Shooting off your mouth could lead to fines and imprisonment

Published

The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) in South Africa approved the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, marking a significant step in the government’s efforts to address the rising instances of hate crime and hate speech The legislation imposes penalties, including fines and imprisonment, on individuals convicted of hate crimes or hate speech. Picture: Freepik.com

NIYANTA SINGH-MAHARAJ

“THOSE who shoot their mouths on WhatsApp and other forums, must be aware that they will not get away with it any longer.“

That is the warning from Ashwin Trikamjee, a lawyer and the president of the South African Hindu Maha Sabha, following the recently approved Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill.

Last week, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) in South Africa approved the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, marking a significant step in the government’s efforts to address the rising instances of hate crime and hate speech.

Legal, human rights and constitutional experts have broadly thrown their support behind the bill.

The bill, initially introduced in 2018, faced setbacks in 2019 and encountered obstacles in the Constitutional Court.

The primary focus of the legislation is to target offences driven by prejudice or intolerance towards individuals based on specified characteristics as outlined in Section 3 of the Bill. The characteristics include race, gender, sex, age, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV status, nationality, gender identity, albinism or occupation/trade.

Section 4 of the bill defines hate speech as the intentional communication of content that can incite harm or promote discrimination based on various grounds, such as age, sexual orientation and race. This includes written, visual or electronic forms of expression, covering social media and online communications.

The legislation imposes penalties, including fines and imprisonment, on individuals convicted of hate crimes or hate speech. However, the NCOP has introduced amendments to the bill, prompting a return to the portfolio committee on justice for further consideration. The bill is awaiting concurrence from the National Assembly.

Despite the government’s intent to curb hate speech, the bill has faced criticism for its broad and vague definitions of targeted characteristics and the ways hate speech can be expressed. Opponents argue that the legislation could be easily manipulated, with concerns raised about the potential abuse of the laws.

One contentious aspect is the inclusion of “belief” as a protected characteristic, with critics pointing out potential conflicts with other protected characteristics. While the bill exempts certain forms of communication, such as religious expression, from being considered hate speech, opponents remain sceptical, suggesting that the legislation may be open to misuse.

Trikamjee said the Sabha welcomed this decision.

“It’s about time people are disciplined about shooting their mouths and know that there will be serious repercussions. This is especially pertinent coming after Diwali. While things were not as bad as previous years, there are still some racist people who were making really absolutely disgusting comments about fireworks, Hindus and Indians in general over this period.

“Our only hope now is that it is going to be implemented properly. I want to go as far as to take the liberty to say that as of now, those who shoot their mouths on WhatsApp and other forums, must be aware that they will not get away with it any longer,” said Trikamjee

Professor Karthy Govender, a former South African Human Rights commissioner and acting judge of the High Court, said keeping the technical issues of the bill aside, would broadly be of benefit to society.

“We have had a process where you could use the Equality Courts to get civil remedy as far as hate speech was concerned and then this came about by the Department of Justice that felt we should criminalise hate speech. The key issue was whether or not it was constitutional to do something like this and, most importantly, to prove intent.

“There will be some challenges in the way in which the law is applied but, broadly and leaving aside technicalities, it will be of benefit to society. An author recently said that we are living in an age of barbarism and the anti-dote to that is people being kinder and compassionate to one another.

“If you have less hate speech, it will be of benefit to society. How we strike the balance in the technical issues posed though, is another story altogether,” said Professor Govender.

Critics of the bill include the DA, the Freedom Front Plus and the ACDP.

The parties have voiced concerns about potential abuse by politicians and contend that the bill addresses issues already protected by the Constitution.

The biggest point of contention, they say, is balancing free expression and the need to combat hate speech.

THE POST