New hate speech bill opened for public comment

I'm in favour of this in principle but I haven't studied the bill so it depends on the implementation.
 
It's retarded.

The laws we already have are more than enough to deal with dangerous speech.

Someone getting hurt feelings is not a good enough reason to prosecute someone.

Society already has plenty of filters to get rid of *******s. No need to bring in government.
 
schumi said:
Cape Town - Justice Minister Michael Masutha has announced that a proposed bill to combat hate crimes and hate speech has been opened for public debate and consultation.

Masutha addressed the media in Pretoria on Monday and said the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill would criminalise acts of hate speech.

"The base offences most often committed against victims of hate crimes are offences to the physicial and emotional integrity of the person, as well as offences against the property of the victims," he said.

A "base offence" would become a hate crime when the motivation involved prejudice, bias or intolerance because of: race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, HIV status, nationality, gender identity, intersex, albinism and occupation or trade.

Masutha said nationality, gender identity, HIV status, albinism, intersex, and occupation or trade were not mentioned in the Constitution, but were included in the bill because of previous hate crimes that had been committed on those grounds.

The bill was drafted after thorough study of similar legislation in Kenya, Canada and Australia.

"We are clear that this Bill itself may not end racism and other intolerances, but it will create an instrument that will hold those guilty of committing acts accountable before the law," he said.

The Bill can be accessed on the department's website www.justice.gov.za . Interested parties and individuals have until December 1, 2016 to make an input.

News24
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/new-hate-speech-bill-opened-for-public-comment-20161024
Click to expand...

Sjw utopia :sick:
 
A "base offence" would become a hate crime when the motivation involved prejudice, bias or intolerance because of: race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, HIV status, nationality, gender identity, intersex, albinism and occupation or trade.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh boy, dis gun be gewd!

I'm also expecting a metric crapton of charges filed by whites against any BEE vacancies.
 
"The base offences most often committed against victims of hate crimes are offences to the physicial and emotional integrity of the person, as well as offences against the property of the victims," he said.

A "base offence" would become a hate crime when the motivation involved prejudice, bias or intolerance because of: race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, HIV status, nationality, gender identity, intersex, albinism and occupation or trade.
Click to expand...

hate speech is then to say the president is doing a k4k job

or giving a bad review of someone in general.

so we pretend everything is okay.
 
This should keep the SJW's off the forum for a while -- too busy commenting on this new Bill.
 
FoXtroT said:
Wait, so they want to be able to prosecute you if you say something nasty about someone's job?

WTF?

The bill sounds so subjective it's not even funny. Exactly the opposite of what the law should be.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats how it's reading. So saying:
"All politicians are snakes" is considered hate speech under this bill. It makes no sense though.
 
In my view it's a grave misunderstanding of law and government when we seek to legally protect people's feelings. So-called "hate speech" laws end up achieving the very opposite - they stifle robust public discourse and debate, prevent the calling out of objectionable ideas, and that in turn promotes bigotry and harms the common good.

True liberty rather proclaims "I disagree profoundly with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it". It engages the issues as expressed and deals with realities not utopian fantasies. Rather, the law should promote and protect the public peace, preserving civil discourse but refusing to censor its content. Hurt feelings should never be allowed to become a pretext for violence, public disorder, or limiting the expressions of others.
 
Last edited:
I don't ever see why there is a need for more laws, when in most instances the laws that already exist are more than sufficient IF THEY ARE APPLIED.

I don't see the law being applied against riots, civil unrest, violent protest.

I don't see the law being applied to dangerous hate speech inciting violence against Whites, farmers, various groups (for example ANC / IFP violence in KZN).

I don't see the law being applied to corruption.

I don't see the law being applied to police.

I don't see the law being applied to xenophobic attacks.

APPLY THE LAW THAT EXISTS FIRST!
 
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,
Click to expand...

The bolded are the dangerous words. Zapiro will become a criminal if this law is passed. While it is possible to criticise with out insulting the subject of the criticism (criticising without the subject taking offense is a whole other story) this law criminalises the expression of a serious chunk of the human, emotional spectrum. When this bill is passed it will become illegal to mock the ridiculous behaviour of the powerful. All they will need to do is show that they are being insulted for one of the many, many reasons that cannot be mocked. Like someone pointed out, the addition of "trade" to the list essentially makes being a politician a target for victimhood.

When we consider that Zuma (amongst others) have sued Zapiro for mocking them, do we really believe that this law wont be used against anyone who mocks a politician?
 
Ironically, one of the things that drives this sort of nanny-state approach to law is that people increasingly seem unable to express their objections in a civil manner. This is yet another fallout from the collapse of real education and the decline of personal responsibility.

This forum has countless examples of people who think that expressing strong feelings or opinions means they need to lapse into the crudest expletives, ad hominems, personal derisions and mockeries, and emotionally incontinent denigrations. These are the ways of inarticulate juveniles who think that using transgressive words is the same as having strongly-held views when it fact it reveals a poverty of mind and an inability to rise to adulthood.

It takes more than strong feelings and vulgar words to engage with ideas one finds objectionable - it takes clear thinking and expression. In fact, one mark of a developed person is the ability, in public discourse, to rise above taking and giving everything personally and emotionally. The public space becomes threatening and even dangerous when the primary appeal is by and to emotions.

So, it's perhaps understandable that Caesar wants to keep crude emotions out of the public square. The problem is that this approach to law profoundly misconceives the power of the State because it intends to engineer an effect rather than protect a natural right. In the traditional liberal conception, no-one has the right not to be offended, just as no-one has the right to another's approval or agreement or even another's property for that matter. Laws that seek to prevent the giving of offence, just like those that enforce crude proprietal equality, end up achieving the very opposite. They end up destroying more than they seek to preserve.
 
So moer Arthur, you are talking absolute twaddle.

See, I can be nice and disagree with you :p
 
I think you're all missing the point here. This is about hate speech. It's not about just hurting someone's feelings or saying something that offends someone. Zapiro won't be effected by this. There is generally a clear difference and in cases that maybe aren't clear cut, well that's what the courts are for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X