comments2

2026-02-25 21:08:52 +02:00

Karl

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-02-24 12:53:48 +02:00

Steven

No I do not

Constitutionality of the Bill

“I write what I like”
― Steve Biko

what has changed regarding freedom of speech

Yes I do

2026-02-12 09:54:12 +02:00

Tertius

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

It fails to define the essential element of “hate”.

Yes I do

2026-02-11 10:24:13 +02:00

Simone Danielle

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-02-09 18:38:46 +02:00

mpilo

No I do not

All of the above

I demand that the Act be narrowed to align strictly with Section 16 of the Constitution. Specifically, the vague concept of "emotional harm" must be replaced with the objective standard of "incitement of imminent violence." Furthermore, "occupation" must be removed as a protected category to prevent political censorship.

This government is already perceived as being out of touch with reality; now, you seek a law that could prohibit citizens from criticizing the state and its decisions. You have developed a reputation for failing the people while protecting those with criminal associations. Now, you intend to punish citizens simply because you are personally offended by their words.

Instead of fixing the police force, you are attempting to over-regulate law-abiding citizens. It is clearly easier for you to pass restrictive laws than it is to catch murderers or fix the economy. This law has nothing to do with protecting the people; it is designed to protect the government. If you cannot fulfill your basic duties to the public, you should step down.

No I do not

2026-02-04 19:42:11 +02:00

Niké

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

Yes I do

2026-02-04 02:02:40 +02:00

Johan

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-02-01 16:50:56 +02:00

Nelmarie

No I do not

All of the above

Hate speech currently is a buzzword; that only applies to some people. How can "kill the Boer" not be hate speech?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary define "kill" as:

1a: to deprive of life: cause the death of

1b(1): to slaughter (an animal) for food

2a: to put an end to

2c: to mark for omission also: delete

2d: annihilate, destroy

3a: to destroy the vital or essential quality of

3b: to cause to stop

6a: to cause extreme pain to

6b: to tire almost to the point of collapse

7: to hit (a shot) so hard in various games that a return is impossible

NONE of these verbs sound positive at all! "Kill" as in "kill the Boer" is definitely a verb, and a verb is defined as: a word that ... expresses an act, occurrence, or state of being. Even children know a verb is a DOING word, which indicates ACTION.

So how can a word that's defined as a DOING word that indicates ACTION not be seen as an instruction to "deprive of life" of "the Boer", which is defined as: a South African of Dutch or Huguenot descent. This means that not only farmers, the people responsible for ensuring that South Africans have food to eat, but all Europeans are also at risk, as people insisting on using this phrase do not ask for the colour of your skin or DNA tests before they attack.

Dear Mr President, please get your house in order!

Yes I do

2026-01-21 15:07:13 +02:00

Uolanda

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

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

2026-01-13 05:45:05 +02:00

Linda

No I do not

All of the above

Do not trust the government and its proxy’s to fairly and without prejudice execute these powers based on your actions over the last 30 years.

Yes I do

2026-01-08 18:38:55 +02:00

Michael

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2025-12-31 12:01:51 +02:00

Anbin

Yes I do

No concern

No I do not

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

2025-12-13 16:37:54 +02:00

Mark

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

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.

No I do not

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

2025-12-11 07:10:52 +02:00

Carl

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

I do not support the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, recently passed by the National Assembly and now awaiting the President’s signature, due to its serious constitutional and legal implications. While combating genuine hate crimes is essential, the Bill’s definition of “hate speech” is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the Constitution.

Firstly, the Bill is unnecessary. South Africa already has civil and criminal mechanisms—such as the Equality Act and existing common-law offences—that have been successfully used to address hate speech and related harms. Introducing a new criminal offence expands state power without demonstrating a legal gap that needs filling.

Secondly, the Bill is overbroad. Its definition of hate speech extends beyond the limits set by the Constitution, criminalising expression that the Constitution expressly protects. It is also broader than the Equality Act’s civil definition, creating a shocking imbalance: citizens could face up to five years in prison for behaviour that would only attract an apology or conciliation under civil law.

Thirdly, the Bill is vague and ambiguous. Key terms—including the word “hate” itself—are undefined, undermining the rule of law by leaving citizens unable to know in advance what conduct is criminal.

For these reasons, the Bill should not be signed into law.

Yes I do

2025-12-10 06:59:52 +02:00

Madeleine

No I do not

Constitutionality of the Bill

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 14:28:52 +02:00

Michen

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

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 10:58:28 +02:00

Matthew

No I do not

The broad definition of hate speech

South Africa is a country where raping a woman is legal (due to almost zero law enforcement or prosecution). South Africa is a country where people can steal your car, empty your house, kill you for being white (among others). But if you dare to say "a certain word" then you go to jail, but only if you are white.

This regime needs to enforce law against actual criminals, not arrest and jail people for words they don't like. But the regime doesn't care about law and order, they only care about controlling people.

Oh, also, today "hate speech" is naughty words against certain tribes and against filthy degenerates (LGBTP springs to mind). Tomorrow it will be about stopping Christians from preaching the Bible. This terrorist regime already banned Pastors from entering the country.

I will say what I like and to Hell with the ANC reprobates.

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

2025-12-03 06:40:46 +02:00

Mathew

No I do not

Constitutionality of the Bill

Hate Speach is already well established in our laws. Preventing hate speech is a balance against freedom of speach which is one of the most critical elements required for democracy to work.

Many citizens do not approve of the current governments narratives and actions.

Many of our political parties in office have proved themselves to be race obsessed and intent on micro Managing every element of citizens lives.

Putting the power of determining what is hate speech in the hands of politicians will destroy our democracy.

Yes I do

2025-11-29 19:09:50 +02:00

Armand

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do