Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-01-19 11:22:25 +02:00 | Mikateko | Yes I do | No concern | No I do not | |
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 | |
2026-01-11 22:29:58 +02:00 | Peter John | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-01-11 16:35:58 +02:00 | Claudette | No I do not | All of the above | This Bill should be scrapped and be treated with the contempt it deserves. SA anc govt has signed and implemented 143+ race - based laws since 1994. We are tired of all these racist laws, when does it stop ? This country has had enough of racist rhetoric and divisive politics to last a lifetime. When will we have an opportunity for people to put their differences aside and start to heal from the injustices of the past , AND the present , and work together as a country ? | 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 |
2026-01-08 18:38:55 +02:00 | Michael | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
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 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 22:53:23 +02:00 | Lisa | No I do not | All of the above | 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 | |
2025-12-10 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 16:00:12 +02:00 | Beverley | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
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 |
2025-12-03 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 |
2025-12-03 07:25:09 +02:00 | Claudette | No I do not | All of the above | 31 years into our so - called "democracy", and the president are signing such bills into law ? It is unconstitutional because it deprives citizens of the right to freedom of speech. | 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 |