summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

view the campaign

Participation report

coming soon

Comments as delivered to Parliament

Download [2.09 MB]

STATEMENTS FROM CIVIL ORGANISATIONS

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display your organisation’s statement? Click here. 

In the Media

Public hearings on Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill, Virtual Meeting Platform, National Assembly

https://youtu.be/IGROZgsU-uM?si=wSeOZr4rfeZge_6l

Several years after the landmark Constitutional Court judgment legalising the private use of cannabis, the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill has been introduced. High hopes have been dashed though as the Bill has come in for some stinging criticism for failing to live up to the spirit of the apex court’s ruling. How did we get here and what happens next? Michael Avery speaks to Paul-Michael Keichel, Partner, Schindlers Attorneys; Dr Keith Scott Chairman of the South African Drug Policy Initiative; Andrew MacPherson, Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution practice at Commercial law firm Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr; & Petri Redelinghuys, founder of Herenya Capital

This video is about the 2020 cannabis for private purposes bill in South Africa. Most of us have very little understanding with regards to how a bill works and gets passed. We reached out to Schindlers Attorneys and they generously offered to help explain what a bill is and how it gets passed. Schindlers Attorneys has it’s own cannabis department with professional support staff and further support from three of the firm’s partners.

The Business Day Cannabis Economy LIVE in partnership with Afriplex is hosting a series of webinars, starting on the 27th of August 2020 to discuss “the role of Cannabis in rebuilding SA’s economy”. A panel of experts will address the following topics that comprise the international and local cannabis economy:
• Green Gold or Fools Gold? – Mark Diuga (Managing partner of the AfriCan Growth Fund)
• Let’s talk Cannabidiol – Sean Willard (Pharmacist, Holistic Cannabis Practitioner and National Training and PR Manager for Releaf Pharmaceutical)
• Positioning the Western Cape as the Medicinal Cannabis Hub of Africa – Tim Harris (CEO of Wesgro)
• The future of cannabis in the South African Economy – Bronwyn Williams (Economist, Trend Analyst and Futurist, Flux Trends)
• Join Joanne Joseph, Danie Nel (Managing Director, Afriplex) and our industry experts for some much needed clarity on the cannabis industry that is filled with a cacophony of misleading information.

The Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill

Download [422.69 KB]

Memorandum of Objects

Download [68.89 KB]

Encourage participation – distribute this notice

Download [168.92 KB]

en English
af Afrikaansen Englishst Sesothoxh Xhosazu Zulufr Frenchpt Portuguese
Close

Freedom of Religion SA (FOR SA)

TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY FOR SA

I strongly oppose the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill [B9B – 2018], which I believe to be unconstitutional and unnecessary, for the following reasons:

  1. The Bill violates our constitutional rights as religious persons to express our religious beliefs without fear of punishment or persecution (section 15, read with section 16). Increasingly, around the world but also in South Africa, various holy scriptures (particularly on contentious issues) are regarded as “politically incorrect” or “offensive”, allegedly causing emotional and/or social harm.
  2. I specifically oppose the Bill’s:
    1. wide definition of “harm” (in Clause 1);
    2. the failure to define “hatred” (in Clause 1); and
    3. definition of, and creation of, the crime of “hate speech” (in Clause 4).
  3. The creation of the crime of “hate speech” for saying / distributing something which could possibly be construed as “harmful”, will have certain unintended consequences, namely the criminalisation of good / well-meaning people who will be prosecuted for saying what they sincerely believe (according to their holy texts) and sent to jail.
  4. There are already sufficient existing laws dealing with “hate speech”.
  5. For all of the reasons given, I ask:
    1. For the scrapping of the “hate speech” sections from the Bill altogether;
    2. Alternatively, should the “hate speech” provisions remain part of the Bill, we ask:
      1. That “harm” be defined as: “gross emotional and psychological detriment that objectively and severely undermines the human dignity of the targeted group”; and
      2. That “hatred” be defined as: “strong and deeply-felt emotions of enmity, ill-will, detestation, malevolence and vilification against members of an identifiable group, that implies that members of that group are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and subjected to ill-treatment based on their group affiliation”.
    3. That Clause 4(2)(d) (the “religious exemption clause”) be strengthened as follows to protect:
      “expression of any religious conviction, tenet, belief, teaching, doctrine or writings, by a religious organisation or an individual, in public or in private, to the extent that such expression does not actively support, instigate, exhort, or call for extreme detestation, vilification, enmity, ill-will and malevolence that constitutes incitement to cause gross emotional and psychological harm that severely undermines the dignity of the targeted group, based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation”.