Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-05-06 14:47:00 +02:00 | Wynand | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-04 01:36:07 +02:00 | David | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-29 19:30:35 +02:00 | Tanja | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-04-14 11:16:15 +02:00 | Lesley | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-10 22:44:54 +02:00 | Marise | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-04-10 13:22:48 +02:00 | Petra | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | The Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act is criticized as a threat to South Africa’s democracy because it replaces restorative justice with a punitive, overbroad framework. Critics argue the Act is unnecessary and redundant, as the common law crime of crimen injuria and the Equality Act (PEPUDA) already successfully penalise hate speech. By criminalising "offensive" or "insulting" language, the law effectively creates state-enforced "thought control" that silences legitimate political dissent. Opponents point to a pattern of selective enforcement. While the state prioritizes these laws, it is accused of "denialism" regarding the brutal reality of farm murders, which advocates argue should be classified as priority hate crimes rather than mere robbery. They contend that while political leaders sometimes romanticise violence against farmers, this new law will be used to suppress those speaking out against such violence. Furthermore, the Act’s vague definitions of "harm" and "hatred" threaten to chill vital debates on transformative policies like BEE laws and Land Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC). When "social detriment" is criminalised, criticizing racial quotas or property rights infringements could be framed as undermining "social cohesion," turning political criticism into a jailable offense. Ultimately, this legislation risks becoming a tool for the state to punish unpopular views while ignoring the security and property rights of its most vulnerable citizens. | Yes I do |
2026-04-02 11:15:21 +02:00 | Petra | No I do not | All of the above | The Bill makes it legally "easier" to face criminal prosecution (with a potential 5-year prison sentence) than it is to face civil litigation under the Equality Act. In a legal system, the most severe consequences should be reserved for the most clearly defined and narrowest range of conduct. This Bill flips that logic, creating a scenario where a person could be imprisoned for speech that might not even meet the civil threshold for a fine or apology. South Africa already has the Equality Act (civil) and the common law crime of Crimen Iniuria (criminal), which have been used successfully in high-profile cases (e.g., Penny Sparrow or Vicki Momberg). Critics argue that adding a new, complex layer of legislation doesn't solve the root causes of prejudice; it simply creates a legal bottleneck and potentially weaponises the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for "speech policing" instead of focusing on violent crime. | No I do not |
2026-03-20 13:31:09 +02:00 | Lionel | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-20 11:08:18 +02:00 | Paul | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-03-19 20:42:16 +02:00 | Debbie | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | I strongly object to the proposed Hate Speech Bill currently before Cyril Ramaphosa. In its current form, this Bill represents a concerning overreach of state power into the realm of constitutionally protected expression. The lack of clear and precise definitions creates significant ambiguity, which opens the door to subjective interpretation and inconsistent enforcement. Legislation that carries potential criminal consequences must meet the highest standards of clarity and constitutional alignment. This Bill does not appear to meet those standards. Instead, it risks infringing on fundamental freedoms under the Constitution, particularly freedom of expression, by casting an overly broad net. I am concerned that such legislation, if enacted without substantial revision, could have a chilling effect on open dialogue, legitimate debate, and the free exchange of ideas in South Africa. I urge that this Bill be reconsidered, refined, or withdrawn until it can demonstrably uphold constitutional protections while addressing genuine harm in a balanced and narrowly defined manner. Laws that are vague and far-reaching do not strengthen a democracy—they place it at risk | No I do not |
2026-03-19 16:43:01 +02:00 | Tracey | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | It would be a far better use of stretched resources to fund things that will have more of an impact e.g. better funding for healthcare, than on an unnecessary bill like this. | Yes I do |
2026-03-18 18:12:07 +02:00 | Thasneem | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-18 11:08:05 +02:00 | Cassian | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-18 07:26:53 +02:00 | Andrew | Not fully | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-18 04:57:44 +02:00 | Pierre | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | Yes I do | |
2026-03-17 16:34:51 +02:00 | Sue | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | No I do not | |
2026-03-17 12:32:50 +02:00 | Annemarie | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-03-17 08:48:28 +02:00 | Jakobus P H | No I do not | All of the above | This is to my mind just political grandstanding which the ANC is very good at but fail dismally in good governance which should be their only concern as they are supposed to serve a nation for the betterment of the nation instead of the glorification and enrichment of self. | No I do not |
2026-03-17 06:51:02 +02:00 | albert | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-11 10:59:15 +02:00 | Michael | 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 | |
2026-02-04 18:38:12 +02:00 | john | No I do not | All of the above | So called 'hate speech' is nothing more than CENSORSHIP. This Bill will be used to further shut down concerned citizens, PARTICULARLY the white variety. It will be used by butthurt people to cause major problems for other people, have them sent to jail for daring to stand up for themselves. The so-called 'president' is nothing more than a Soros puppet, and he needs to be stopped from signing this devastating piece of legislature. | No I do not |
2026-02-04 02:02:40 +02:00 | Johan | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-11 22:29:58 +02:00 | Peter John | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-12-31 12:01:51 +02:00 | Anbin | Yes I do | No concern | No I do not | |
2025-12-10 06:59:52 +02:00 | Madeleine | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
2025-12-09 11:41:23 +02:00 | Mike | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | The Bill contravenes section 36 of the Constitution, because it is: Unnecessary as existing laws have already been successfully implemented in various criminal and civil cases of hate speech. Overbroad: The Bill’s definition of “hate speech” is broader than the Constitution’s definition of hate speech, criminalising speech the Constitution sees as protected. The Bill’s definition of “hate speech” is also broader than the Equality Act’s civil law definition of (civil) hate speech. This will make it easier to be found guilty of a criminal offence and sent to jail for up to five years than to be ordered to e.g. apologise under the Equality Act. Vague and ambiguous: The Bill’s different elements for the crime of hate speech are either undefined (e.g. hate) or vague and/or ambiguous (e.g. social cohesion). The Bill also contravenes the Constitution’s founding value of the rule of the law (section 1(c)), because it fails to define the essential element of “hate”. The result is that citizens are unable to know beforehand whether they are committing a crime or not. | 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 |
2025-11-28 10:32:40 +02:00 | Michael | No I do not | All of the above | While genocide juju can call for killing people this idiotic law is the epitome of absurdity. | Yes I do |
2025-11-28 08:25:32 +02:00 | Edouard | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do |