Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 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. |
2026-02-12 23:49:20 +02:00 | Thandoluhle | No I do not | All of the above | I respectfully object to the proposed hate speech regulations on constitutional, legal, and democratic grounds. While the protection of citizens from genuine harm is a legitimate aim, these regulations go beyond preventing harm and instead introduce mechanisms that threaten freedom of expression, the rule of law, and civil liberties guaranteed by the South African Constitution. Firstly, freedom of expression is not optional in a constitutional democracy. Section 16 of the Constitution protects political, religious, and social speech precisely because open debate allows society to correct itself. When citizens fear that their words may later be judged as “harmful” by shifting or subjective standards, public discourse collapses. A society governed by fear of speech does not become safer — it becomes silent. Secondly, the proposed reliance on emotional impact to aggravate sentencing undermines the rule of law. Justice must be objective, predictable, and proportional. Allowing punishment to depend on subjective emotional responses creates unequal outcomes for identical conduct. Courts should adjudicate facts and intent, not feelings. Thirdly, the requirement to record political, religious, or social leanings of accused persons is deeply concerning. A democratic state has no mandate to catalogue the beliefs of its citizens. Such databases erode the presumption of innocence, enable ideological profiling, and mirror practices historically used to suppress dissent rather than uphold justice. Fourthly, expanded surveillance of electronic communication — including the sharing or reposting of content — criminalises ordinary civic participation. This creates a chilling effect where citizens self-censor not because they intend harm, but because they fear legal consequences. Fear replaces participation, and democratic engagement withers. History consistently shows that restrictions on speech are first introduced “for the public good” and later expanded selectively. Once the state is empowered to define acceptable speech and belief, enforcement inevitably becomes political rather than principled. South Africa does not need laws that manage emotion, monitor belief, or silence disagreement. It needs laws that punish real harm objectively, protect all citizens equally, and preserve the freedom to speak — even when speech is uncomfortable. To adopt these regulations would be to trade liberty for control, justice for subjectivity, and democracy for silence. That is a price a free people should not be asked to pay. |
2026-02-12 21:40:43 +02:00 | Karl | No I do not | All of the above | I am concerned that the draft Regulations risk undermining core constitutional principles such as equality before the law, privacy, and freedom of expression. Sentencing should be based on objective facts and consistent legal standards, not the subjective emotional impact expressed in a Victim Impact Statement, which could lead to uneven or unpredictable outcomes. The creation of a national database recording individuals’ political, religious, or social leanings raises serious privacy and potential profiling concerns. Additionally, broad monitoring of electronic communications may have a chilling effect on lawful speech and open debate, which are essential in a constitutional democracy. |
2026-02-12 19:43:04 +02:00 | Bron | No I do not | All of the above | Oh come on - what sort of idiots do you take us for. We know this is part of a globalist plan to control the people and their speech. The "elites" have stolen all the money. They are just printing it now. People don't have pensions left. AI will take 80% of jobs within 5 - 10 years. They're expecting massive upheaval, uprisings, and putting the framework in place now to create a digital panopticon. You don't comply - you don't have a digital life (ie. no banking. no loans. no benefits. etc etc) |
2026-02-12 19:26:04 +02:00 | Johann | No I do not | Subjective Sentencing – The requirement for a Victim Impact Statement | This is ridiculous. There must be physical harm or material loss that must first be proven. Hurting someone's emotions is not measurable and is an impossible injury to assess. Start by locking up Julius Malema for incitement of violence before you propose a law for hurting feelings. There are laws in place for crimen injuria and defamation. This proposed law is total hogwash. |
2026-02-12 19:26:03 +02:00 | Johann | No I do not | Subjective Sentencing – The requirement for a Victim Impact Statement | This is ridiculous. There must be physical harm or material loss that must first be proven. Hurting someone's emotions is not measurable and is an impossible injury to assess. Start by locking up Julius Malema for incitement of violence before you propose a law for hurting feelings. There are laws in place for crimen injuria and defamation. This proposed law is total hogwash. |
2026-02-12 18:06:28 +02:00 | Tanya | No I do not | All of the above | This is a dangerous law and takes away from peoples freedom as well as freedom of religion. Jails will be overrun not with criminals but people with opinions. People should have the right to speak freely. |
2026-02-12 17:57:37 +02:00 | Dan | No I do not | All of the above | |
2026-02-11 14:40:16 +02:00 | Marina | No I do not | All of the above | we have seen in the last few years that only a minority race is punished while a majority of convicted goes for council and sensitivity training. I believe this law is just another law to only punish a minority race irrelevant of charges while others Kan still freely sing killing songs, make statements of hate and nothing ever gets done. |
2026-02-11 12:46:37 +02:00 | Leanne | No I do not | Subjective Sentencing – The requirement for a Victim Impact Statement | This area is too 'grey' and can create further exploitation by how subjective it is. |
2026-02-10 18:12:24 +02:00 | Lizanne | No I do not | All of the above |