The Bill criminalises all speech: an insult can put you in prison, as can a joke about lawyers or calling the British pompous, writes Martin van Staden
02 MAY 2017 – 13:57 MARTIN VAN STADEN

President Jacob Zuma. Picture: DoC
The Hate Speech Bill should cause South Africans sleepless nights, as it criminalises virtually all speech of any consequence. Even amid controversy arising from President Jacob Zuma’s appointment habits and state capture, the Bill is still the most pressing threat facing South African freedom today.

Civil society has unanimously come out against the Bill, and for good reason. As I and many others have written before, the Bill provides that you commit the crime of “hate speech” by simply “insulting” someone with the intention to bring them into “contempt” or to “ridicule” them based on anything from “belief” to “occupation”. You can then be put in prison for up to three years.

The Hate Speech Bill: another instalment in the march towards tyranny
The Hate Speech Bill is fundamentally flawed and manifests either an act of bad faith or of gross incompetence by its creators, writes Rex van Schalkwyk
 BDliveSA
Former judge Rex van Schalkwyk recently wrote an article titled [The] Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, highlighting the problem that under this law people could go to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to help them get retribution against those who have offended them.

Lawyer jokes are just one example of how this perverted situation could play out. If you say “All lawyers are blood-sucking parasites!”, you will have committed hate speech.

Furthermore, the Bill defeats itself in the guise of protecting “belief”, for, if you say “Racists are scum and should be ostracised!”, you are, yet again, committing hate speech, because racism is a belief and belief is protected. The NPA will then be placed in the awkward position of having to institute charges against an anti-racism activist because the country’s supposed anti-racism law obliges it to.

Deputy minister of justice John Jeffery said that the government will not use the Bill to penalise comedians and individuals who are simply “offensive”. He, seemingly like everyone else in the government, says the proposed law will only be used against real, malicious bigots who thrive on violating the dignity of other vulnerable South Africans.

COMEDIANS FIGHT BILL THAT WILL LIMIT THE FREEDOMS THAT KEEP US LAUGHING

The definition of hate speech is far greater than the limits in the Constitution, while the bill lowers the threshold of harm, writes Dario Milo
OPINION 2 months ago
But Jeffery was contradicted several weeks ago when the ANC’s National Executive Committee said that the Bill must be fast-tracked through Parliament so it can be used against people such as Helen Zille, who tweeted that colonialism was not “all bad” — a silly and offensive tweet, no doubt, but certainly not truly hate speech.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the intentions behind the Bill are not as noble as they are made out to be. Indeed, in the case of Zille, she is a politician in the official opposition and the governing party is proposing to place her in jail because of something she said. As civil society has pointed out in the multitude of submissions to the government on the Bill, the proposed law, in its current form, can be used for political persecution. It is clear now that, at least in part, political persecution is on the agenda.

Is it constitutional to make hate speech an offence?
Speech doesn’t necessarily have to incite harm to be a crime under the Bill. It is sufficient for it to incite contempt or ridicule.
 rdm_za
Political persecution aside, the Bill can be used to outlaw just about any potentially offensive or confrontational speech imaginable.

If you call your teenage son a “bad learner” at school who should study harder, you are committing hate speech. If you say the British are pompous or Afrikaners are patriarchal, you are committing hate speech. If you say your uncle is an annoying old man, you are committing hate speech. If you say capitalists are greedy, you are committing hate speech. The list goes on. This Bill effectively abolishes freedom of expression, entirely, in SA.

While we may be hopeful and confident that the Bill will not survive our courts and the inevitable test of constitutionality, we must remain concerned that legislation of this nature is on the agenda in a constitutional democracy at all.

Apartheid’s Suppression of Communism Act is perhaps the most obvious equivalent of the Hate Speech Bill. Under the Act, any speech remotely critical of the regime of the day could be construed as “communist propaganda” and lead to imprisonment. The enactment of our Constitution brought an end to the idea that government could control expression in such a way. But, clearly, not everyone is convinced that a strong respect for constitutionalism and individual liberty is what SA needs.

South Africans should be very worried about the Bill and should use every avenue and opportunity to express their disapproval of this totalitarian legislation.

• Van Staden is legal researcher at the Free Market Foundation and academic programmes director of Students for Liberty in Southern Africa

HATE SPEECH LAW MAY WELL CURB ALL MANNER OF FREEDOMS

Beware — if the hateful hate speech bill is enacted, telling someone that they induce the episodic levator ani syndrome variant of proctalgia funaxal …
OPINION 2 months ago
MORE TIME FOR HATE CRIMES BILL

Public comment deadline for the long-awaited antiracism bill has been extended to end-January after demands for more time
NATIONAL 5 months ago
STATE’S DOUBLE DEALING A THREAT TO RIGHTS IN SA

While the government has drafted a bill that fights hate crime, its conduct at the UN sends a different message, writes Graeme Reid
OPINION 5 months ago

 

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2017-05-02-zuma-is-less-of-a-threat-to-sas-democracy-than-the-hate-speech-bill/