Bringing an end to all the hate
Religiously spewing any form of hatred and inciting violence against any group in the name of a cause or faith has no place in a country with a history of oppression and prejudice such as South Africa, writes John Jeffery
THE Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, recently published for public comment by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, has generated considerable debate, specifically in relation to the provisions on hate speech. In particular, many church leaders have expressed fears that the bill will “criminalise the Bible”.
The bill does two things. Firstly, it creates a category of hate crimes. These are effectively existing crimes which are motivated by a dislike of a group. For example, a person throwing a brick at a mosque will currently be committing the crime of malicious injury to property, but once the bill is passed, if it can be proved that the brick was thrown at the mosque because the person dislikes Muslims, it would then be considered a hate crime.
If crimes are found to be hate crimes, it elevates the seriousness of the crime, the way it is dealt with, and the penalties imposed.
Secondly, the bill creates the crime of hate speech. Including hate speech as a crime was a more recent insertion and was added in response to the slew of racist diatribes being circulated on social media.
Currently the only remedy for hate speech is to approach an equality court for a civil order in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
It was felt criminalising such conduct would act as a deterrent and cause people to think twice before expressing such views.
Putting a bill out for public comment is not a meaningless exercise. It is a real attempt to hear the public’s views. All submissions and inputs are seriously considered before a final draft of the bill is put before the cabinet.
The concern of religious leaders that the bill’s wording will restrict their ability dom of religion and speech. But these rights often need to be balanced against each other and this can result in their limitation. My right to freedom of religion sometimes needs to be balanced against somebody else’s right to dignity or their right to life.