Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-03-08 11:43:30 +02:00 | David | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-02-25 21:08:52 +02:00 | Karl | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-02-25 10:52:27 +02:00 | Theo | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-02-16 19:43:58 +02:00 | Navin | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | Yes I do | |
2026-02-15 15:31:03 +02:00 | Robert | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-02-12 09:54:12 +02:00 | Tertius | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | It fails to define the essential element of “hate”. | Yes I do |
2026-02-11 10:24:13 +02:00 | Simone Danielle | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-02-09 18:38:46 +02:00 | mpilo | No I do not | All of the above | I demand that the Act be narrowed to align strictly with Section 16 of the Constitution. Specifically, the vague concept of "emotional harm" must be replaced with the objective standard of "incitement of imminent violence." Furthermore, "occupation" must be removed as a protected category to prevent political censorship. This government is already perceived as being out of touch with reality; now, you seek a law that could prohibit citizens from criticizing the state and its decisions. You have developed a reputation for failing the people while protecting those with criminal associations. Now, you intend to punish citizens simply because you are personally offended by their words. Instead of fixing the police force, you are attempting to over-regulate law-abiding citizens. It is clearly easier for you to pass restrictive laws than it is to catch murderers or fix the economy. This law has nothing to do with protecting the people; it is designed to protect the government. If you cannot fulfill your basic duties to the public, you should step down. | No I do not |
2026-02-04 19:42:11 +02:00 | Niké | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-02-01 16:50:56 +02:00 | Nelmarie | No I do not | All of the above | Hate speech currently is a buzzword; that only applies to some people. How can "kill the Boer" not be hate speech? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary define "kill" as: 1a: to deprive of life: cause the death of 1b(1): to slaughter (an animal) for food 2a: to put an end to 2c: to mark for omission also: delete 2d: annihilate, destroy 3a: to destroy the vital or essential quality of 3b: to cause to stop 6a: to cause extreme pain to 6b: to tire almost to the point of collapse 7: to hit (a shot) so hard in various games that a return is impossible NONE of these verbs sound positive at all! "Kill" as in "kill the Boer" is definitely a verb, and a verb is defined as: a word that ... expresses an act, occurrence, or state of being. Even children know a verb is a DOING word, which indicates ACTION. So how can a word that's defined as a DOING word that indicates ACTION not be seen as an instruction to "deprive of life" of "the Boer", which is defined as: a South African of Dutch or Huguenot descent. This means that not only farmers, the people responsible for ensuring that South Africans have food to eat, but all Europeans are also at risk, as people insisting on using this phrase do not ask for the colour of your skin or DNA tests before they attack. Dear Mr President, please get your house in order! | Yes I do |
2026-01-31 06:31:20 +02:00 | Malcolm | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-30 01:25:34 +02:00 | Lois | No I do not | All of the above | If your currently laws cannot find Kill the f**m**, as hate speech and the new one over steps so many boundaries, that South African won't even know theyre committing a crime, i think the Bill should go back to the drawing board. You will leave a terrifying heritage behind if you sign this Bill. | No I do not |
2026-01-22 09:23:02 +02:00 | Gwen | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-13 05:45:05 +02:00 | Linda | No I do not | All of the above | Do not trust the government and its proxy’s to fairly and without prejudice execute these powers based on your actions over the last 30 years. | Yes I do |
2026-01-11 22:29:58 +02:00 | Peter John | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-11 16:35:58 +02:00 | Claudette | No I do not | All of the above | This Bill should be scrapped and be treated with the contempt it deserves. SA anc govt has signed and implemented 143+ race - based laws since 1994. We are tired of all these racist laws, when does it stop ? This country has had enough of racist rhetoric and divisive politics to last a lifetime. When will we have an opportunity for people to put their differences aside and start to heal from the injustices of the past , AND the present , and work together as a country ? | Yes I do |
2026-01-10 18:49:07 +02:00 | Mierzaan | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-08 21:17:19 +02:00 | Gerhard | No I do not | All of the above | Control freedom of speech | No I do not |
2026-01-03 10:11:43 +02:00 | Jolande | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-12-29 22:50:25 +02:00 | King | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-12-28 22:43:52 +02:00 | Juan | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | No. Please send the Bill back to Parliament under section 79(1) of the Constitution due to serious flaws. It is overbroad and vague, criminalising protected speech with penalties up to five years in jail—far harsher than civil remedies under existing laws. By not defining ‘hate’ clearly, it undermines the rule of law, making citizens unsure what constitutes a crime. It also fails the Rabat Plan of Action test, breaching our international commitments to limit criminal hate speech sanctions to strictly necessary cases. This risks abusing power against religious, political, or personal expression rather than genuinely combating prejudice. | Yes I do |
2025-12-11 07:10:52 +02:00 | Carl | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | I do not support the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, recently passed by the National Assembly and now awaiting the President’s signature, due to its serious constitutional and legal implications. While combating genuine hate crimes is essential, the Bill’s definition of “hate speech” is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the Constitution. Firstly, the Bill is unnecessary. South Africa already has civil and criminal mechanisms—such as the Equality Act and existing common-law offences—that have been successfully used to address hate speech and related harms. Introducing a new criminal offence expands state power without demonstrating a legal gap that needs filling. Secondly, the Bill is overbroad. Its definition of hate speech extends beyond the limits set by the Constitution, criminalising expression that the Constitution expressly protects. It is also broader than the Equality Act’s civil definition, creating a shocking imbalance: citizens could face up to five years in prison for behaviour that would only attract an apology or conciliation under civil law. Thirdly, the Bill is vague and ambiguous. Key terms—including the word “hate” itself—are undefined, undermining the rule of law by leaving citizens unable to know in advance what conduct is criminal. For these reasons, the Bill should not be signed into law. | Yes I do |
2025-12-10 19:50:14 +02:00 | Ronell | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2025-12-09 20:55:46 +02:00 | Dietrich | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-12-09 14:28:52 +02:00 | Michen | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2025-12-04 17:40:26 +02:00 | Fernando | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | We live in Democratic environment with Freedon of Speech Mr Cupcake | No I do not |
2025-12-04 10:58:28 +02:00 | Matthew | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | South Africa is a country where raping a woman is legal (due to almost zero law enforcement or prosecution). South Africa is a country where people can steal your car, empty your house, kill you for being white (among others). But if you dare to say "a certain word" then you go to jail, but only if you are white. This regime needs to enforce law against actual criminals, not arrest and jail people for words they don't like. But the regime doesn't care about law and order, they only care about controlling people. Oh, also, today "hate speech" is naughty words against certain tribes and against filthy degenerates (LGBTP springs to mind). Tomorrow it will be about stopping Christians from preaching the Bible. This terrorist regime already banned Pastors from entering the country. I will say what I like and to Hell with the ANC reprobates. | No I do not |
2025-12-03 09:05:37 +02:00 | C | No I do not | All of the above | Communist ideology that seeks to control free speech. RSA is a democratic country that doesn't need communist control through government over reach. | No I do not |
2025-12-02 21:18:28 +02:00 | Werner | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-11-29 19:09:50 +02:00 | Armand | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do |