comments2

2025-07-18 19:22:45 +02:00

Concerned

Not fully

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

No I do not

2025-07-06 21:28:58 +02:00

Audrey

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

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

2025-06-09 18:17:12 +02:00

Paul

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2025-05-23 10:59:22 +02:00

JACQUELINE

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2025-04-09 10:44:33 +02:00

C

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

2025-03-05 21:19:27 +02:00

V

No I do not

Other

Can this Bill please be aligned to all race groups in South Africa. We are seeing consistent patterns of Black people uttering vulgar statements and it's very ok and nothing is done. Look at the case of Penny Smyth where she got a 8 year jail sentence. More hateful statements are made to us Indian people and yet nothing is said. Why the double standards. Our constitution says we have equal rights but yes ultimately although nobody wants to admit it we are being targeted with racism in reverse in the workplace and being discriminated against. You hate speech is for everyone who is not black and all of us in other minority groups must be made targets.

Yes I do

2025-03-02 20:57:13 +02:00

Imraan

No I do not

Constitutionality of the Bill

Yes I do

2025-01-26 01:00:33 +02:00

Margaret

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

2025-01-13 08:09:20 +02:00

M

No I do not

All of the above

Dear Mr President

Speech is a gift some are gifted to use.
It can be used for good or for bad.
The definition of what is good and what is bad is sometimes difficult to assess, and for that we have a constitution to guide us. Unfortunately this bill failed to take into account the constitution, and it has also failed to even adhere to the idea of what a law should be: an agreement everyone can understand about what is agreed should be done and what not. It failed this by not clearly defining what hate speech is. Furthermore it also seeks to put people into jail for longer than murderers: why? I think if our society wishes to grow we need to allow people to say stupid things and be shamed by society and then have an opportunity to correct what was said. It is called growth. And I think a system allowing this will suite South Africa better than this proposed bill.

No I do not

2025-01-10 22:06:49 +02:00

Carmen

No I do not

Constitutionality of the Bill

No I do not

2025-01-09 11:55:21 +02:00

Mokhele

Yes I do

No concern

Dear Mr President,

The bill was passed by our elected representatives in the National Assembly. Sign that bill into law!

No I do not

2025-01-09 10:30:33 +02:00

coenraad

Yes I do

The broad definition of hate speech

Yes I do

2025-01-09 09:15:08 +02:00

Piet

No I do not

All of the above

We all are South Africans, not black or white or brown South Africans and I think this bill discriminate against certain denominations

Yes I do

2025-01-09 02:07:43 +02:00

Carl

No I do not

All of the above

In a time when Freedom of Thought, Expression and Speech is under attack, and where citizens of nations such as the United Kingdom are being imprisoned for arbitrary and capricious reasons associated with so-called "offensive" speech, South Africa can ill-afford to follow such examples.

Speech or expressions that are wrong can only be exposed and defeated by better speech. Restricting speech in an irrational, unnecessary or arbitrary manner returns our nation to the injustice and oppression so indicative of the former political hegemony under which South Africans suffered.

Yes I do

2025-01-08 17:32:45 +02:00

KARIN

No I do not

All of the above

This is not the so called Freedom of speech, but rather controlling of the people of South Africa

Yes I do

2024-12-31 10:35:02 +02:00

Theo

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

Yes I do

2024-10-31 16:53:59 +02:00

Tshiamo

Yes I do

No concern

No I do not

2024-10-25 10:53:51 +02:00

Relson

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

No I do not

2024-10-15 20:23:41 +02:00

Lesley

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2024-10-04 11:06:42 +02:00

Vanessa

No I do not

All of the above

Stop adding unnecessary bills. this bill will create more hate

Yes I do

2024-10-02 07:05:57 +02:00

William

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2024-07-27 12:52:21 +02:00

Charles

No I do not

All of the above

The DA did not support this bill, and with the DA running the ANC, this bill will not be signed by Cyril Ramaphosa.
However,if it does get signed, then the DA members responsible have proven to South Africa that they are the engineers of this hate bill.
This would show that they are unconstitutional and dangerous to the sovereignty of the country's residents.

No I do not

2024-07-17 13:35:36 +02:00

rynhard

No I do not

All of the above

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 case

No I do not

2024-05-17 09:06:37 +02:00

Tanya

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2024-05-16 18:48:35 +02:00

Charlie

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

Yes I do

2024-04-19 09:26:32 +02:00

Lesley

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

Inciting people to kill is not acceptable

Yes I do

2024-04-13 22:19:41 +02:00

Ingrid

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2024-04-06 10:45:40 +02:00

Umi

No I do not

All of the above

My religious beliefs do not permit such stuff I will teach my own children I don’t want others passing their beliefs on these young minds

Yes I do

2024-04-03 12:55:52 +02:00

George

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

Mhaka leyi yi ta onhela rixaka na ku onhela tiko hinkwaro eka vumundzuku bya rona . Xaniseko wu tava lowu kulu eka tiko hinkwaro.

No I do not