comments

Displaying 10 latest comments. Click here to see more.

first-name
decision
top-concern
message
Jonatan
No I do not
Broadening definitions of equality/discrimination
It is draconian in that the definition is beyond what should ever be considered for criminal charges or fines.

the result will be fear nothing but fear of offending someone and vexatious and malicious people will misuse the law to victimize people they do not like. One has to have an objective measure for any court to apply. If not it will encroach on the dignity of the dignity of people as they may not use every day words or tell the truth since someone may be offended by the truth as people often are. The bill in its current form is a direct assault on our freedom of religion and being able to say that according to my religion something is wrong or morally reprehensible.
Louis
No I do not
Extending scope of equality/discrimination
There are many things wrong with this bill. One of the main issues is the liability due to perception rather than intent, b that logic anyone can accuse anyone else of hurting their feelings or right to dignity without the accused person having meant anything negative, a society cannot work this way.

Stop focusing on unimportant issues, this country is on the brink of economic and civil collapse, create a business friendly environment so that most people can at least have jobs and income and thus have their basic needs met and that the country can be functional again.
Shadley
No I do not
Broadening definitions of equality/discrimination
Annella
No I do not
Other
I believe in equality and non-discrimination, but my understanding of the context of these words and another persons may differ. I am concerned about the autonomy of private schools, privacy in the home and an understanding that religions have many differing views that someone will always be offended. My relugious convictions even differ with sone people in my own relugion! I think the words and the applicable definition should be vlearly stated.
Actually it brings to mind discrimination when the Tenders are chosen how about that, I think these Tenderpteneurs will have so much fun in court if they don't win the Tender... infact nothing more will be done as it will all be in litigation.....or leave the law as it is.
Joe
No I do not
Broadening definitions of equality/discrimination
1. The creation of new laws to enforce existing laws is a waste of time and proof of incompetence by the government to manage existing laws.
2. The extension of definitions to a point where interpretation of words and concepts are purely subjective, creates an environment where any interpretation can be swung to suit any narrative.
3. The anc government has a track record that proves their inability to implement and/or manage anything.
4. These proposed extensions will be used as a hammer against anything even vaguely resembling a nail.
Chris
No I do not
Other
I am against the law in its entirety. By setting a value / parameter / definition to equality in human beings you are automatically UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATING against any value / parameter / definition that does not look / sound / react exactly the as the value / parameter / definition that you use as the measure the equality in the first place. There can therefore in reality only be a one of any thing that conforms to any value / parameter / definition you set in the first place. As soon as you start widening the values / parameters / definition to include or exclude certain given values / parameters / definitions you are automatically unfairly discriminating against any value / parameter / definition that is not included in your set of values / parameters / definition that is held by any other human being not conforming to your set of values / parameters / definition of equality.
In effect the mere fact that you are alive can and may be construed as discriminatory, fairly or unfairly, as you are filling space that someone else living or dead could have filled.
Is the purpose of this law not to prevent UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION.
Sean
No I do not
Freedom of religion, belief or opinion
It is a basic human right to have freedom of association as well as freedom of religion. For the sake of not offending someone with our beliefs and opinions we cannot start taking away basic human rights from one group to please another. Perceived discrimination cannot be rectified by stripping others of their rights. Christians and other religions have always had the right to have their belief system and preach accordingly. We all have the right to our opinions and beliefs, why are some people's opinions and beliefs now considered more important that that of others? If someone's lifestyle and beliefs offend me I should be allowed to say so and likewise they should be allowed the same privilege. It is the prerogative of each person to grow up and manage their own feelings and offences. I am greatly concerned that government wants to get involved in such matters and I am of the opinion that it is not acceptable for government to impose laws that infringe on basic human rights like freedom of religion for the sake of saving someone else's feelings. Government should stick to its responsibilities of governance, building the economy and service delivery because that is where the need is instead of chasing after the emotions and feelings of minorities that should take responsibility for their own lives.
Barend
Not fully
Freedom of religion, belief or opinion
Government must focus on corruption and creating an environment for job creation. We all have rights and protection under Section 2 of the Constitution. There is no need to broaden the definitions and extend the scope of discrimination/equality. Leave the Church alone. For many citizens it is a refuge in their daily struggle.
Lyle
No I do not
Freedom of religion, belief or opinion
Wow, government keeps trying to run every part of our lives. I believe in Gods law not governments. Government has proven itself to have no morals and now they want to impose their immoral beliefs on us.

1. We have a right to our own beliefs - who the hell does government think they are to tell us what to believe. Governments ways are not Gods ways.

2. People are too easily offended, and this is just empowering those people to take advantage and force their views on others. People need to have have a thicker skin.

3. Why should anyone else take take responsibility for what you say? People need to take responsibility for themselves. This is the typical view that it's always someone else fault. Government is a prefect example. It's always the pasts fault, even though they have had 25 years to make a difference. Instead they have made the country worse. This view should not be encouraged. Take responsibility.

4. These laws won't be applied to politicians from the EFF and ANC who make racist remarks against other race groups. These groups seem to be able to say what they want without repercussions.



Johan
No I do not
Freedom of religion, belief or opinion
This is absolutely ridiculous. No person in this world is so perfect that they will never make a mistake. You can not legislate human behavior. It will lead to countless court cases and the judiciary system is already overwhelmed. If a person feels insecure in themselves they will retort to use this as a means to take revenge on people who disagrees with them. Religious freedom will be seriously impacted. Religion gives people meaning in life and they used it as the basic foundation to regulate their lives, and in itself is not intrinsic to being hateful. Differences in opinion is just that. Differences of opinion. To criminalize differences of opinion is against the very foundation and grain of the freedom of speech. There is ample redress of grievances through in the current judicial system. We are not pre-programmable robots. This will lead to a society that will be deeply divided and suspicious in all personal dealings. Everybody does have equal opportunities everywhere, but not all people are prepared to work or take these. Surely it is up to an individual to improve himself in as much as he can. It would be grossly unfair to expect someone who is not prepared to better themselves to share in the same benefit as someone who has. Socialism can not work and will never work. It leads to societies that are the worst to live in, because it benefits only a select few and does nothing for the majority. Only free societies works the best. History has proven this over, and over, and over again. It is madness to think that something that failed so miserably will eventually work if we legislate it enough. This Act must be scrapped. It will have unintended negative outcomes that will by far outweigh any positive benefits. It sounds good on paper, but in practice it will not work.