Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 10 latest comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2024-05-10 23:13:48 +02:00 | Raviesh | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | What exactly is the definition of hate speech and it directly goes against our constitution so our constitution right should be protected , and how will it help reduce crime in our country. | Yes I do |
2024-05-10 16:50:20 +02:00 | Ingrid | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-05-10 08:16:43 +02:00 | Graeme | No I do not | All of the above | Dear Mr President, The Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill (the Bill), passed by the National Assembly on Tuesday, 5 December 2023, refers. REQUEST: I am writing to appeal to Your Excellency to send the Bill back to the National Assembly for reconsideration, because of the constitutional concerns below. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL’S DEFINITION OF HATE SPEECH: 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. OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL: The Bill fails to incorporate the United Nations’ Rabat Plan of Action threshold test (the requirements used to determine culpability for criminal hate speech). Thus it will cause South Africa to break its international law obligations and commitments to: uphold freedom of expression and impose criminal sanctions for hate speech only as a last resort measure in strictly justifiable circumstances. Thank you | No I do not |
2024-05-10 07:52:00 +02:00 | Gabriel | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-05-08 14:19:50 +02:00 | Ricardo | Yes I do | The broad definition of hate speech | Speech should be condemned in any form of the word. If you are a leader of any organisation or political group you should be responsible enough not to do hate speech. Because you’re misusing your authority in public And you are totally irresponsible . Because some people in some groups are taking the words literally. If get court the leader should be locked up with him. | No I do not |
2024-04-29 14:28:11 +02:00 | Sanet | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-24 19:54:06 +02:00 | Lourens | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-24 07:36:24 +02:00 | Ernst | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | No I do not | |
2024-04-23 07:06:39 +02:00 | Lynelle | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-22 22:28:34 +02:00 | Silvana | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | No I do not |
Comments as delivered to the Presidency as of 13 March 2024
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab