and generated by newspaper columnists and talk show hosts, we risk creating a chilling effect, not only on mainstream hip hop culture, but on any other musical form that dares to discuss themes that fall outside narrowly and arbitrarily defined limits of social acceptability. | living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify
Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. His albums cover themes entirely different from those found in “gangsta” rap. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia. Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success. Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. In 2006 the founder of Death Row records, a major gangsta rap label, was found to have assets valued at $7 million. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop. It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type. As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape. Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. Hip hop appeals to a similar market – individuals seeking to indulge violent fantasies via the safe, sanitised environment of their iPod’s headphones, as discussed above. There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices. Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do. The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech. [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64. [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 . | living difference house would penalise religious hate speech
Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion. Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock. It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them. The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable. [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010. | living difference house would penalise religious hate speech
Religious belief is the most widely used and historically enduring framework for discussion of the universe around us and our place and role within it. Pretending that it not part of civic discourse is simply living in a fantasy world. The views expressed by Hammond are widely and genuinely held and deserve to be heard. Those who oppose them should, of course, be free to do so. Simply banning their expression doesn’t make the views go away. However impossible opposing sides in this argument may believe it to be, the other side could be right, that gives them the right to be heard [1] . [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Lords are right to limit homophobic hatred law’, 10 July 2009. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted. Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice [1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned. For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state. Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism. All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins [2] , with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society. [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation. [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight. | living difference house would penalise religious hate speech
Homophobia should indeed be confronted but penalising it is not the solution – just as it wasn’t for racism and sexism. These views should be confronted and challenged, which doesn’t happen by banning their expression. Indeed using legislation in this way is more likely to make the homophobe feel justified. Freedom of speech and equality have generally worked hand in hand and will do so in the case of homophobia as well. Banning ideas doesn’t threaten bigotry; indeed historically it has tended to be the tool of the bigot, not the liberal. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state. It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense. Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them. Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent. [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012. | living difference house would penalise religious hate speech
This is simply a myth. Society routinely legislates to prevent offence with restrictions on what can be said or done within a broadcast or in print. This particular case does not relate to a private conversation between friends but to a public address. As such the response of the police officers was not some Orwellian nightmare but a responsible protection of public order and a show of respect for those who, quite rightly, had taken offence at the remarks. We are rightly cautious of the state intervening too far into the private sphere but this was a public event – by the speakers own choice. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights. If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal [1] could be assumed to be sympathetic. These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases. [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008. | living difference house would penalise religious hate speech
Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | 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. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Pluralism and Political Interference The removal of ‘The Spear’ from the Goodman Gallery and the City Press also hints at a threat to pluralism, especially when one considers the political nature of the campaign to have such images removed. While Jacob Zuma attempted to have the image banned in a personal capacity, the intensive campaigning by both the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) against both the Goodman Gallery and City Press [1] hints at a dangerously political action taken by those with close access to power over the South African state. This should be cause to worry. Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa, in place since 1997, protects freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. [2] The intimidation of Art Galleries and Newspapers threatens the free exchange of ideas that occurs in these areas, as well sending an implicit image by its supports that criticism of the Government cannot be tolerated. If neither the Gallery nor City Press removed the image of ‘The Spear’ from public view, then a clear message would have been sent that the principles of Free Speech, Free Association and Freedom of Intimidation outlined in the Constitution is to be upheld at all times, regardless of who may take offence at what is being said. It is important in the South African context to protect the right to criticise the government and voice opinions that vary from the ideals of the majority. It is worrying what kind of message is sent by those close to the South African Government that intimidation seems to be the appropriate response to criticism such as this rather than asking why such criticism is there in the first place. [1] Mthembu, Jackson, ‘ANC calls on all South Africans to boycott buying City Press Newspaper and to join the protest match to the Goodman Gallery’, African National Congress, 24 May 2012, [2] ‘Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa, 4 February 1997, | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
Just because groups and individuals have a Freedom of Expression, does not mean it can be used without proper consideration of whom maybe hurt and offended by connotations implied in the image. A White artist portraying the Black leader of the country and the ANC as someone who leads with their genitals goes someway to dehumanising him, launching into character assassination that fails to actually examine policy. Pluralism can exist without needlessly causing offence in the way Murray has done in this painting. The Constitution protects Freedom of Expression; however the grave offence causedto many people by dehumanising President Zuma in this way can justify the protests against the artworks installation and replication in the news media. No constructive criticism is meted out in the painting, thus justifying counter-protests against it. While there were supporters of the ANC and COSATU, who are allied with the government, who took part in protests, it is a stretch to suggest that this is political overreach in action. The image attacked the President in ways that evoked previous allegations against him that were later disproven in court. The President took legal action in a personal capacity, whilst other exhibits created by Murray which highly critical of the ANC were not targeted in this manner, hinting at there being a free platform for criticism and satire in South African Political discourse. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Artistic Freedom A core principle of art is that it should be free from any form of inhibition, as the particular artwork is an expression of the particular views and ideals of the artist. The subject matter in many instances is their own choice; therefore they have the right to say what they want about the subject matter, safe in the knowledge that is their opinion alone being portrayed. The artist that painted ‘The Spear’, Brett Murray, created the piece as part of an exhibition that reflected his own discontent at the lack of major progress since the ruling African National Congress took power in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994. Murray used his work to promulgate an idea that he has, allowing for others to see the art work for themselves and make up their own minds about President Zuma and the ANC. [1] Art Galleries have a right to display any artist they feel will attract visitors as well showcase the forms of art that they believe is suitable. The Goodman Gallery saw no issue with Murray’s work to the extent that they prevented any particular works from being displayed. As it was their venue which was the setting for ‘The Spear’s display, The Goodman Gallery had the right to take decisions independently of external pressure. The removal of the exhibit sets a dangerous precedent whereby government can unduly censor artworks, threatening the free actions of artists and the galleries that display their work in turn affecting plural, democratic discourse. [2] [1] Du Toit, ‘Artist Brett Murray explains why he painted ‘The spear’, 2 Ocean’s Vibe, 2012, [2] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012, | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
While public art is valuable, it can serve a purpose to educate and send a message, influencing discourse. Criticism of a political figure, when expressed via an art form, can change perceptions of that figure, particularly when their policy is under scrutiny. However, the image portrayed in ‘The Spear’ does not do these things. It does not focus on the policies of President Zuma, but rather relies on innuendo surrounding the President’s personal life, graphically represented by Zuma’s exposed penis, which is a prominent feature of the painting. While artists have a right to criticise those in authority and galleries have a right to display any art it wants, such rights are balanced by responsibilities over how such artists conduct themselves when they choose to enter political discourse. A provocative image such as ‘The Spear’ flouts those responsibilities by relying upon graphic innuendo instead of policy criticism to get the point across. This is damaging for a number of reasons specific to the South African context which will be explained in the Opposition Arguments. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Racialised Opposition Some critics of ‘The Spear’ have criticised the artwork on the grounds that it ‘dehumanises’ black people in general [1] and President Zuma in particular and criticises him based upon his personal life rather than policy, using vulgar means to do it. This line of opposition is part of a dog-whistle tactic that the ANC has consistently used against white critics of its government in the past. [2] ANC criticisms of its white critics, including the opposition Democratic Alliance have made discreet reference to the injustices of the past as a means of creating distrust in the minds of poor, black voters who maintain ANC support as a result. Some politicians within the ANC, most notably the former President of its youth wing Julius Malema, have made incendiary statements that could be seen to stoke up hatred against whites. It is against this back drop that the double standards over criticism of Murray should be viewed. Murray, a white artist, has been criticised roundly for ‘The Spear’, while black artists have created works that could be seen to denigrate President Zuma in a similar manner to ‘The Spear’. A noticeable example is ‘Ngcono ihlwempu kunesibhanxo sesityebi’ (Better a fool than a rich man’s nonsense) by Ayanda Mabulu, that carried a much more graphic depiction of the President and other leading politicians of the past and present with barely a murmur raised. [3] By bowing to the pressure exerted by the ANC and its followers, the Goodman Gallery and City Press have bowed to pressure, denying criticism of the government and accepting the implied view that White South Africans are unable to criticise the government without seeking to re-assert any forms of superiority that had existed under Apartheid. Whilst there may still be underlying problems of Far-Right activity in South Africa, to smear anyone who criticises the government based on their race does nothing to help move the country on from autocracy and institutionalised racism. The Goodman Gallery and City Press should have stood by displaying the image as it represented the opinion of Brett Murray, free from intimidation or race based slander. [1] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012, [2] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The ANC's best friend: Brett Murray & The Spear’, Amandla, [3] Ndlovu, Andile, ‘'Spear' sparks hot Twitter debate’, Times Live, 23 May 2012, | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
To somehow state that racism is the motivation to criticisms of ‘The Spear’ is fanciful and far-fetched. People were massively offended by the piece and as such used their right to protest to demonstrate the fact. The artwork itself was vulgar, displaying images that would be offensive to anyone, regardless of race. No-one is accusing Murray of being in favour of restoring Apartheid; indeed his early works in the 1980’s attacked the government of the day, highlighting their crimes. But when a public gallery and a newspaper releases an image that is seen as offensive to many people on many levels, provoking angry responses in the process, then it is only right that such images are removed to prevent further protest and controversy for those involved. It is also erroneous to accuse the ANC of race-baiting. It is a multi-racial organisation and has had prominent non-Black members leading the organisation during the struggle. If any criticism of White Opponents including the Democratic Alliance is seen to be racialised, then it is probably a reflection upon the DA’s ineffectiveness in gaining the support of poor black voters, remaining a party for privileged whites as a result. Criticism of Murray was not based on race, rather the shocking and offensive artwork that hurt so many people, not least the President himself. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Infantilisation and Prejudice Those who dismiss the reaction to ‘The Spear’ forget the historical context which may trigger the sorts of responses seen to the artwork. [1] South Africa’s past problems can be seen to derive from the gross caricaturing of Black people and Black Men in particular as lascivious, overtly sexual and threatening, playing into a narrative of Blacks as ‘inferior beings’ justifying inhumane treatment over a number of centuries. Portraying the President with his genitals exposed could also be seen to pass negative comment upon his polygamy, which is permitted in his Zulu culture. Such comment upon something which can determine social standing can also be viewed as offensive by many, triggering such reactions. [2] With this in mind then the right action for both The Goodman Gallery and City Press to take would be to remove such offensive art to avoid any hurt caused and to quell the protest which were borne out of genuine offence, not political grandstanding as opposition seem to imply. [1] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The Spear: Millions of people were insulted’, Daily Maverick, 28 May 2012, [2] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012, | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
To attach historical abuses to the symbolism of ‘The Spear’ is outlandish, irresponsible and fully indicates the way in which the ANC and its supporters use the past to excuse its poor record in government. ‘The Spear’ followed a theme criticising Zuma and his actions as a public figure. Criticism of the piece is welcome as part of debate based on facts, not emotion like what was seen during the controversy. Maintaining ‘The Spear’s display is part of this, triggering a debate over ANC policies in the here and now, as opposed to referring to past injustices. Removing ‘The Spear’ prevents that rational debate and instead sends a message that merely shouting down opponents is a suitable solution to an argument, harming South African political discourse in the long term. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Masculinity The problem with leaving the painting, the spear, up is that to many young men President Zuma symbolises what excessive wealth can ‘buy’ you. He is the figure head of the nation, the pinnacle of capitalism and masculinity, of which the penis and sex are instrumental in this image. By leaving the painting up, it encourages hyper-masculinity (which is inherently violent), [1] because it assumes there is an inherent link between power and the penis. This is unhelpful, both for women and men who are trying to live in equity. [1] Scheff, Thomas J., ‘Hypermasculinity and Violence as a Social System’, Universitas, Vol.2, Issue 2, Fall 2006, | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
