Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-01-21 15:07:13 +02:00 | Uolanda | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-19 09:07:40 +02:00 | Jakobus | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | The Government has proven that it cannot be impartial in so called "hate speech" transgressions, since "Kill the Boer" is only recognised as a "struggle song" with no hate speech implications or undertones! How can you justify thát? | Yes I do |
2026-01-14 16:39:45 +02:00 | John | 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 | |
2026-01-10 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 | |
2026-01-01 09:00:17 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | All of the above | Rather start focusing on corruption as it would be much better for all South Africans. | Yes I do |
2025-12-31 12:01:51 +02:00 | Anbin | Yes I do | No concern | No I do not | |
2025-12-31 08:19:38 +02:00 | Dominic | No I do not | All of the above | 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. | 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 |
2025-12-17 03:23:05 +02:00 | Anton | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2025-12-12 12:45:42 +02:00 | Brian | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | Yes I do | |
2025-12-11 12:17:32 +02:00 | Matt | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | No I do not | |
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 | |
2025-12-10 06:59:52 +02:00 | Madeleine | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
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 | |
2025-12-09 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 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 | |
2025-12-01 11:40:15 +02:00 | Henriëtta | No I do not | All of the above | Introduced in Parliament in 2018, the Bill marks a significant step towards the protection of all people in South Africa against hate crimes and hate speech, particularly those based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other form of discrimination.In Section 4 of the Bill, hate speech is defined as the intentional publishing or communicating of anything that can incite harm or promote hate based on grounds, including, among others, age, sexual orientation and race. The Bill also provides for penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or both for those who are convicted of the offences. | No I do not |
2025-11-29 19:09:50 +02:00 | Armand | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
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 |