Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-09-16 21:21:50 +02:00 | Francis | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-09-11 18:36:20 +02:00 | Marina | No I do not | All of the above | Essentially, this law makes it illegal to have any sort of disagreement or argument or to state unpopular views - as is our constitutional right for free speech. It tramples all over our constitutional rights and makes a joke of our constitution | No I do not |
2026-09-08 23:15:55 +02:00 | Tom | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-09-07 12:59:45 +02:00 | Virgil | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-08-31 07:41:17 +02:00 | Charles | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-08-25 17:04:35 +02:00 | le roux | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | This is utter bull. Wiped backsides on segments of population , still do and is just for eye blind. Discrimination against the pale faces are glaringly obvious even to the blind , but pushed into the 30y plans as delaying tactics . Shame on such high aspirations before '94. Now worth less than the effluent down streets . Language rights thrown into long drop as all public announcements in our municipality always in1one lingo . Shame on you too. | Yes I do |
2026-08-21 08:19:51 +02:00 | Pamela | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-08-19 07:37:09 +02:00 | Robin | No I do not | All of the above | Nothing has been done about eff racially targeted chanting thereby displaying government support of hate speech and co trol implementation on speech going against their agenda. | No I do not |
2026-08-17 12:56:21 +02:00 | Karen | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-08-16 16:15:31 +02:00 | Greg | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Fuck off Cyril! Free speech is an all-or-nothing right. Grow up and acknowledge this. | No I do not |
2026-08-13 18:40:41 +02:00 | manny | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-08-13 09:36:59 +02:00 | Jakobus P H | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | This seems to be another suppression of free speech which impacts all other freedoms. As there is already laws and hate speech is addressed in the constitution this is just another unnecessary law that will be badly administered or used as a cudgel against whomever the government wants to shut up. | Yes I do |
2026-08-13 09:26:25 +02:00 | kabelo | Yes I do | No concern | I am happy | Yes I do |
2026-07-09 19:11:32 +02:00 | Marius | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-05-01 16:51:04 +02:00 | Wiaan | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
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 | |
2026-04-07 07:30:55 +02:00 | kay | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-20 09:34:03 +02:00 | Pieter | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
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 20:26:13 +02:00 | Lori | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-03-19 08:06:48 +02:00 | Shannon | Not fully | Other | Yes I do | |
2026-03-19 06:13:55 +02:00 | Sarel | No I do not | All of the above | This bill is uncalled for and only a stick to black and coloured people to oppress and intimidate white citizens. | No I do not |
2026-03-17 07:42:51 +02:00 | Kenneth | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-17 07:40:46 +02:00 | Wilhelm | Not fully | 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 | |
2026-02-09 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 |
2026-01-08 21:17:19 +02:00 | Gerhard | No I do not | All of the above | Control freedom of speech | No I do not |
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 |
2025-12-10 19:50:14 +02:00 | Ronell | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not |