IN JAMAICA: Kingston Collge (KC) crowned Burger King National Schools' Debate champion with 233 points over Munroe's 175 points....The winning team, which consisted of Javair Thomas, Kevonne Martin and Chevaughn Channer, also took home a cheque valued at $300,000.

 BY KARENA BENNETT Observer writer  Tuesday, April 22, 2014  
AFTER 30 nail-biting matches, Kingston College was last Tuesday crowned the Burger King National Schools' Debate 2014 champion.

The competition, which started in January, was staged at Limelight Entertainment Complex, Half-Way-Tree, St Andrew.

Valda Ormsby (left), general manager of Burger King,
 presents the Burger King National Schools’ Debate
 Trophy to the Kingston College debate team (from left)
 Javair Thomas, Kevonne Martin, Chevaughn Channer
 and their coach Tamica Telphia.

Kingston College, which played the role of 'opposition' and argued against the motion 'This house believes that hate speech is free speech', scored 233 points to out-perform Munro, 175 points.

The winning team, which consisted of Javair Thomas, Kevonne Martin and Chevaughn Channer, also took home a cheque valued at $300,000.

Team Munro, which played the role of 'government', consisted of James Erle Kirkland, Ottieno Channer and Omar Hall. They were presented with the second- place trophy and a cheque valued at $150,000.

Chief judge Ricardo Brooks explained that strategy, research, support of definition and the distinction between what constitutes hate speech and free speech were the factors that influenced their decision.

According to the judges, they felt the 'government' had a burden to prove: that within the confines of the right to freedom of expression or the right to free speech, there exists a right to say whatever you want, however hateful or prejudicial. The 'opposition' had to prove that there was inherent harm as a result of hate speech and therefore needed to protect society.

Munro's Kirkland posited that free speech is a fundamental right and everyone has a right, granted by the Jamaican constitution, to verbally express whatever they want to say. He argued that when someone uses hate speech it is indeed free speech, as it falls within the Constitution.

Kirkland noted, however, that while hate speech might incite violence in society, the government is proposing that a hate-speech law be enacted to set boundaries, instead of criminalising the act. more