New hate speech bill opened for public comment

[ToxicBunny]

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.

The way the law is written, its very broad and can be used in a situation where someone is merely offended or feels hurt by the words/action uttered by someone else.

 

[YeOldeOke]

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

This is what sends a chill up my spine. The 'hate speech' laws being introduced in Canada and Australia I've commented about before. Few have taken notice of what has been quietly introduced there. The worst examples of SJW fascism that are going to wreak havoc in the longer term.

Not good.

 

[KemoSabi]

4
(a)
Any person who intentionally, by means of any communication whatsoever, communicates to one or more persons in a manner that
–

That is incredibly dangerous.

That means that anyone can be "framed" by two other people, without any evidence, other than their sworn affidavit.

Example: two colleagues disagree:

Colleague 1:" Why didn't you do your job? Without that notice going in, we have now been placed in an extremely dangerous and volatile position with our client"

Colleague 2:" I couldn't care less for this job"

Colleague 2 now decides to take it further and gets a friend to agree with his false version of the facts. Together they lay a claim of "Hate Speech" against the innocent, with no other evidence required.

For instance :"Colleague 1 told me I'm useless and bad at my job with no grounds other than one mistake I made, even though I try everything in my ability to be a good worker, I took it very personal and believe his insults were racially/religiously biased and meant to harm my image with my other colleagues. Colleague 3 here can vouch for what I am saying".

Bye Bye Colleague 1.

 

[C4Cat]

The way the law is written, its very broad and can be used in a situation where someone is merely offended or feels hurt by the words/action uttered by someone else.

No it can't. Not unless those words / actions are directed at someone purely because of their race, sex, gender, religion, etc. I agree there will be cases which the courts will have to determine if the speech is hate speech or not, but it's not some broad brush that covers all speech.

If you disagree, now is the time to let them know and point out the parts of the bill that concern you. That's what opening the bill to public comment is about.

I remember when the guy was walking around UCT with a t-shirt saying 'kill all whites' - many of you were up in arms saying he should be arrested. Now a bill is introduced that specifically covers that sort of hate speech and people are saying it's unnecessary!

 

[C4Cat]

That is incredibly dangerous.

That means that anyone can be "framed" by two other people, without any evidence, other than their sworn affidavit.

Example: two colleagues disagree:

Colleague 1:" Why didn't you do your job? Without that notice going in, we have now been placed in an extremely dangerous and volatile position with our client"

Colleague 2:" I couldn't care less for this job"

Colleague 2 now decides to take it further and gets a friend to agree with his false version of the facts. Together they lay a claim of "Hate Speech" against the innocent, with no other evidence required.

For instance :"Colleague 1 told me I'm useless and bad at my job with no grounds other than one mistake I made, even though I try everything in my ability to be a good worker, I took it very personal and believe his insults were racially/religiously biased and meant to harm my image with my other colleagues. Colleague 3 here can vouch for what I am saying".

Bye Bye Colleague 1.

This scenario is nonsensical. It may cause controversy but a court would still require evidence of some sort. Telling someone they are useless at their job is not hate speech unless you explicitly make it about their race, religion, gender, etc

 

[ToxicBunny]

No it can't. Not unless those words / actions are directed at someone purely because of their race, sex, gender, religion, etc. I agree there will be cases which the courts will have to determine if the speech is hate speech or not, but it's not some broad brush that covers all speech.

If you disagree, now is the time to let them know and point out the parts of the bill that concern you. That's what opening the bill to public comment is about.

I remember when the guy was walking around UCT with a t-shirt saying 'kill all whites' - many of you were up in arms saying he should be arrested. Now a bill is introduced that specifically covers that sort of hate speech and people are saying it's unnecessary!

Yes it can, and almost certainly WILL be used that way if it is passed.

BTW, we don't need a new piece of legislation to arrest Mr "Kill All White", existing laws cover it but were not used.

 

[schumi]

Racists could spend up to 10 years behind bars

Parliament - The government is taking a tough stance against racists following an increase in racism incidents this year, with proposed punitive sanctions against perpetrators.

In a bill that will be tabled in Parliament soon, the government has proposed a fine or three-year prison sentence for first-time offenders. Repeat offenders could spend up to 10 years behind bars.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said on Monday that the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill will be out for public comment until December 1.

He said they would no longer tolerate hate crimes of any form, including crimes against the LGTBI community. The bill was approved by the cabinet on Wednesday.

Cases of hate speech and hate crimes are to be heard in the regional courts.

“The very fact we are referring matters of this nature to the regional courts elevates the seriousness of the offences,” said Masutha.

More at: http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/racists-could-spend-up-to-10-years-behind-bars-2083308

 

[C4Cat]

Yes it can, and almost certainly WILL be used that way if it is passed.

BTW, we don't need a new piece of legislation to arrest Mr "Kill All White", existing laws cover it but were not used.

Which laws would those be?

Also, are you prepared to voice your concerns to the department responsible for this bill, now that it's open to public comment?

 

[Billy]

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.

The Lawyers want to ban Lawyer jokes!

 

[Drunkard #1]

Which laws would those be?

Also, are you prepared to voice your concerns to the department responsible for this bill, now that it's open to public comment?

The bill or rights. Look it up. There is already no freedom of speech in this ****hole.

Oh right, like they listened to the public comments on etolls. We know we live in a third world ****hole - we're not going to waste our time arguing with brain donor politicians and white-guilt libtards.

 

[KemoSabi]

This scenario is nonsensical. It may cause controversy but a court would still require evidence of some sort. Telling someone they are useless at their job is not hate speech unless you explicitly make it about their race, religion, gender, etc

I agree with you, however if Colleague 2 and 3 decides to add some serious "perceived" insults in their affidavit...

Unfortunately a Sworn Affidavit counts as evidence, the way this is written means that "Any communication" does not have to be written communication and the affidavits would be the only evidence needed.

Additionally, the bill notes that

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.

So it doesn't just have to be about your race, religion, gender etc.

In essence, it is an incredibly dangerous legislation that could have far fetching consequences.

 

[RaptorSA]

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.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62945578.jpg

 

[CorrieDeBeer]

I hope everyone on this forums has their proxies / vpn at the ready. I would not post on this forum without one.

 

[Milano]

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!

 

[Durandal]

Will this apply to black racists also, or only white ones?

Don't be silly. We all know blacks can't be racist.

 

[CorrieDeBeer]

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.

So I can sue anyone who tells me I believe in fairies... WONDERFUL!, Atheist better check themselves before they wreck themselves. WTF is Social origin and Albinism? Is Albinism the heinous crime of hating someone solely on the basis that they went to St Albans?

 

[Billy]

At least fat shaming is OK.

 

[Flanders]

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.

I thought we already had this covered? For something deemed as hate speech, whites get 150K fine and blacks get nothing or at worst a slap on the wrist.

 

[Milano]

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.

So we can still hate vegetarians? Or will they be protected under 'beliefs'? And if I hate them cos I believe they are fsucking annoying, am I protected? I see no protection for the fat, the ugly, the stupid, the weak, those with poor fashion sense, old senile people, poor-kids, pregnant women, short people?

 

[Kornhub]

:twisted: Ooooo then I can take TK to court :twisted: