New hate speech bill opened for public comment

you should really go see a doctor for that complex.
There are pills that can help you.
 
Billy said:
Repetition!


Occupations or Trade.
Click to expand...

The description of the offense of hate speech is described in point 4 of the document.
With regard to the phrase "I hate Telemarketers"
please tell me which category (of point 4) does it fall under.

In other words, does it advocate hatred towards telemarketers (are you advising other people to hate telemarketers)?
Is it threatening, abusive or insulting towards telemarketers?

If you think the answer to either of those questions is yes (I don't) then:
Does it also incite others to harm telemarketers?
Does it stir up violence against telemarketers?
Does your statement bring into contempt or ridicule telemarketers?

I think you'll find the answer to all those questions is 'No'.
 
C4Cat said:
The description of the offense of hate speech is described in point 4 of the document.
With regard to the phrase "I hate Telemarketers"
please tell me which category (of point 4) does it fall under.

In other words, does it advocate hatred towards telemarketers (are you advising other people to hate telemarketers)?
Is it threatening, abusive or insulting towards telemarketers?

If you think the answer to either of those questions is yes (I don't) then:
Does it also incite others to harm telemarketers?
Does it stir up violence against telemarketers?
Does your statement bring into contempt or ridicule telemarketers?

I think you'll find the answer to all those questions is 'No'.
Click to expand...
I think it is insulting and brings telemarketers into contempt. Imagine if something like that was said by someone influential or if it trended on social media. Eish.

You wouldn't find someone saying they hate you for something like your job or the colour of your skin or your gender or something insulting? Hell I would.
 
porchrat said:
I think it is insulting and brings telemarketers into contempt. Imagine if something like that was said by someone influential or if it trended on social media. Eish.

You wouldn't find someone saying they hate you for something like your job or the colour of your skin or your gender or something insulting? Hell I would.
Click to expand...

That's where the courts come into it, I don't think it's obvious either way.

Also I think there is context required. If I just generally complain that I hate telemarketers after receiving a call from one, that's one thing, it's not aimed at anyone in particular and is more akin to saying I hate traffic or I hate winter - it's just a general comment of annoyance.

If, however, I go up to a telemarketer specifically and tell him/her that I hate telemarketers, or I walk into a room of telemarketers and shout that I hate telemarketers, then that is definitely threatening and insulting and would qualify as hate speech. So it's not clear cut but I don't think laws are ever clear cut. If they were we wouldn't need judges and lawyers to interpret the law.

Just out of interest, do you think the entire bill should be shelved and nothing like it should ever be created, or do you think such a bill, in principle, is acceptable but just not in it's current form?
 
C4Cat said:
That's where the courts come into it, I don't think it's obvious either way.

Also I think there is context required. If I just generally complain that I hate telemarketers after receiving a call from one, that's one thing, it's not aimed at anyone in particular and is more akin to saying I hate traffic or I hate winter - it's just a general comment of annoyance.

If, however, I go up to a telemarketer specifically and tell him/her that I hate telemarketers, or I walk into a room of telemarketers and shout that I hate telemarketers, then that is definitely threatening and insulting and would qualify as hate speech. So it's not clear cut but I don't think laws are ever clear cut. If they were we wouldn't need judges and lawyers to interpret the law.
Click to expand...
This isn't how hate speech works. Context is unimportant. If you say all black people are thieves, whether you do this in front of black people or not, it is still hate speech.

The very fact that you consider this profession based thing to be reliant upon context is a demonstration that even you, on some level, understand that it is different to hatred based upon race or gender or something else.


Just out of interest, do you think the entire bill should be shelved and nothing like it should ever be created, or do you think such a bill, in principle, is acceptable but just not in it's current form?
Click to expand...
All that should be excluded from Freedom of Speech is incitement to violence and hate speech on the grounds of inherent characteristics that people cannot change. This does not include things one can change like beliefs, professions and cultural practices.

