Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying 30 random comments. Click here to see more.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message | template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-09 19:14:29 +02:00 | Marius | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-07-09 11:18:53 +02:00 | Dudley | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-06-25 15:14:41 +02:00 | Nike' | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | Yes I do | |
2026-06-04 15:11:47 +02:00 | Gayleen | No I do not | All of the above | No I do not | |
2026-05-27 11:57:37 +02:00 | Giulio | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-26 05:00:12 +02:00 | Thabang | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-25 15:50:27 +02:00 | Hill | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-25 09:40:51 +02:00 | Jeshurun | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-21 14:46:07 +02:00 | daniel | No I do not | The Bill is unnecessary | No I do not | |
2026-05-20 15:06:01 +02:00 | Darae | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-05-20 13:19:54 +02:00 | Hardus | No I do not | All of the above | Dear Mr President, I respectfully request that you return the Hate Speech Bill to Parliament. In its current form, it raises serious constitutional problems. The Bill is unnecessary because South Africa already has effective civil and criminal laws that deal with hate speech and related offences. It also goes far beyond what the Constitution allows. The definition of hate speech in the Bill is much wider than the narrow limits set in section 16, and even broader than the Equality Act’s civil definition. This means people could face criminal charges and up to five years in prison for expression that would not even qualify as civil hate speech. The Bill is also vague. Key concepts such as “hate,” “harm,” and “social cohesion” are not clearly defined, making it impossible for ordinary people to know what speech is lawful. This lack of clarity violates the rule of law in section 1(c) of the Constitution. In addition, the Bill ignores the UN Rabat Plan of Action, which requires a high threshold before criminal sanctions may be used. By failing to include these safeguards, the Bill risks criminalising protected expression and placing South Africa in breach of its international obligations. For these reasons, I ask that the Bill be reconsidered to ensure it aligns with constitutional rights and international standards. | No I do not |
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 |
2026-04-14 15:07:10 +02:00 | Annie | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | Yes I do | |
2026-04-14 11:13:39 +02:00 | Nadine | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-04-03 21:16:11 +02:00 | Debbie | No I do not | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
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 |
2026-03-22 19:41:10 +02:00 | Mashodi | Not fully | Constitutionality of the Bill | Yes I do | |
2026-03-19 07:54:26 +02:00 | Shannon | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-18 08:28:29 +02:00 | Eberhardt | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | No I do not | |
2026-03-17 19:50:21 +02:00 | Ilana | No I do not | The Bill is vague and ambiguous | No I do not | |
2026-03-17 16:14:08 +02:00 | Fouche | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2026-03-17 11:37:22 +02:00 | Margaretha | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | 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 |
2026-02-16 19:43:58 +02:00 | Navin | No I do not | The broad definition of hate speech | 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 |
2026-01-19 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 |
2026-01-08 18:38:55 +02:00 | Michael | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-12-11 22:53:23 +02:00 | Lisa | No I do not | All of the above | Yes I do | |
2025-12-03 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 |