summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Report on the participation

coming soon

Public comments as delivered to parliament

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [146.25 KB]

STATEMENTS FROM CIVIL AND PRIVATE ORGANISATIONS

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display your organisation’s statement? Click here. 

At any given time, 90% of the ocean around South Africa is being explored for oil and gas extraction. This may provide jobs, boost the economy and help mitigate the energy crisis but what happens if there is a spill. Wildtrust has developed a model to predict the behaviour and trajectory of a spill. eNCA speaks to Giles Fearon, an ocean modeller at the SA Environmental Observation Network.

Clause by clause summary – Memorandum of objects

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [45.25 KB]

The Bill as published

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [83.27 KB]

Encourage participation with this poster/flyer – distribute or place at the office

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [159.44 KB]

Freedom of Religion SA (FOR SA)

TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY FOR SA

I strongly oppose the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill [B9B – 2018], which I believe to be unconstitutional and unnecessary, for the following reasons:

  1. The Bill violates our constitutional rights as religious persons to express our religious beliefs without fear of punishment or persecution (section 15, read with section 16). Increasingly, around the world but also in South Africa, various holy scriptures (particularly on contentious issues) are regarded as “politically incorrect” or “offensive”, allegedly causing emotional and/or social harm.
  2. I specifically oppose the Bill’s:
    1. wide definition of “harm” (in Clause 1);
    2. the failure to define “hatred” (in Clause 1); and
    3. definition of, and creation of, the crime of “hate speech” (in Clause 4).
  3. The creation of the crime of “hate speech” for saying / distributing something which could possibly be construed as “harmful”, will have certain unintended consequences, namely the criminalisation of good / well-meaning people who will be prosecuted for saying what they sincerely believe (according to their holy texts) and sent to jail.
  4. There are already sufficient existing laws dealing with “hate speech”.
  5. For all of the reasons given, I ask:
    1. For the scrapping of the “hate speech” sections from the Bill altogether;
    2. Alternatively, should the “hate speech” provisions remain part of the Bill, we ask:
      1. That “harm” be defined as: “gross emotional and psychological detriment that objectively and severely undermines the human dignity of the targeted group”; and
      2. That “hatred” be defined as: “strong and deeply-felt emotions of enmity, ill-will, detestation, malevolence and vilification against members of an identifiable group, that implies that members of that group are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and subjected to ill-treatment based on their group affiliation”.
    3. That Clause 4(2)(d) (the “religious exemption clause”) be strengthened as follows to protect:
      “expression of any religious conviction, tenet, belief, teaching, doctrine or writings, by a religious organisation or an individual, in public or in private, to the extent that such expression does not actively support, instigate, exhort, or call for extreme detestation, vilification, enmity, ill-will and malevolence that constitutes incitement to cause gross emotional and psychological harm that severely undermines the dignity of the targeted group, based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation”.