The painting should remain hanging as a reminder to young men that society is noting the particularly high prevalence of cases of rape, that are committed by all peoples within society, from the bottom to the top. This is not to argue that the President has ever necessarily raped anyone, although his defence in his rape-trial in 2005 was flimsy and without doubt he abused his power, as the girl he is supposed to have had consensual sex with was like a daughter to him. It is to critique his infidelity, and his lack of support in the AIDS pandemic. Just because he is the president does not mean he should be above being publically ridiculed for putting his own sexual desires above the safety of others. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Public Decency Freedom of Speech is something that is highly valued, particularly in a country such as South Africa, where it was in short supply for a large part of its history, but surely for such speech to be worthwhile, it has to be able to convey a message that actually enriches the public domain. Such messages can be critical of government, but it must be best if they do not cause widespread offence in the process. The problem with ‘The Spear’ is that is causes widespread offence with the graphic depiction of the male genitalia. As a result, the underlying message that Brett Murray is trying to convey is lost in the offence image of the exposed penis, causing needless controversy in the process. [1] The utilisation of an exposed penis in ‘The Spear’ breaches all notions of public decency, not only causing offence in the public domain, but also personal offence, by depicting President Zuma in such a lewd manner. As such, it is right to ask for the removal of the artwork from public display to prevent further offence from being caused. [1] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012, | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
What is termed a decent or otherwise is largely subjective and depends on an individual’s viewpoint. Those who use the cause of ‘public decency’ to call for ‘The Spear’s removal fail to understand the point of the artwork. Murray created such a visceral image in order to trigger debate and cause South Africans to look at the political class and their antics. Such a debate over Zuma’s fitness for office would not have been possible without an image that brought home the seriousness of the personal accusations against him and whether such allegations make him incompatible with the office of President. Murray was free to depict an image that at best a plurality of people would disagree with, and given the subject matter, that image was appropriate to use. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Defamation While South African Law does allow for freedom of speech, and the constitution is one of the most liberal in the world for protecting such freedoms, it must be measured against the need for responsibility in the use of such freedoms to prevent offence. Whatever one believes about ‘The Spear’ it is clear that Murray attacked President Zuma based upon his personal life rather than any critique of policy. The depiction of the President with his penis exposed is a reminder of the accusations of rape against him, of which he was acquitted in 2007. To remind those who view the painting of the accusation is to hint at Zuma’s guilt in the case despite it being proved otherwise in a court of law. This is effectively libel and as such defames Zuma’s character. As such, Zuma was right to sue for defamation and it was right for the artwork to be removed as it implied and spread a falsehood in the public domain that is damaging to Zuma. | reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained
Jacob Zuma had a right to sue, which he made use of before dropping his claim for defamation. However, for his supporters inside and outside the ANC to attack The Goodman Gallery, City Press and Brett Murray personally is irresponsible and stifles debate over the credibility of Jacob Zuma for the office of President. Zuma has done controversial things before and during his time in office that are worthy of criticism and ‘The Spear’ amongst the rest of the exhibition reflects this. No one should be above criticism, especially if their actions will have an impact upon many people. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fchbjaj-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Governments have always struggled with the idea of press investigation and freedom of information, claiming Assange is not a journalist is simply a stunt. We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier. Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour. Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age. In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories [1] . New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same. Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist. [1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here . | free challenge house believes julian assange journalist
A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries. Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result. [1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy. [1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fchbjaj-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist. Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government. [1] At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder [2] . [1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005, [2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011. | free challenge house believes julian assange journalist
Journalists fulfill a multitude of roles. Of course revealing information is part of that but only one part. Further, journalists do not reveal information, as Assange does, purely because it’s secret but within a wider narrative. It is however difficult to see what wider narrative Assange is pursuing. Realistically, there are some things that need to be confidential; diplomatic and military communications would come high up that list. Assange seems primarily interested in reveling things purely because they are secret. One of the curious things about Wikileaks is that, while some of it has been embarrassing, it has been published indiscriminately. The US Diplomatic Cables, the most famous of the leaks and the ones that caused the most debate, have mostly been described as embarrassing rather than reveling corruption or illegality. It’s difficult to see what journalistic goal such voyeurism could fulfill. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fchbjaj-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is a difference between actual journalists and those who like having their names published in newspapers. Assange has far more claim to the description than many of them. One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry [1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill [2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media. A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment. A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity. [3] By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify [4] . This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists. [1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here [2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011. [3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011, [4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010. | free challenge house believes julian assange journalist
