Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 10 latest comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-04-14 11:16:15 +02:00 | Lesley | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-14 11:13:39 +02:00 | Nadine | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-14 07:04:09 +02:00 | Grant | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | No I do not | |
2026-04-13 22:27:46 +02:00 | Karen | No I do not | Other | No I do not | |
2026-04-13 12:52:08 +02:00 | Robyn | No I do not | All of the above | 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) | No I do not |
2026-04-12 08:56:38 +02:00 | Marianne | 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 14:01:40 +02:00 | John | No I do not | All of the above | 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 |
2026-04-07 07:30:55 +02:00 | kay | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do |
Comments as delivered to the Presidency as of 13 March 2024
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab