Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2024-09-07 06:42:19 +02:00 | Rashied | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-08-25 15:51:56 +02:00 | Werner | No I do not | All of the above | Too vague words | No I do not |
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 |
2024-07-13 15:11:27 +02:00 | Patricia | 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. 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). | No I do not |
2024-07-11 17:23:09 +02:00 | Teresa | No I do not | All of the above | PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THIS BADLY DRAFTED, UNNECESSARY BILL INTO LAW. | No I do not |
2024-06-29 14:13:22 +02:00 | Jen | Not fully | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-05-29 20:06:19 +02:00 | Juliet | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2024-05-21 07:19:24 +02:00 | Noelle | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-05-17 09:06:37 +02:00 | Tanya | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-05-16 18:48:36 +02:00 | Charlie | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | 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 |
2024-05-08 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 |
2024-04-23 07:06:39 +02:00 | Lynelle | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-22 21:10:30 +02:00 | Staci | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-21 15:01:30 +02:00 | Trevor | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-20 00:11:30 +02:00 | Martinus Christoffel | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | If we take a look at bill C-16 in Canada, and the impact that it had on free speech, it should be more that enough reason to rethink the definitions in this law. | No I do not |
2024-04-19 17:03:21 +02:00 | Kelly | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2024-04-19 16:44:17 +02:00 | Anestasia | No I do not | Other | Yes I do | |
2024-04-17 14:07:25 +02:00 | Sune | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-16 18:16:18 +02:00 | Regina | No I do not | All of the above | The bill is vague, unnecessary and leaves the door wide open for ideologies to be pushed down on innocent good peace loving citizens. Its application will cause harm not good. The bill should be reconsidered and allow for freedom of religion and freedom of speech which has been the foundation of a great nation for a long time. | Yes I do |
2024-04-12 15:57:14 +02:00 | Tanya | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | Yes I do | |
2024-04-12 15:12:25 +02:00 | Benita Madelaine | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-06 14:00:47 +02:00 | Francina | Not fully | All of the above | No I do not | |
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 |
2024-04-05 13:38:07 +02:00 | Abdulkarim | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-04-03 12:12:01 +02:00 | Unarine | No I do not | Other | No I do not | |
2024-03-22 08:00:38 +02:00 | Rina | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-03-19 19:53:30 +02:00 | Stephan | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2024-03-19 14:48:32 +02:00 | Marta | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | This Bill threatens citizens' right to free speech. It is a tool to stop people from saying what they think. It can be used by government officials to stop people saying anything negative about them, by threatening to send those people to jail. This Bill is so wrong, it is a doorway into a downwards spiral of many bad possibilities. The people must have the right to complain about government, as government officials are public servants and have to listen to their public, regardless if they like what those people have to say. | Yes I do |