Historically, journalists have been protected from prosecution for espionage (Assange is threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act) whereas their sources were not. Assange is providing the information which he has acquired illegally. The fact that he, in turn, had a source does not qualify him as a journalist. Surely it makes more sense to view him as a source, someone simply providing information to the journalist of the Guardian, Times and elsewhere, who subsequently used the data in actual journalism. Assange doesn’t seem interested in Freedom of information as much as he is in simply causing trouble. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fchbjaj-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source. British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk. [1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”. [2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.” [3] He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it." Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff [4] . Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site. It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher. It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it. Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up [1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010, [2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010, [3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010, [4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010, | free challenge house believes julian assange journalist
The source material is at least open to scrutiny, and anyone can decide if it appears to be genuine. Equally many serious journalists take Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks team seriously enough and have no difficulty with trusting the stories put forward. If he is really a patsy of agents unknown then governments, notably the US, seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to silence him and the rest of the organisation. Presumably the banks blockading his site have reason to believe that he is a threat to their commercial interests, otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time to give him the added credibility. The very fact that the people he attacks take him sufficiently seriously to have taken the actions they have would seem to add a lot of weight to his argument and suggest strongly that the sources are quite genuine. The more likely explanation is that the political classes of many nations simply do not know how to respond to this new kind of journalism which can neither be bought nor bullied and, unlike the traditional media, can be based anywhere in the world. As a result they use frightening words like “Terrorist” and “Espionage” in an attempt to discredit him. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fchbjaj-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Wikileaks is not a news organisation, it exists exclusively to disseminate classified information, no genuine news organisation has such an agenda. News organisations provide a variety of functions, from reporting the weather to breaking news. Even the most hardened investigative outlet does not dedicate itself exclusively to revealing classified information. It appears to have no interest in what that information is or whether its disclosure causes more harm than good, the sole interest is that it is classified. That isn’t journalism, at best it’s prurience and, at worst, egocentricity – ‘I know something you don’t know’. The fallout for people’s jobs, liberty and safety appears not to interest those involved. Their own ‘About Us’ section makes a point of stating that “We accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information [1] .” Interestingly, the whole of the rest of the page talks about maintaining anonymity for both readers and sources and little else. It provides screeds of text about themselves, a free press and the importance of releasing classified information. Unusually for a media organisation, there are no details about how to complain if a reader feels they or someone else has been misrepresented. This means that Wikileaks is denying someone’s freedom of speech by not giving them a right to reply and have corrections published. In an age where even the most stentorian paper of record enshrines such rights, one might assume that such devout proclaimers of free speech would shout it from their mast head. Instead, their Chat page is mostly full of dire warnings that security forces are watching the reader’s every keystroke. Hardly encouraging for the little guy wishing to clear their name. [1] The link to the page is here . | free challenge house believes julian assange journalist
The fact that Wikileaks specialises in one form of news gathering is hardly revolutionary – a little like saying magazines specialise in features or blogs tend to be dominated by opinion pieces. The idea, however, that journalists should provide their source material so that readers can make a decision for themselves is one that constantly finds praise from audiences and many journalists regret they cannot provide because of the pressures of printable space or broadcast schedules. At the time of writing, the lead item on Wikileaks’s front page read; WikiLeaks: 542 days of banking blockade - no process Assange: 539 days detainment - no charge Manning: 737 days in jail - no trial Grand Jury: 622 days US secret Grand Jury into WikiLeaks - no transparency If the purpose of a news organisation is to hold account the powerful and act as an independent check on the use of that power then Assange would certainly seem to be having an impact. By contrast, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Leveson Inquiry is now months into an investigation focussing on the largest media organisation in the world, which stands charged of breaking not so much the basic principles of good journalism but, rather, those of simple humanity. Surprisingly, the publisher of this group, Rupert Murdoch, remains at liberty on the basis that he had no idea what was going on in his empire. The first group pointed out the failings of the powerful, the latter invited them to parties. It is interesting to consider which one comes truer to the spirit of journalism. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-fchbjaj-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Assange is mostly interested in self-promotion, not being a serious journalist. Journalists are judged by far more than their ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge or information. The quality of their writing, the skills and contacts developed to acquire it, the training used to enter the trade (which incidentally would have included the difference between the legitimate use of privileged information and espionage) and many other characteristics. Assange doesn’t seem to have taken any interest in any of this. He undertook no formal training – he studied but did not graduate in Physics – and worked as a computer programmer and hacker before founding Wikileaks. His interest in data seems to do with the technological side of the process rather than the ideas. Were a printer in the same situation to attempt the same defence, it would be ignored. Assange is an irresponsible geek, self-proclaimed hacker and someone who clearly has no interest in, or understanding of, the notion that there are occasions when a responsible journalist does not release information, frequently out of concern for those whose lives it might engender. His entire background has been in hacking, he is described as a cryptographer in articles written by or about him before the launch of Wikileaks. This sudden commitment to journalism seems awfully convenient in the event of the threat of a trial. | free challenge house believes julian assange journalist
It is worth noting the people who are happy to say that he is a journalist – in addition to many other journalists around the world. He has received the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression award, the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, La Monde Person of the Year (2010) [1] and the Martha Gelhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011. [2] Wikipedia’s media partners include Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and El Pais. If we accept the idea that ‘by his works shall you know a man’ then the fact that Wikileaks has produced game changing information – and stories that have changed policy - on extra-judicial killings in Kenya, the dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire, the Church of Scientology, procedures at Guantanamo bay [3] and the financial dealings at Kaupthing and Julius Baer [4] – all before the revelations about the State Department imbroglio that is suddenly of interest to … well, to the State Department. There are few other journalists in the word that could make such claims. [1] AFP, 'Assange named Le Monde Man of the Year', ABC News, 24 December 2010, [2] Deans, Jason, 'Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prise', guardian.co.uk, 2 June 2011, [3] Chivers, Tom, 'Wikileaks' 10 greateststories', The Telegraph, 18 October 2010, [4] The Economist, 'Be afraid' 9th December 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Other religions have the right to wear prescribed clothing enshrined in British law, it is hypocritical not to offer Christianity the same protection. Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory. [i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board. Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity. The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger). [ii] Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here. Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any. [i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, [ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12 | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