This bill takes things way out of hand. We're giving up more of our right to freedom of speech and opening the door to making our courts a leftist SJW circus of hurt feelings.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
This isn't how hate speech works. Context is unimportant. If you say all black people are thieves, whether you do this in front of black people or not, it is still hate speech.

The very fact that you consider this profession based thing to be reliant upon context is a demonstration that even you, on some level, understand that it is different to hatred based upon race or gender or something else.



All that should be excluded from Freedom of Speech is incitement to violence and hate speech on the grounds of inherent characteristics that people cannot change. This does not include things one can change like beliefs, professions and cultural practices.

This bill takes things way out of hand. We're giving up more of our right to freedom of speech and opening the door to making our courts a leftist SJW circus of hurt feelings.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do understand there is a difference between hating someone for something they have no control over vs hating someone for their choices, I don't dispute that.

Are you making your concerns known while the bill is open for public comment?
 
C4Cat said:
Yes, I do understand there is a difference between hating someone for something they have no control over vs hating someone for their choices, I don't dispute that.

Are you making your concerns known while the bill is open for public comment?
Click to expand...
Nope. This government has demonstrated long ago that it doesn't really care what the public thinks.
 
C4Cat said:
Yes, you are right. I was incorrect when I said there are no laws specifically about hate speech, what I meant (as I clarified later) was no laws criminalizing hate speech. The existing laws are civil - someone has to take the accused person to court and can get monetary compensation, just like any civil court case. If nobody takes the individual to court, nothing happens. When hate speech is criminalized, the police have to arrest the accused person as they have committed a crime - irrespective of whether an individual is suing them in civil court or not...
Click to expand...
You can take people to civil court over many criminal actions. People can be prosecuted with current legislation, is that not criminal?

C4Cat said:
I wouldn't call it backtracking, no, I would call it learning. I said in my very first post on this matter that my opinion was one of a layman and I don't see a problem with accepting that there are words that may require further clarification, once it's pointed out to me. I didn't realise that one is supposed to pick a point of view and stick to it come hell or high water or be be accused of 'backtracking'. My fundamental view has not changed. This bill is good and long overdue - yes, some terms may require further clarification before it's implemented but the basic reasoning behind it is good, IMO
Click to expand...
The bill is not good. You can't claim it to be good and say it needs to change at the same time. Once it's clarified and the contentious issues removed it says basically the same thing as the older acts so what use is it? One can only assume it was snuck in deliberately. Also how can a bill supplement what's in the constitution. Bills are supposed to implement the constitution and not add to it. The latter is unconstitutional and requires a 2/3rd +1 majority vote to change.

ngwe23 said:
Ironic coming from you given how you are the one doing most of the whinging here. You cry about BEE, Malema, ANC, Zuma, corruption white genocide, you even whinge about the whingers. :crylaugh::crylaugh::crylaugh: Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
Those are all real discrimination enacted by your government, not just whurting someone's fweelings.

ngwe23 said:
This forum is so hypocritical. Always crying for tougher laws and yet when steps are taken to increase the punitive sanctions on those that peddle hate crime then they start back tracking. Of course, let us not be fooled here, the only reason why this proposed law is "wrong" is because, just like BEE, it seek to protect those that are traditionally on the lower end of the scale.
Click to expand...
I've been quite clear that I do not agree with any law that criminalises free speech. I haven't ever seen anybody here (except your side) calling for stricter laws. What I do see is people calling for equal treatment under current laws. The hypocrisy is entirely on you.

C4Cat said:
The description of the offense of hate speech is described in point 4 of the document.
With regard to the phrase "I hate Telemarketers"
please tell me which category (of point 4) does it fall under.

In other words, does it advocate hatred towards telemarketers (are you advising other people to hate telemarketers)?
Is it threatening, abusive or insulting towards telemarketers?

If you think the answer to either of those questions is yes (I don't) then:
Does it also incite others to harm telemarketers?
Does it stir up violence against telemarketers?
Does your statement bring into contempt or ridicule telemarketers?

