PEPUDA is an acronym for the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act and is otherwise known as the “Equality Act”. It was passed into law in 2000 to give teeth to section 9 of the South African Constitution, which prohibits unfair discrimination – including “hate speech” – on a wide range of categories. PEPUDA ranks second only to the Constitution and is the pre-eminent piece of South African legislation. All other legislation and regulation passed by the State must be compliant with its provisions. Equality Act is still discrimination against the White minority people of South Africa.
UNFAIR – UNHUMAN – VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS AS WHITE PEOPLE
There is a double standard at play here in South Africa with B-BBEE legislations – it is not only normal crime, corruption and murders. To discriminate against any race group ( in South Africa ) is an international crime and violation of our people’s human rights.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROMOTION OF EQUALITY AND PREVENTION OF
UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION ACT, 2000
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (the Department) invites interested parties to submit written comments on the proposed amendments to the Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act No. 4 of 2000) (the Act). The proposed amendments to the Act, the invitation and a note explaining the background of the proposed amendments, are available on the website of the Department at the following address: https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/invitations/invites.htm
1.2 The comments on the proposed amendments to the Act must be submitted not later than 30 working days after the date of publication of this invitation, marked for the attention of Ms F Bhayat, firstname.lastname@example.org
(a) if they are forwarded by post, be addressed to –
The Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development Private Bag X81
(b) if they are delivered by hand, be delivered at –
SALU Building, Room 23.23 316 Thabo Sehume Street Pretoria
(c) if they are delivered by email, be emailed to: email@example.com
(d) if they are faxed, be faxed to 086 754 8493.
1.3 For further information, please do not hesitate to contact Dr I Botha on 012 406 4756.
Rassisme, diskriminasie en ongelykheid kom nie net van een kant af nie, maar na 1994 het dit ontstaan met verskeie wetgewings wat ‘n impak het op ander wetgewings. Swart bemagtiging en regstellende aksie, is bewys en gee ‘n domino effek op heelwat ander wetgewende gebiede. Dit word verstaan dat daar steeds kommentare gestuur kan word, maar sover vasgestel, is die datum reeds verstreke. Stuur maar u kommentaar en bydrae aan adres.
Daar kan mos nie verwag word dat die rassistiese en diskriminerende stok alewig aan die blanke uitgedeel word, terwyl dit openlik verklaar en gedryf word deur die regering en hul ondersteuners op alle vlakke van die samelewing nie.
Die sogenaamde demokratiese Grondwet sowel Wetgewing soos “Pepuda” (EE-RA) en swart bemagtiging is vir dekades slegs teen blankes ingestel en tog word die definisie onder die voorgestelde wetgewing verklaar dit sluit alle rasse (blankes ook) hierby in.
Dis net menslik en regverdig dat daar nie teenoor ons gediskrimineer word nie. Dan is swart bemagtiging en ander wetgewings wat teen blankes diskrimineer ‘n internasionale misdaad en skend dit ons blankes se menseregte.
Alle lande en regerings oorsee weet dit ook, want daar is bykans geen land wat nie ‘n Ambassadeur of verteenwoordiger in hierdie land het nie.
Hierdie lande was gou op hul agterpote om die vorige regering by te kom oor kastige “apartheid”, maar dit is steeds daar vandag, onder ander name – Trust en CPA gebiede. Maar daar word vinnig handelsooreenkomste gesluit (MOU) en swart bemagtiging word steeds aan die voorpunt gedryf.
Slegs APARTE Swart en Khoi san tradisionele gebiede en leiers vir hulle, nie vir blankes nie.
SEPARATE AREAS FOR “LANDCLAIMS” (CPA’S) OR TRUSTLAND AREAS.
Daar word ook spesifiek teen besighede of maatskappye gediskrimineer, want hulle moet aan die swart bemagtiging of regstellende aksie wetgewings vereistes voldoen.
Die regering, asook diegene wat die Pepuda wetgewing steun, skiet hulself by meer as een geleentheid in die voet, aangesien hulle daarop uit is om wetgewing soos B-BBEE te skep, slegs om teen blankes en besighede te diskrimineer.
Pepuda gaan net aan waar Regstellende aksie opgehou het, dis dieselfde wetgewing, wat aansluit by swart bemagtiging. Klink eerder of die ANC soos baie ander, daarvan hou om name van wetgewings, dorpe en ander goed te verander sodat mense moet dink dis nuwe wetgewing.
Die huidige regering is verantwoordelik vir al die swak toestande, werkloosheid en misdaad wat juis geskep is met die swart bemagtiging of regstellende aksie of gelykheid vir almal. In die grendeltyd is daar hoeveel inbrake en misdaad wat plaasgevind het – en om nie eers te praat van moorde nie. Selfs met die virus is daar openlik teenoor blankes en veral blanke besighede gediskrimineer.
Die parlement en al hul ondersteuners diskrimineer met die swart bemagtiging en ongelykhede wat hulle al voor 1994 begin skep het? Dis al bykans 30 jaar na 1994 sedert hulle die land oorgeneem het en heelwat blankes of landuit is, of in plakkerskampe sit of vermoor, weens die kleur van hul vel.