Legislation takes account of particularities. Christianity does not, and never has, required the wearing of the cross as a demonstration of faith and few representations are found before the fifth century [i] – indeed in early Church history it was discouraged. In much of the West, the cross has become simply another piece of jewellery and legislation should reflect that reality. To allow a Christian to wear such an adornment but not to allow a non-Christian to wear exactly the same thing would be unworkable. That is the consistent position. [i] Maurice Dilasser, The Symbols of the Church, 1999, P.21, |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Declaration of the faith is a key part of Christianity and that should be respected. The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith [i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society. There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others. Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith [ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility. As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient. [i] Galatians 6:14 among others [ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012. | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
There is no requirement within Christianity that the cross should be worn. This makes it quite different from other items of religious clothing – specifically required as articles of faith - that are accepted in the workplace. It is an entirely reasonable distinction to draw a line between iconography that the employee believes it would be a sin to go without and that which is an active choice. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross. People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater. Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery [i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position. The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself [ii] ; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept. On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”. [iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved. [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010. [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work” [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010, | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient. Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point. Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid. Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do. Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others [i] . The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty? The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright. [i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23. | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
Proposition is completely over-reacting. Nobody is stopping the women involved from practising their faith but there is nothing within mainstream Christianity that requires the wearing of a cross as a public statement. Furthermore, a tolerant society can only function if it works within a framework of rules that are evenly applied. This case demonstrates that as even the established religion is expected to confine to that framework. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that. Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern [i] . Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job. For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief. [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work” | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed. The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If this were about wearing a badge with a political slogan or something similar, everyone would agree that it was inappropriate. The same principle should apply to iconography. If the image they were wearing endorsed a political candidate or another company, the issue would never have got to court. Neither complainant was employed in a capacity where their religious conviction was relevant to the job. If the situation were reversed and they were compelled to profess a religious faith in such a situation there would, rightly, be an outcry. In neither situation would the consumer of the service being provided expect to be confronted with endorsements for which candidate to vote for or which soda to drink. The question then arises, if political and corporate branding is out, why should suggestions about which god to pray to be okay? The very fact that they were willing to pursue this action demonstrates that images and symbols carry meaning beyond the explicit statement they make. If that is true, then it is equally true that others may object to, or be offended by, what that symbol represents. People who have bought airline tickets or are in need of healthcare should not be confronted by imagery they may find unpleasant. | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
Recognizing that people have different views is a fairly fundamental part of maintaining societal cohesion. Freedom of expression requires the corollary that there is no right not to be offended – it is hard to see how such a right would be manifest in practical terms. It is also worth reiterating that there were no complaints from customers or patients in either case. |
arguana-qrel-test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Employers impose rules relating to conduct in the workplace, it’s one of the things that everyone accepts when they take and continue in a job. Put simply, if you don’t like the rules, don’t do the job. The fact that the world of work and the life of faith can come into conflict should hardly have come as a surprise to the women concerned. From Biblical times onward, that has been a reality. However, they chose these particular jobs and that choice comes with consequences. Their actions would seem to suggest that they prize their faith more highly than their jobs, the solution seems fairly straightforward – get another job. Religious belief is also a choice. Nobody is compelling the two women into one particular faith and nobody, including the Church, is compelling them to wear a cross as a demonstration of that decision. The problem seems to have arisen because one thing they chose to do was in conflict with another thing they chose to do. It is difficult to see how that is the responsibility of either the employer or the courts. | nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
Both women were long-standing employees. The rules changed around them, it is, however, difficult to see how not wearing a cross was innate or fundamental to the job they were doing. Employers hire a worker’s labour, not their soul. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-egecegphw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The expansion of Heathrow is vital for the economy Expanding Heathrow would ensure many current jobs as well as creating new ones. Currently, Heathrow supports around 250,000 jobs. [1] Added to this many hundreds of thousands more are dependent upon the tourist trade in London which relies on good transport links like Heathrow. Loosing competitiveness in front of other European airports not only could imply wasting the possibility to create new jobs, but lose some of those that already exist. Expansion of Heathrow would also be building a vital part of infrastructure at a time when British infrastructure spending is very low as a result of the recession so helping to boost growth. Good flight connections are critical for attracting new business and maintaining current business. This is because aviation infrastructure is important for identifying new business opportunities. The UK’s economic future depends on trading not just with traditional destinations in Europe and America but also with the expanding cities of China and India, cities such as Chongqing and Chengdu. [2] Businesses based in these cities will be much more likely to invest in Britain with direct flights. [3] [1] BBC News, ‘New group backs Heathrow expansion’, 21 July 2003, [2] Duncan, E., ‘Wake up. We need a third runway’. The Times, 2012, [3] Salomone, Roger, ‘Time to up the ante on roads and airports’, EEF Blog, 2 April 2013, | economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would
