New hate speech bill opened for public comment

C4Cat said:
This bill is about hate speech, and nowhere in the bill is discimrination on the basis of political affiliation covered. So who is wasting time here? You want to propose that because 'political affiliation' is a belief, that somehow criticizing a persons 'political affiliation' is now hate speech. It's not. There is no possible interpretation of this bill that will make it so unless you are threatening hatred and violence towards someone because of their political affiliation.
Click to expand...
Nope
Offence of hate speech
4. (1) (a) Any person who intentionally, by means of any
communication whatsoever, communicates to one or more persons in a manner
that –
(i) advocates hatred towards any other person or group of persons; or
(ii) is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of
persons,
and which demonstrates a clear intention, having regard to all the circumstances,
to –
(aa) incite others to harm any person or group of persons, whether or not such
person or group of persons is harmed; or
(bb) stir up violence against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or
group of persons,
based on race, gender, sex, which includes intersex, ethnic or social origin,
colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV
status, nationality, gender identity, albinism or occupation or trade, is guilty of the
offence of hate speech.
Click to expand...
Ridiculing someone because of their belief ??? ?
 
"23. Arson, housebreaking, whether under the common law
or a statutory provision, with the intention to commit an
offence or an offence referred to in section 1 or 1A of the
Intimidation Act, 1982 (Act No. 72 of 1982), any of which
constitutes a hate crime as contemplated in section 3 of the
Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech
Act, 2016.".
Click to expand...

Is house breaking now a hate crime because the perps hate being poor ?
 
Had this Act been in force during my army days every single corporal I knew would be in jail.

What will they be able to do now. - "Please sak vir vyftig asseblief geagte meneer Engelsman" ?
 
C4Cat said:
This bill is about hate speech, and nowhere in the bill is discimrination on the basis of political affiliation covered. So who is wasting time here? You want to propose that because 'political affiliation' is a belief, that somehow criticizing a persons 'political affiliation' is now hate speech. It's not. There is no possible interpretation of this bill that will make it so unless you are threatening hatred and violence towards someone because of their political affiliation.
Click to expand...
You don't have to threaten violence against someone for it to be hate speech. Saying that black people are thieves would likely constitute hate speech but it doesn't involve advocation of violence.

I incorrectly used the word discrimination there. I meant to say basically what I've now said. Under this bill I could perhaps say that Communists are cowardly pieces of excrement embracing a hurtful ideology and be guilty of hate speech.

Heck I could say something like those practicing labola are sexists and be called out for hate speech. It's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
This is the part that a tyrant can use to harass and shut down foes:

bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or
group of persons,
based on race, gender, sex, which includes intersex, ethnic or social origin,
colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV
status, nationality, gender identity, albinism or occupation or trade, is guilty of the
offence of hate speech.
Click to expand...
 
McSack said:
Nope

Ridiculing someone because of their belief ??? ?
Click to expand...

Arthur said:
This is the part that a tyrant can use to shut down foes:
Click to expand...
I take it you'll both be writing to the Justice Dept to voice your concerns while the bill is at this stage of being open to public comment?

I would like to see what the opposition parties have to say about the bill too.
 
C4Cat said:
I take it you'll both be writing to the Justice Dept to voice your concerns while the bill is at this stage of being open to public comment?

I would like to see what the opposition parties have to say about the bill too.
Click to expand...

4 sure ... and not just that bit either. Doubt the justice department could care less what common citizens have to say about it though

Are you in agreement though that the bill as it currently stands is open to some serious abuse?
 
C4Cat either never read the draft legislation or else he never understood its far reaching implications which go well beyond the scope required, to the extent that free speech and debate is stifled beyond just the issue of race.
 
McSack said:
4 sure ... and not just that bit either. Doubt the justice department could care less what common citizens have to say about it though

Are you in agreement though that the bill as it currently stands is open to some serious abuse?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not sure about that at all. I'm not a legal expert. In my layman view it seems fine as it is.


Milano said:
C4Cat either never read the draft legislation or else he never understood its far reaching implications which go well beyond the scope required, to the extent that free speech and debate is stifled beyond just the issue of race.
Click to expand...

I don't see that. I think perhaps it's paranoia
 
Milano said:
C4Cat either never read the draft legislation or else he never understood its far reaching implications which go well beyond the scope required, to the extent that free speech and debate is stifled beyond just the issue of race.
Click to expand...

The opportunities this Act makes available for misuse and abuse is frightening.
 
I’m going to throw a bone here. Racial quotas (AA, BEE, BBBEE, quotaism/racial selection policy, etc.) were introduced to SA to diminish racial discrimination, though many argue that a quota implementation is a racial discrimination. This bill signed into legislation may question these policies under hate crime and give purpose to those which have been advocating against reverse apartheid. Interesting times ahead... which brings me back to this ruling in Sweden,

https://www.thelocal.se/20061221/5871

Uppsala University was guilty of discrimination when it reserved places on its law course for people with immigrant backgrounds, Sweden's Supreme Court has ruled.

...

The Supreme Court ruled that setting quotas is acceptable as long as applicants are treated equally. In this case, the immigrant applicants should have needed at least the same marks as the other applicants. The court ruled that in this case the non-Swedish applicants were “strongly” favoured in a manner which cannot be supported by law.

Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz, who defended the case on behalft of the state, said the verdict leaves no room for doubt over what is legal.

"The Supreme Court has been very clear about it and we can only accept it. I don’t want to speculate whether the outcome could affect areas outside the education sector. I need first to analyse the ruling.”

Gunnar Strömmer, legal expert at Centrum för Rättvisa, a non-profit public interest law organization, states that the ruling “leaves no doubt – these kinds of ethnic quotas are not allowed”.

“My interpretation is that all kinds of quotas are illegal – even gender quotas where one does not look at an individual’s merits but rather allocates places to a certain group. This was also said by the district court and the appeal court,” said Strömmer.
Click to expand...
 
C4Cat said:
No, I'm not sure about that at all. I'm not a legal expert. In my layman view it seems fine as it is.




I don't see that. I think perhaps it's paranoia
Click to expand...

Clearly you aren't a legal expert because you can't seem to grasp the ramifications of the language used in this Bill, it is overly broad. Pretty much any form of criticism or statement that someone doesn't like can be encompassed by this Bill and turned into a criminal act.
 
I do agree though that certain terms like 'belief' and 'ridicule' do need further clarification before this bill is ready to be implemented.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Clearly you aren't a legal expert because you can't seem to grasp the ramifications of the language used in this Bill, it is overly broad. Pretty much any form of criticism or statement that someone doesn't like can be encompassed by this Bill and turned into a criminal act.
Click to expand...
Nonsense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X