Niemand ontken daar is misdaad of werkloosheid onder ander bevolkingsgroepe nie, maar indien swart bemagtiging nie deur die owerhede en hul onderdane se steun geskep was nie, met hul rassistiese en diskriminerende wetgewings, sou daar baie minder werkloosheid en misdaad tot gevolg gehad het. Meer huishoudings sou ‘n beter lewe kon handhaaf om vir hulself te sorg.
Swart bemagtiging en ongelykhede het reeds lankal ontstaan, voor 2000 – Mandela het die eerste wetgewing onderteken in 1998 en daarna het Thabo Mbeki, Zuma en ander voortgegaan. En daar is bitter min ander lede in parlement wat hul teengaan hiermee. Inteendeel dit bestaan nie.
Die huidige president, Ramaphosa is in beheer en voorsitter van die kommissie wat die swart bemagtiging en regstellende aksies asook gelykhede vir almal (blankes word hierby uitgesluit), wetgewings ingestel het. Dis so in die parlement aanvaar en afgekondig, sowel afgedwing op alle besighede, maatskappye, vlakke van regering, wat alle munisipaliteite insluit. En politici het geleentheid om al hierdie komitees en vergaderings by te woon waar daar gediskrimineer word teenoor blankes.
Dis nie net swart bemagtiging wat diskrimineer nie, maar alles het ook ‘n impak op alle ander wetgewing asook ordonnansies op ander vlakke van regering.
Having carefully reviewed this proposed amending legislation,is in no doubt that it dramatically expands the scope and reach of the original . It therefore represents the most substantive threat to specifically – and to freedom generally – that we have faced since South Africa became a in 1994.
more information regarding meetings in parliament:
PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
DISCUSSIONS IN PARLIAMENT NOVEMBER 2020
Chairperson: Dr M Motshekga (ANC) & Mr E Mthethwa (ANC, KZN)
Submission 20: Chris Blaine proposed an amendment revoking legislation that allowed racial discrimination in disaster support and employment, and for it to focus on equal opportunity. Everyone should benefit equally from disaster management support. The recommendation to the Committee was that it advise the submitter that his matter could not be entertained by the Committee. The right to equality emanated from the Employment Equity Act and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination (PEPUDA) Act. The submitter could be directed to the Employment Equity Act to understand why there needed to be fair discrimination in certain instances, and that fair discrimination could not simply be removed. It was aligned to the “right to equality” clause in the Constitution.
Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill & International Crimes Bill: briefing, with Minister and Deputy Minister
Chairperson: Dr M Motshekga (ANC)
The Bill created the offences of hate crimes and hate speech and put in place measures to prevent and combat those offences. It was linked directly to a number of key targets in the National Development Plan, most notably the need for sustained campaigns against racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia.
The Minister stated that it would be most unfortunate in the light of the spate of hate speech, when even the courts had come to the party, for Parliament not to grant, not only civil relief, but also criminal recourse to those who felt that they had been victim of racial assault and other forms of discrimination. Parliament would open itself to criticism if It did not take the lead in giving full effect to the objectives of the Constitution.
No one had the right, under the South African Constitution, to engage in provocative utterances and disturb the peace. People could only live at peace if everyone accepted the right to co-existence of other groups of people. That was the point of departure of the Bill. The Minister introduced the International Crimes Bill. He said that South Africa had an international policy and an international outlook which had a strong emphasis on the African continent where South Africa belonged.
The judgement on appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa was that, under South African law, the country was compelled to execute the law of Rome Statute because, in the domestication law of the Rome Statute, South Africa had tied its own hands behind its back and the court could not untie SA from the obligation. Why did SA withdraw from the Rome Statute? The main difficulty was that South Africa had attempted three times to speak to the Assembly of State Parties. It was the Assembly of State Parties that had created the Rome Statute and if there were difficulties in implementing the Statute that body should have gone resolved the issue. Conflicting decisions created confusion as to whether the Rome Statute did away with diplomatic immunity. That was a fundamental question that needed to be resolved.
The Bill criminalised conduct constituting international crimes and provided for immunity from prosecution of international crimes. It granted extra-territorial jurisdiction to South African courts in respect of international crimes and regulated the investigation of international crimes. The Bill provided for the surrender of persons accused or convicted of international crimes to entities and provided for cooperation with entities in respect of international crimes. A court hearing an international crime had to apply the Constitution and other domestic law and might also consider and apply conventional and customary international law, as well as comparable foreign law. The clause was a restatement of a provision of the International Criminal Court Act.
If hundreds of submissions had been received, should a summary of those submissions not have been made so that the Committee could gain insight. He referred to the case of Ms Vicki Momberg about use of the K-word. Some who read history had tried to trace the origins of the K word. In some religions, such as Islam, that word simply meant a non-believer. If the Department had not educated the public about those issues, then what if a Muslim used the K-word to refer to someone who did not believe in his religion? Was the Department going to take him to court and find him guilty? Was it not running ahead of society and creating problems? He had heard that the Department had held a forum against racism which had existed for more than 15 years.
ATC190712: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 21: Justice and Constitutional Development, dated 12 July 2019
Legal experts have raised concerns around the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination bill which was recently published for public comment. The main purpose of the Act is to realise the constitutional right to equality so that people do not face unfair discrimination by either the state or anyone else.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development recently published the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (4 of 2000 and known as PEPUDA).
PEPUDA Amendment Bill (“the Amendment Bill”) and its potentially detrimental and far-reaching implications for religious freedom in South Africa, if passed into law in its current form.