The business community is far from united in its supposed support of a third run-way. Surveys suggest that many influential businesses in fact do not support expansion. A letter expressing concern was signed by Justin King the Chief Executive of J Sainsbury and BskyB’s James Murdoch. [1] Therefore to conflate the business community as one voice calling for expansion is misguided. We should also remember, when considering the alternatives to Heathrow’s new run-way such as a new runway at another London airport or a completely new airport, that these would likely have a similar economic impact as the Heathrow expansion would. If it is the connections that matter to bring in business and tourists then so long as the connection is with London it does not matter which airport the connection is from. There may even be less need for the airport to be a hub airport if we are focused on benefits to London as Bob Ayling, former British Airways Chief Executive stated Heathrow should be focused on passengers that want to come to London not simply as a transfer point, he said that a third runway could therefore be “a costly mistake”. [2] [1] Osborne, Alistair, ‘Kingfisher chief Ian Cheshire questions Heathrow runway success’, The Telegraph, 13 July 2009, [2] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’ |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-egecegphw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Heathrow is full; it must expand Put simply Heathrow is at the limits of its capacity so there needs to be expansion. Heathrow is already at 99% capacity and running so close to maximum capacity means that any minor problem can result in large delays for passengers. London’s major rivals have four-runway hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, even Madrid [1] this means these cities have much greater capacity as they can take up to 700,000 flights a year compared to Heathrow’s 480,000. [2] Britain does not want to be left behind, crumbling in the dust. These airports therefore clearly have the capacity to take flights that would otherwise be going to Heathrow. Heathrow needs to expand to maintain its competitiveness so that the airport retains its position the most popular place to stop-over in before catching a connecting flight. Colin Matthews, the chief executive of Heathrow (formerly BAA) has argued that Heathrow’s lack of hub capacity currently costs the UK £14billion. [3] Heathrow is in danger of falling behind continental rivals in Frankfurt and Amsterdam. [1] Leunig, T., ‘A third runway? Yes, and a fourth too, please’ The Times, 2012, [2] Lundgren, Kari, “Heathrow Limit Costs U.K. 14 Billion Pounds, Airport Says”, Bloomberg, 15 November 2012, [3] Topham, Gwyn., ‘Heathrow must be expanded or replaced, airport chief announces’ The Guardian, 15 November 2012, | economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would
It is not as simple as considering that Heathrow is at capacity so everything will go to competitor airports. So far it is simple alarmism to warn of traffic going to European competitors, John Stewart (chairman of HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) points out that the airport already has more departure flights each week to key global business centres than its two closest rivals in Paris and Frankfurt combined. [1] Heathrow being at capacity may encourage other forms of transport, for example encouraging passengers to take the train rather than the plane to Edinburgh, Paris, or Brussels. Secondly it is not always simple just to change hub. As a transfer point if moving airport it would be necessary to change dozens of flights to enable the same transfers not just one or two. And finally of course Heathrow’s expansion is not the only way to deal with excess demand at Heathrow, numerous other options have been proposed from the ‘Boris island’ airport, to linking Heathrow and Gatwick by high speed train. [2] [1] Topham, Gwyn, ‘Airline chiefs slam government for blocking Heathrow expansion’, The Guardian, 25 June 2012, [2] BBC News, ‘Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link’, 8 October 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-egecegphw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Heathrow is in the best location for London Flying is critical for business. Heathrow is well located for the people that will pick up the bill funding its expansion. People need to be able to get to their homes and work easily from the airport otherwise it is impractical. According to the Civil Aviation Authority 25% of business passengers start their journey within 30 minutes of Heathrow, far more than any other airport. [1] This demonstrates that the demand for Heathrow’s services from the local area is real and pronounced. Heathrow is closer to London than its rivals Gatwick and Stansted and has better transport links through the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express. A new airport could potentially be closer, but finding space within the M25 for a large airport without attracting the same kind of opposition that expanding Heathrow has would be next to impossible [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012, | economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would
Location is a relatively unimportant issue when talking about ‘hubs’. In hub airports an important proportion of passengers and cargo is only passing through; it arrives to the airport by plane only to leave it again by plane without even reaching the city. As a result for these passengers the links to the city do not matter. Even for those going into London the location of the airport itself is not an issue per se, rather the length of time to get into the center of the city is. In which case wherever becomes the new hub should have new transport links built or it should be built at a location that has, or will have, good transport connections such as to the North West of London where the High Speed 2 railway will run. [1] [1] Leftly, Mark, and Chorley, Matt, “IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow”, The Independent, 2 September 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-egecegphw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Expanding Heathrow would be at the expense of the environment Expanding Heathrow will directly contribute to climate change and make it impossible for the UK to stay within the EU legal limits. The EU has established limits on the levels of harmful pollution and the UK has signed a commitment to reduce Green House Gases by 80% by 2050 and also to emit no more CO2 in 2050 than it did in 2005. However, building a third runway would be enabling and encouraging greater number of flights which would result in Heathrow becoming the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the country. [1] Attempts by the government to weaken pollution laws by lobbying Brussels would enable the third runway but at a deeply nefarious price, that of human health, currently fifty deaths a year are linked to Heathrow but with expansion this would go up to 150. [2] [1] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’ [2] Wilcockm David, and Harrism Dominic, ‘Heathrow third runway ‘would triple pollution deaths’’, The Independent, 13 October 2012, | economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would
