summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

View the campaign

Report on the participation

coming soon

Public comments as delivered to Parliament

Download [3.33 MB]

STATEMENTS FROM THE INDUSTRY AND CIVIL ORGANISATIONS

Click on a logo to view.

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

In the Media

Summary – Memorandum of Objects

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

Download [32.17 KB]

Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill

Download [69.33 KB]

Parliament will mark World No Tobacco Day by deliberating on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill. The theme for this year is – “We need food, not tobacco.” Professor Lekan Ayo-Yusuf, director of the National Council Against Smoking and Head of the School of Health Systems and Public Health at the University of Pretoria speaks to eNCA

Cabinet has given the green light for The Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill to be submitted in parliament. If the new bill comes into play, smoking indoors, in a car or at home in the presence of a non-smoker will be illegal. Specialist scientist at The South African Medical Research Council Dr Catherine Egbe unpacks this.

The recent lifting of the ban on tobacco and related products was a win for the industry and an even bigger one for consumers. However, a bigger battle looms – as the government has accelerated the promulgation of the Control of Tobacco and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill (2018). With the accelerated promulgation of the Bill, health organisations and anti-tobacco lobbyists are magnifying the harms associated with smoking – without factoring in products such as electronic vapour products (EVPs). To provide a different perspective on the various stakeholders in the industry we are joined by Dr Delon Human, co-chair of Africa Harm Reduction Alliance and Kurt Yeo, a consumer advocate.

Government says the new smoking bill is an important health intervention. The Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill seek to ban indoor smoking, it bans the sale of cigarettes at vending machines and introduces plain packaging and graphic warnings. For the first time, it includes measures to regulate vaping or e-cigarettes. The bill was formally tabled in parliament by health minister Joe Phaahla last week. To discuss we’re joined by National Health Department Director, Dr Lynn Moeng-Mahlangu.

Encourage participation – download and distribute this

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

Download [173.24 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”.