comments

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying 10 latest comments. Click here to see more.

Submitted	first-name	support	top-concern	message	template
2025-06-15 17:59:22 +02:00	Werner	No I do not	All of the above		Yes I do
2025-06-13 10:13:40 +02:00	Trevor	Not fully	All of the above		No I do not
2025-06-11 14:06:52 +02:00	Johan	No I do not	All of the above		Yes I do
2025-06-11 08:26:09 +02:00	Vishal	No I do not	The Bill is vague and ambiguous	Objection to the Constitutionality of the Bill’s Definition of “Hate Speech” I submit a strong objection to the proposed Bill’s definition of “hate speech”, which stands in direct conflict with Section 36 of the Constitution and undermines the fundamental rights it guarantees. The Bill is not necessary, as South Africa already has sufficient legal mechanisms—both criminal and civil—that have been successfully used to prosecute and address genuine cases of hate speech. Creating duplicative laws not only confuses the public but opens the door to misuse and overreach. The definition of “hate speech” in the Bill is significantly broader than that of the Constitution, effectively criminalising speech that our highest law protects. This overbreadth is a threat to free expression, public discourse, and democratic participation. Alarmingly, the Bill also goes further than the Equality Act’s civil provisions, making it easier for someone to face a five-year prison sentence under criminal law than to merely face a civil remedy like an apology. This imbalance is deeply unjust and incompatible with our legal principles. Moreover, the Bill introduces vague and ambiguous terminology—such as "hate" and "social cohesion"—without offering clear definitions. This vagueness undermines legal certainty and opens the door to subjective interpretation and selective enforcement, in violation of the rule of law. The lack of precision in such a serious offence creates legal risks for individuals, the media, academics, artists, and civil society actors engaging in legitimate debate. In conclusion, the Bill’s current formulation threatens constitutional rights, weakens the rule of law, and places an intolerable burden on free speech. I urge Parliament to reject or substantially revise the Bill to bring it in line with the Constitution, our democratic values, and the existing legal framework that already protects against real hate speech without silencing protected expression.	No I do not
2025-06-10 18:14:13 +02:00	Leigh	No I do not	The broad definition of hate speech	Imagine a bill so vague that a woman calling someone a ‘monkey’ gets jailed but a man preaching to full stadiums to ‘kill the boer’ is not committing hate speech.	Yes I do
2025-06-10 12:08:40 +02:00	Christopher	No I do not	All of the above		Yes I do
2025-06-09 18:17:12 +02:00	Paul	No I do not	All of the above		Yes I do
2025-05-26 12:48:30 +02:00	Shayne	No I do not	All of the above		Yes I do
2025-05-26 06:32:36 +02:00	C	No I do not	The Bill is unnecessary	Time and resource waste.	No I do not
2025-05-25 21:47:41 +02:00	Diane	Not fully	The Bill is vague and ambiguous	Hate speech is against our constitutional rights. The ordinary people go to jail for that, yet Julius Malema is allowed to use Hate speech and the high court allows it. What is good for one is good for all. Play fair please	No I do not

Comments as delivered to the Presidency as of 13 March 2024

Download [16.52 MB]