The former Labour government when considering expansion made it clear that environment would be taken into account when considering the construction of a third run-way so there would be environmental restrictions to make sure that this is not an issue. [1] However not expanding Heathrow also contributes to CO2 emissions; with so little spare capacity flights are often delayed due to any small disruption on the ground leaving planes circling above London increasing their emissions. Building more runways anywhere else would have a similar environmental impact to the expansion plans. [1] The Labour Party, ‘A future fair for all; The Labour Party Manifesto 2010’. 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-egecegphw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The economic case for expansion does not add up A study conducted by the NEF revealed that the cost of expansion will outweigh the benefits by at least £5billion. [1] London has six airports and seven runways meaning that London already has the best connections globally. Together, London airports have a greater number of flights to the world’s main business destinations than other European cities, despite serving less ‘leisure’ destinations than Paris’s airports. [2] The solution to making air travel efficient lies in increasing the size of planes and filling them up rather than running half empty flights on small planes, something which is particularly prevalent on short haul flights. Short haul flights could also be re-directed to alternative airports such as Gatwick, City airport, Luton and Stansted so as to free up more space at Heathrow. The expansion case also assumes ever increasing numbers flying, yet passenger numbers dropped for the first time in the wake of the recession, [3] and eventually technology may reduce demand for business travel. There are also other restrictions aside from runway capacity that prevents more flights, for example the UK has an agreement with China that restricts the UK to 62 flights to China per week. [4] [1] New Economics Foundation, ‘A new approach to re-evaluating Runway 3’, 19 April 2010, [2] Stewart, John, ‘No economic case for expansion’, November 2011, [3] Rutherford, Tom, “Air transport statistics’, House of Commons Library, 4 July 2011, SN/SG/3760, p.4 www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03760.pdf [4] HACAN, ‘BAA challenged on claim that it is lack of runway capacity at Heathrow that is limiting flights to China’, airportwatch, 14 November 2012, | economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would
London has a lot of runways in total because it has a lot of airports however Heathrow is the only one that has the benefit of being a hub airport as each of these existing airports only have one or two runways. Suggestions that short haul flights should go to other London airports misses the point of a hub airport which is that there should be quick transfers – something that would not be possible if the passengers from the feeder services have to cross London from one airport to another and there is not the demand to use larger planes on these routes. [1] Of course we cannot be certain that passenger numbers will keep going up in line with predictions and long term trends. However we can be certain that the numbers using UK airports won’t go up if we don’t provide the capacity to enable them to come. [1] Thomas, Nathalie, ‘Heathrow rejects Gatwick rail link plan’, The Telegrapoh, 29 October 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-egecegphw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The third run-way would cause noise and pollution problems The high population density of the area around Heathrow means it is not an ideal location for a bigger airport. It makes sense to increase capacity in an area with lower population density instead of trying to do so within a location that is constrained by adjacent urbanized areas. Expanding Heathrow airport would mean increasing the problem of noise for the about 700,000 people living under the flight path. According to the HACAN report the Department for Transport only accepts that noise is a problem if a community is subjected to over 57 decibels of noise over the course of a year according to a 1985 Government study. In which case only the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow would be affected. However this does not tie in with Londoner’s experiences. BAA says that 258,000 people are currently affected by high noise levels but the local community believes the real number is more like 1 million people affected. [1] Any argument that states that noise levels will not increase is flawed at best and outright fraudulent at worst, clearly a large expansion in the number of flights will increase the amount of noise and possibly the numbers affected. [1] Johnson, Tim, ‘Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem’, HACAN, March 2010, p.12 | economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would
An additional run-way would not necessarily result in a large increase in noise pollution as this would depend on where the runways are located. If the runway was established to the West of its current location incoming planes would cross over areas not occupied by as planes would fly over the M25, the Poyle industrial estate, the Wraysbury reservoir and part of Stanwell Moor. On the other hand all the runways could be moved to the other side of the M25 and closely spaced potentially reducing the noise level over what it is at the moment even with three or four runways. [1] Therefore the noise complaints argument is overstated. No airport will ever be silent but with proposals to increase the number of airbus A380s, which are half as noisy as the 747 when taking off and only produce a quarter of the noise when landing, the noise argument really does lose a lot of credit. [2] We should also remember that a third runway will ease capacity problems so potentially allowing the first and last flights to be at more sociable hours than is currently the case. [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012, [2] Heathrow Media Centre, ‘Heathrow set to more than triple its A380 fleet by 2020’, 25 October 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Online gambling affects families A parent who gambles can quickly lose the money their family depends on for food and rent. It is a common cause of family break-up and homelessness, so governments should get involved to protect innocent children from getting hurt [5]. Each problem gambler harmfully impacts 10-15 other people [6]. The internet makes it easy for gamblers to bet secretly, without even leaving the house, so people become addicted to gambling without their families realising what is going on until too late. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
There is no evidence that gambling prevents people from caring for their family. The vast majority who gamble do so responsibly. It isn’t right to ban something that millions of people enjoy just because a few cause problems. And banning gambling, whether online or in the real world will not stop these problems. Sadly, even if it is illegal, people with problems will still find a way to hurt those around them – just look at drugs. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Gambling is bad for you. Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the House always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? The harm is not just the loss of money and possible bankruptcy; it causes depression, insomnia, and other stress related disorders [4]. The internet has made gambling so much easier to do and encouraged lots of new people to place bets so dramatically multiplying the harm. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
Every leisure industry attracts a few troubled individuals who take the activity to harmful extremes. For every thousand drinkers there are a few alcoholics. Similarly some sports fans are hooligans. Those who gamble enough to harm themselves would be those who would gamble in casinos if the internet option was not available. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Gambling is addictive. Humans get a buzz from taking a risk and the hope that this time their luck will be in, this is similar to drug addicts [7]. The more people bet, the more they want to bet, so they become hooked on gambling which can wreck their lives. Internet gambling is worse because it is not a social activity. Unlike a casino or race track, you don’t have to go anywhere to do it, which can put a brake on the activity. The websites never shut. There won’t be people around you to talk you out of risky bets. There is nothing to stop you gambling your savings away while drunk. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts, simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. The large majority of people who gamble online keep to clear limits and stop when they reach them. The few people with a problem with being addicted will still find ways to gamble if gambling is illegal either through a casino, or else still online but in a black market that offers no help and that may use criminal violence to enforce payment. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Online gambling encourages crime Human trafficking, forced prostitution and drugs provide $2.1 billion a year for the Mafia but they need some way through which to put this money into circulation. Online gambling is that way in. They put dirty money in and win clean money back [8]. Because it is so international and outside normal laws, it makes criminal cash hard to track. There is a whole array of other crime associated with online gambling; hacking, phishing, extortion, and identity fraud, all of which can occur on a large scale unconstrained by physical proximity [9]. Online gambling also encourages corruption in sport. By allowing huge sums of money to be bet internationally on the outcome of a game or race, it draws in criminals who can try to bribe or threaten sportsmen. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
Criminals will always try to exploit any system, but if governments allow legal online gambling they can regulate it. It is in the interest of gambling companies to build trustworthy brands and cooperate with the authorities on stopping any crime. Cheats in several sports have been caught because legal websites reported strange betting patterns. Betfair for example provides the authorities with an early warning system ‘BetMon’ to watch betting patterns. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cant enforce an online gambling ban Governments can’t actually do anything to enforce a ban on the world wide web. Domestic laws can only stop internet companies using servers and offices in their own country. They cannot stop their citizens going online to gamble using sites based elsewhere. Governments can try to block sites they disapprove of, but new ones will keep springing up and their citizens will find ways around the ban. So practically there is little the government can do to stop people gambling online. Despite it being illegal the American Gambling Association has found that 4% of Americans already engage in online gambling [11]. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
Governments have the power to ban online gambling in their own country. Even if citizens could use foreign websites, most will not choose to break the law. When the United States introduced its Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 gambling among those of college-age fell from 5.8% to 1.5% [12]. Blocking the leading websites will also be effective, as it makes it very hard for them to build a trusted brand. And governments can stop their banks handling payments to foreign gambling companies, cutting off their business. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Government only objects to online gambling because they dont benefit Governments are hypocritical about gambling. They say they don’t like it but they often use it for their own purposes. Sometimes they only allow gambling in certain places in order to boost a local economy. Sometimes they profit themselves by running the only legal gambling business, such as a National Lottery [15] or public racecourse betting. This is bad for the public who want to gamble. Online gambling firms can break through government control by offering better odds and attractive new games. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is make sure that their people gamble in safe circumstances. This means real world that casinos and other betting places that can easily be monitored. The examples of government using gambling for their own purposes are really the government turning gambling into a benefit for the country. Physical casinos benefit the economy and encourage investment, and lotteries can be used to raise money for good causes. Online gambling undermines all this, as it can be sited anywhere in the world but can still compete with, and undercut organised national betting operations. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Other forms of online gambling What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not? | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
Gambling is quite different from buying stocks and shares. With the stock market investors are buying a stake in an actual company. This share may rise or fall in value, but so can a house or artwork. In each case there is a real asset that is likely to hold its value in the long term, which isn’t the case with gambling. Company shares and bonds can even produce a regular income through dividend and interest payments. It is true that some forms of financial speculation are more like gambling – for example the derivatives market or short-selling, where the investor does not actually own the asset being traded. But these are not types of investment that ordinary people have much to do with. They are also the kinds of financial activity most to blame for the financial crisis, which suggests we need more government control, not less. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Only regulation can mitigate harms It is where the sites operate, not where they are set up that matters for regulation. It is in gambling sites interest to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it. Regulation will mean that sites will have to verify the age of their users and prevent problem gamblers from accessing their site. When there is regulation consumers will go to the sites that are verified by their government and are providing a legal, safe service [13]. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
It is only in the interests of big gambling sites that aim to create a long term business to go along with tough regulation. Online gambling sites can get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers. In the real world governments can ban bets being taken from children and drunks. They can make sure that the odds are not changed to suit the House. And they can check that people running betting operations don’t have criminal records. In online gambling on the other hand 50% of players believe that internet casino’s cheat [14]. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-beplcpdffe-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Personal freedom Gambling is a leisure activity enjoyed by many millions of people. Governments should not tell people what they can do with their own money. Those who don’t like gambling should be free to buy adverts warning people against it, but they should not be able to use the law to impose their own beliefs. Online gambling has got rid of the rules that in the past made it hard to gamble for pleasure and allowed many more ordinary people to enjoy a bet from time to time. It provides the freedom to gamble, whenever and wherever and with whatever method the individual prefers. | business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression
People are not free to do whatever they want whenever they want. When their activities harm society it is the government’s role to step in to prevent that harm. Online gambling simply provides the freedom for more people to get into debt, not a freedom that should be encouraged. |
arguana-qrel-test-economy-thsptr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Those who have more owe more to the state Wealthier people benefit from the state more than do those who are worse off for two reasons. First, they have more to lose in the absence of the state. Without the rule of law, people would no longer be bound by any power to respect one another’s property rights. A rich person has much more to lose should there be a reversion to the state of nature; nothing would shield him from the mob. For this reason it is in the interest of the wealthy to preserve the just rule of law in the state and to uphold its institutions. It does so by funding it through taxation, and those who have more to lose have a greater interest in paying more to ensure its continuity. The second benefit the rich have is that they have gained more from the state than have the poor and less well off. It is only within a state system that maintains order and provides vital services that markets can form and be maintained. [1] Warren Buffett, for example, has argued that he could never have amassed anywhere near the sort of wealth he has in a country without the rule of law, such as Bangladesh. [2] Wealthy business owners and corporations use state utilities far more than poorer individuals quite often, when for example they use public roads to move their vast fleets of trucks, while individuals only drive their personal car. The state guarantees property rights, which allows markets to form and provides the protections and services to businesses that need them to function. Those who profit from that have an obligation to contribute to its upkeep. [1] Lakoff, George and Bruce Budner. “Hidden Truths of Progressive Taxes”. Institute for America’s Future. 2007. Available: [2] Terkel, Amanda. “Warren Buffett: ‘I Should Be Paying a Lot More in Taxes’”. Huffington Post. 2010. Available: | tax house supports progressive tax rate
Possessing greater wealth does not obligate an individual to contribute more to the state by any moral precept. All people’s property rights should be protected equally. Citizens who succeed by their own industry and accrue wealth should not be punished for their success, or be expected to contribute more to a state that provided the same basic framework of law and rights to all citizens, rich and poor. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.