comments2

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.

HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE HATE SPEECH BILL
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
2026-06-11 13:09:05 +02:00
rynhard
No I do not
All of the above
Yes I do
2026-06-04 15:11:47 +02:00
Gayleen
No I do not
All of the above
No I do not
2026-05-28 21:14:59 +02:00
Debbie
No I do not
The Bill is unnecessary
Yes I do
2026-05-27 07:48:16 +02:00
Fernanda
Not fully
The broad definition of hate speech
Yes I do
2026-05-26 16:12:13 +02:00
Ferose
No I do not
The broad definition of hate speech
Yes I do
2026-05-23 11:50:37 +02:00
Pieter
No I do not
All of the above
Yes I do
2026-05-19 21:41:58 +02:00
Mike
No I do not
All of the above
Yes I do
2026-05-18 16:05:27 +02:00
VICTOR
No I do not
The Bill is vague and ambiguous
A Bill without clear definitions will be referred to the Constitutional Court, this Bill 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
2026-05-07 13:30:17 +02:00
Lee
No I do not
All of the above
Yes I do
2026-04-24 16:24:30 +02:00
Mantis
No I do not
All of the above
No I do not
2026-03-23 18:48:51 +02:00
Penny
No I do not
All of the above
Yes I do
2026-03-20 09:59:27 +02:00
Sue
No I do not
All of the above
Freedom of speech is a critical right to being able to express oneself and opinions, given that people keep to respecting one another. This law can lead to victimization and intimidation. I believe that adults should be able to express themselves and debate issues as such. We should not have nanny laws to behave like adults.
Yes I do
2026-03-19 16:43:01 +02:00
Tracey
No I do not
The Bill is unnecessary
It would be a far better use of stretched resources to fund things that will have more of an impact e.g. better funding for healthcare, than on an unnecessary bill like this.
Yes I do
2026-03-19 08:49:22 +02:00
Kobus
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
2026-03-17 10:11:23 +02:00
PETER
Yes I do
No concern
No I do not
2026-03-17 06:51:02 +02:00
albert
No I do not
All of the above
Yes I do
2026-02-04 19:42:11 +02:00
Niké
No I do not
The Bill is unnecessary
Yes I do
2026-01-30 01:25:34 +02:00
Lois
No I do not
All of the above
If your currently laws cannot find Kill the f**m**, as hate speech and the new one over steps so many boundaries, that South African won't even know theyre committing a crime, i think the Bill should go back to the drawing board.

You will leave a terrifying heritage behind if you sign this Bill.
No I do not
2026-01-22 09:23:02 +02:00
Gwen
No I do not
All of the above
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 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
2026-01-10 18:49:07 +02:00
Mierzaan
No I do not
All of the above
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
2025-12-10 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
2025-12-03 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
2025-12-02 21:18:28 +02:00
Werner
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