summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Have your say on the Bill

STATEMENTS FROM CIVIL ORGANISATIONS

Click on a logo to view.

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

In the Media

The Gauteng Provincial Legislature’s Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development (EARD) Portfolio Committee invites all interested stakeholders and individuals to comment on the National Veld & Forest Fire Amendment Bill [B24B-2021].

[2022] In accordance with Parliament’s responsibility to facilitate public participation in law-making, the committee takes the Bill to South African citizens to give them an opportunity to express their views on the Bill. The Bill seeks to amend the National Veld and Forest Fire Act of 1998 to, among other things, amend and insert certain definitions, and to provide for the facilitation of the formation of fire protection associations by a municipality or a traditional council. The committee invites all South Africans to attend the public hearings and participate in them, hence it takes the hearings close to where they live. The committee was in Qumbu today affording the people of the OR Tambo District Municipality an opportunity to express their views on the Bill.

The National Veld And Forest Fire Amendment Bill

Download [45.09 KB]

Encourage participation with this notice

Download [162.62 KB]

en English
af Afrikaansen Englishst Sesothoxh Xhosazu Zulufr Frenchpt Portuguese
Close

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”.