The Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, John Jeffery, thinks that although the Prevention and Eliminating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill is not the only method to combating racism, it goes a long way towards punishing offenders.
He was speaking during a presentation on the bill at a hearing of the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services.
“The government is not attempting to solve racism in South Africa with this bill.” Racism is a complex problem. Before addressing the racial nature of poverty and power in South Africa, racism cannot be eradicated completely.
“As a government, we did feel that racism and other intolerances require penalties.
However, it is not meant to be the only solution; it is only one of the variables,” he said.
The purpose of the bill is to establish the offenses of hate crime and hate speech, as well as the prosecution of those who commit these offenses, and to provide appropriate punishments for those who commit hate crime and hate speech offenses.
Jeffery acknowledged that the bill has prompted public controversy, with some arguing that it restricts free speech.
“This is a controversial bill, and the hate speech clauses make it extremely divisive. I feel the issue is a matter of policy choice: “Should we have speech limitations or not?” Certain sorts of speech are already excluded from the protections of the right to freedom of expression, as established by the Constitution. Additionally, there is a clause that allows one to go further,” Jeffery explained.
The Deputy Minister noted that public comments on the bill demonstrated that “sufficient” mechanisms are already in place to address such issues.
“What we have currently is PEPUDA [Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act], but PEPUDA is a civil remedy. It is the responsibility of the offended party to petition the Equality Court as a plaintiff and pursue the matter.
When a state criminalizes an act, it is typically responsible for investigating the alleged crime.
“We already have speech restrictions as a type of criminal damage. However, crimen injuria is illegal under common law.” Consequently, [this measure] seeks to…
It is not meant to replace crimen injuria, but rather to clarify the law by creating a hate speech crime. Crimen injuria… [about] what defines crimen injuria, is surrounded by doubt. “The objective was to create a new hate speech offense,” he explained. – SAnews.gov.za