Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-02-13 13:58:55 +02:00 | Beverley | No I do not | All of the above | |
2026-02-13 11:54:01 +02:00 | Sean | No I do not | Subjective Sentencing – The requirement for a Victim Impact Statement | These proposals represent a dangerous shift away from constitutional justice toward emotional, ideological, and surveillance-based policing. First, using Victim Impact Statements to “aggravate” sentencing turns punishment into a subjective exercise. Justice should be based on evidence and proportionality, not on how distressed or persuasive a complainant appears. Two people who commit the same crime should receive the same punishment. Allowing emotion to determine sentencing undermines equality before the law and replaces consistency with chance. Second, the creation of a “hate” database that records political, religious, and social beliefs is a direct threat to freedom of thought and association. No democratic state should compile official records of citizens’ beliefs. History shows that such databases are always abused, if not by the current government, then by the next. This infrastructure enables political targeting, intimidation, and discrimination. Third, formalised social media surveillance criminalises normal civic participation. Tracking who shares or forwards information discourages debate and criticism. It creates a culture of fear in which citizens self-censor to avoid scrutiny. Taken together, these measures expand state power at the expense of basic rights. They weaken due process, concentrate authority in law enforcement, and undermine public trust. Safety cannot be built through monitoring beliefs, emotions, and speech. A free society depends on neutral justice, protected privacy, and the right to speak without fear. |
2026-02-13 10:07:49 +02:00 | Maryse | No I do not | All of the above | |
2026-02-13 08:27:35 +02:00 | Clinton | No I do not | All of the above | Hate speech is bad, but currently only certain people gets punished for it. Just look at Julius Malema getting away with hate speech for years already. |
2026-02-13 08:08:12 +02:00 | Ricus | No I do not | Social Media Tracking | The Social Media Tracking can only be used to target specific individuals. It is impossible to police social media. The best way we can treat it is to allow people to expose themselves on it, and then any person can decide not to associate with them. The sentencing by emotion is a horrible idea. I am someone who doesn't show emotion much. Does this mean someone will get a lighter sentence? Or should people now be more dramatic to force the court for harder sentences? The court should not be affected by any emotions; it should only look at the facts. The Hate Database is another security weak point. It is also giving extra work for SAPS that will not reduce crime directly. We need the police to stop crime and not waste time capturing extra data into a database. |