summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Part II — Definitions

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [287.49 KB]

Part V — Building restriction areas

Part VI — Parking and Loading

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [117.51 KB]

Part VII — Land development administration

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab
Have your say on the CoJ LUS

Notice

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [92.58 KB]

Public participation – what are the changes to the Scheme?

Download [895.87 KB]

Proposed new Land Use Scheme – changes highlighted in red and blue

Download [1.08 MB]

Annexures

Download [1.86 MB]

In the News

STATEMENTS AND MEDIA RELEASES

Click on a logo to view.

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

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”.