Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-09 11:06:54 +02:00 | Natalie | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
2026-05-21 23:33:02 +02:00 | Jo | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | Yes I do | |
2026-05-20 08:03:13 +02:00 | Mornay | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-06 18:34:35 +02:00 | Jasper | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-04-29 19:30:35 +02:00 | Tanja | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-04-14 11:13:39 +02:00 | Nadine | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-07 07:30:55 +02:00 | kay | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-02 11:15:21 +02:00 | Petra | No I do not | All of the above | The Bill makes it legally "easier" to face criminal prosecution (with a potential 5-year prison sentence) than it is to face civil litigation under the Equality Act. In a legal system, the most severe consequences should be reserved for the most clearly defined and narrowest range of conduct. This Bill flips that logic, creating a scenario where a person could be imprisoned for speech that might not even meet the civil threshold for a fine or apology. South Africa already has the Equality Act (civil) and the common law crime of Crimen Iniuria (criminal), which have been used successfully in high-profile cases (e.g., Penny Sparrow or Vicki Momberg). Critics argue that adding a new, complex layer of legislation doesn't solve the root causes of prejudice; it simply creates a legal bottleneck and potentially weaponises the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for "speech policing" instead of focusing on violent crime. | No I do not |
2026-04-02 11:11:27 +02:00 | Petra | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | A cornerstone of justice is that laws must be clear and predictable. Because the Bill fails to strictly define "hate" or "social cohesion," the law becomes a "moving target." This gives the state and prosecutors immense discretionary power to decide what is criminal based on the political or social climate of the day, rather than objective legal standards. | No I do not |
2026-03-25 07:10:34 +02:00 | Wynand | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
2026-03-19 20:42:16 +02:00 | Debbie | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | I strongly object to the proposed Hate Speech Bill currently before Cyril Ramaphosa. In its current form, this Bill represents a concerning overreach of state power into the realm of constitutionally protected expression. The lack of clear and precise definitions creates significant ambiguity, which opens the door to subjective interpretation and inconsistent enforcement. Legislation that carries potential criminal consequences must meet the highest standards of clarity and constitutional alignment. This Bill does not appear to meet those standards. Instead, it risks infringing on fundamental freedoms under the Constitution, particularly freedom of expression, by casting an overly broad net. I am concerned that such legislation, if enacted without substantial revision, could have a chilling effect on open dialogue, legitimate debate, and the free exchange of ideas in South Africa. I urge that this Bill be reconsidered, refined, or withdrawn until it can demonstrably uphold constitutional protections while addressing genuine harm in a balanced and narrowly defined manner. Laws that are vague and far-reaching do not strengthen a democracy—they place it at risk | No I do not |
2026-03-19 14:10:22 +02:00 | Ada | No I do not | All of the above | This is an indirect attack on Christianity. The Hate Speech Bill determines that we are not allowed to support Israel. (Refer the ICJ case by SA against Israel). Israels’s God is my God. If I do not support Israel, then it means I must reject Judaism and Christianity WHICH I WILL NOT DO! This is a sly move on the part of the ANC to Islamise South Africa with the eventual aim of outlawing Christianity. The ANC is compromised by certain Islamic terrorist backed countries because of their support during the Apartheid struggle. Leave our Constitution and Christianity alone! This is supposed to be a Democratic South Africa. | Yes I do |
2026-03-19 10:21:21 +02:00 | Glynis | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-03-18 11:08:05 +02:00 | Cassian | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-18 10:10:37 +02:00 | Heike | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | Yes I do | |
2026-03-18 07:22:18 +02:00 | Paul | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | The President and his cronies are busy implementing laws thst they themselves to abide by. He, himself introduced Zondo Commission and he cronies got away with the crime and now is Madlanga. He needs to focus on serious issues and introducing laws after laws that he and his cronies dont abide by. | No I do not |
2026-03-18 04:57:44 +02:00 | Pierre | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | Yes I do | |
2026-03-17 15:49:03 +02:00 | Raeleen | No I do not | All of the above | Tired of this hate speech its been going on for 30 years Enough. Can't help what happened in apartheid it was already there. We can all get along with each other but you Mr President you are not interested. I have black people as friends so can everyone else. Create jobs so less stealing then everyone will get along but you have put shit into their heads so it won't happen ?? | No I do not |
2026-03-17 15:06:09 +02:00 | john | No I do not | All of the above | Hate speech is nothing more than a thought control tool. It attacks free speech. We cannot be controlled like this. The next step is full blown communism. Peoples feelings do not control us. If someone is offended, let them grow up, and grow a pair. Ramaphosa and his handlers need to de reined in before we end up like the UK, where one will be jailed for a mean tweet. [FOUR THOUSAND JAILED IN 2025!!] | No I do not |
2026-03-17 14:03:14 +02:00 | Shaun | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | No I do not | |
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 |
2026-02-15 15:31:03 +02:00 | Robert | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
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 |
2026-01-31 06:31:20 +02:00 | Malcolm | 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 | |
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 |
2025-12-11 22:53:23 +02:00 | Lisa | 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 |