comments2

2026-06-04 15:11:47 +02:00

Gayleen

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

2026-06-03 09:02:57 +02:00

Thomas

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

2026-05-21 23:33:02 +02:00

Jo

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

Yes I do

2026-05-21 13:45:28 +02:00

Kevin

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

2026-05-07 13:30:17 +02:00

Lee

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-05-02 09:50:23 +02:00

Mark

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-05-01 16:51:04 +02:00

Wiaan

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-04-16 13:35:09 +02:00

Raymond

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-04-10 22:44:54 +02:00

Marise

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

Yes I do

2026-04-07 07:30:55 +02:00

kay

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-03-31 16:30:06 +02:00

Karl

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-03-20 08:13:49 +02:00

Winnie

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

Yes I do

2026-03-19 20:34:18 +02:00

Cecile

No I do not

All of the above

This is not the South Africa that Nelson Mandela envisaged.

Yes I do

2026-03-18 11:08:05 +02:00

Cassian

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-03-18 09:23:05 +02:00

Valerie

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

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 07:37:57 +02:00

Neil

No I do not

The Bill is vague and ambiguous

Yes I do

2026-03-10 23:04:47 +02:00

Adwin

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

Yes I do

2026-03-08 11:43:30 +02:00

David

No I do not

All of the above

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

2026-01-22 09:23:02 +02:00

Gwen

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2026-01-08 21:17:19 +02:00

Gerhard

No I do not

All of the above

Control freedom of speech

No I do not

2025-12-17 03:23:05 +02:00

Anton

No I do not

All of the above

No I do not

2025-12-11 22:53:23 +02:00

Lisa

No I do not

All of the above

Yes I do

2025-12-11 07:10:52 +02:00

Carl

No I do not

The Bill is unnecessary

I do not support the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, recently passed by the National Assembly and now awaiting the President’s signature, due to its serious constitutional and legal implications. While combating genuine hate crimes is essential, the Bill’s definition of “hate speech” is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the Constitution.

Firstly, the Bill is unnecessary. South Africa already has civil and criminal mechanisms—such as the Equality Act and existing common-law offences—that have been successfully used to address hate speech and related harms. Introducing a new criminal offence expands state power without demonstrating a legal gap that needs filling.

Secondly, the Bill is overbroad. Its definition of hate speech extends beyond the limits set by the Constitution, criminalising expression that the Constitution expressly protects. It is also broader than the Equality Act’s civil definition, creating a shocking imbalance: citizens could face up to five years in prison for behaviour that would only attract an apology or conciliation under civil law.

Thirdly, the Bill is vague and ambiguous. Key terms—including the word “hate” itself—are undefined, undermining the rule of law by leaving citizens unable to know in advance what conduct is criminal.

For these reasons, the Bill should not be signed into law.

Yes I do

2025-12-10 19:50:14 +02:00

Ronell

No I do not

All of the above

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

2025-12-04 10:58:28 +02:00

Matthew

No I do not

The broad definition of hate speech

South Africa is a country where raping a woman is legal (due to almost zero law enforcement or prosecution). South Africa is a country where people can steal your car, empty your house, kill you for being white (among others). But if you dare to say "a certain word" then you go to jail, but only if you are white.

This regime needs to enforce law against actual criminals, not arrest and jail people for words they don't like. But the regime doesn't care about law and order, they only care about controlling people.

Oh, also, today "hate speech" is naughty words against certain tribes and against filthy degenerates (LGBTP springs to mind). Tomorrow it will be about stopping Christians from preaching the Bible. This terrorist regime already banned Pastors from entering the country.

I will say what I like and to Hell with the ANC reprobates.

No I do not

2025-12-03 07:25:09 +02:00

Claudette

No I do not

All of the above

31 years into our so - called "democracy", and the president are signing such bills into law ? It is unconstitutional because it deprives citizens of the right to freedom of speech.

No I do not