I think you'll find the answer to all those questions is 'No'.
Click to expand...
Did Penny Sparrow incite others to harm blacks? Did she threaten or was she abusive towards blacks? Did she stir up violence against blacks? Did she advocate hatred towards blacks?
You'll find the answer is also no. As for the rest of your subjectives the answer is yes depending on whether or not someone took offense.

C4Cat said:
That's where the courts come into it, I don't think it's obvious either way.

Also I think there is context required. If I just generally complain that I hate telemarketers after receiving a call from one, that's one thing, it's not aimed at anyone in particular and is more akin to saying I hate traffic or I hate winter - it's just a general comment of annoyance.
Click to expand...
You describe the Penny Sparrow case to a tee there.
 
Swa said:
You can take people to civil court over many criminal actions. People can be prosecuted with current legislation, is that not criminal?


The bill is not good. You can't claim it to be good and say it needs to change at the same time. Once it's clarified and the contentious issues removed it says basically the same thing as the older acts so what use is it? One can only assume it was snuck in deliberately. Also how can a bill supplement what's in the constitution. Bills are supposed to implement the constitution and not add to it. The latter is unconstitutional and requires a 2/3rd +1 majority vote to change.


Those are all real discrimination enacted by your government, not just whurting someone's fweelings.


I've been quite clear that I do not agree with any law that criminalises free speech. I haven't ever seen anybody here (except your side) calling for stricter laws. What I do see is people calling for equal treatment under current laws. The hypocrisy is entirely on you.


Did Penny Sparrow incite others to harm blacks? Did she threaten or was she abusive towards blacks? Did she stir up violence against blacks? Did she advocate hatred towards blacks?
You'll find the answer is also no. As for the rest of your subjectives the answer is yes depending on whether or not someone took offense.


You describe the Penny Sparrow case to a tee there.
Click to expand...

Do you really not know the difference between civil law and criminal law?
 
C4Cat said:
Do you really not know the difference between civil law and criminal law?
Click to expand...
I know the difference. You don't seem to know that under current legislation you can be criminally charged for hate speech. So you're still not answering why a new bill is necessary if we're not enforcing current legislation and doing it consistently. Or is it perhaps that the very problem areas don't really concern themselves with real hate speech and can be used to shut "undesirable" elements up?
 
the only reason why this proposed law is "wrong" is because it seek to protect those that are traditionally on the lower end of the scale.
Click to expand...

It's not there to protect anyone, it's there to punish 'those traditionally on the upper end of the scale'.

Nobody needs protection from words.
 
Last edited:
PS. if you clicked on the links in the OP you would get to here: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/hcbill/hatecrimes.html


Any person wishing to comment on the Bill is invited to submit written comments on or before 31 January 2017.

Send by post: Ms T Ross, The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Private Bag X81, PRETORIA, 0001
Delivered by hand at: The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Salu Building, 316 Thabo Sehume Street (Corner of Thabo Sehume and Francis Baard Streets), PRETORIA
Send by fax to: 012 406 4632
Send by e-mail: [email protected]

Enquiries can be directed to:
Ms T Ross,
Specialist State Law Adviser,
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development,
Tel: +27 (0) 12 406 4759.
- See more at: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/hcbill/hatecrimes.html#sthash.FLO9Sp1n.dpuf
 
As long as submitted before 31 January 2017. Just find a post box with twice weekly and pop it in. Or send from an Alaska-based server within the next 8 minutes.
 
So much angst over 'hate speech' which is nothing more than name calling.

Have grown-ups also become precious little snowflakes that can really be mortally wounded by words ?
 
daveza said:
So much angst over 'hate speech' which is nothing more than name calling.

Have grown-ups also become precious little snowflakes that can really be mortally wounded by words ?
Click to expand...

Yes, because being offended is enough to make you cry and we can't have that anymore, its evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X