Protecting people against hate speech and racist slurs requires weighing up several fundamental rights. To maintain legitimacy in enforcing the legislative protection, a fine balance must be struck between the rights to equality and dignity on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other hand. An analysis of the legislative framework ousting hate speech and unfair discrimination on the basis of race and the manner in which the different relevant provisions have been applied by the courts shows that there are discrepancies that must be addressed. Despite the differences between the policy that facilitated the adoption of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, an alignment must be achieved in the starting point for an objective enquiry dealing with racism. To excuse serious cases of hate speech perpetrated by one population group while presuming that the other population group is racist from the outset does not promote South Africa's nation-building project. On the flipside, to address the unbalanced method of interpretation and implementation of the legislative provisions by adjusting the vantage point from which the assessment into whether an utterance is racist and derogatory is commenced would advance the constitutional value of non-racialism.

The factual matrix that is considered in each hate speech case differs from that in the next. However, certain factors always remain key in the process of balancing the different constitutional rights at play: who the victim is, who the perpetrator is and the nature of the expression. Additional factors to be considered in deciding whether an expression constitutes hate speech include: historical associations; who the utterer is as against the victim(s); the audience that is addressed and where the utterance is made; and the prevailing social conditions. How South African courts and the South African Human Rights Commission factor in these specific issues in assessing whether an utterance constitutes hate speech is examined in this contribution. Applicable international law principles and comparable foreign law reveal certain areas of the South African hate speech protection requiring refinement.

No abstract

In terms of the National Credit Act a credit provider may conclude a credit agreement with a consumer only after he has made a proper financial assessment and concludes that the consumer will be able to satisfy all of his obligations under all his credit agreements. However, a practice of not conducting this affordability assessment has evolved amongst certain credit providers where the credit agreement involved is a suretyship agreement. This article investigates whether or not a suretyship agreement is indeed a credit agreement in terms of the National Credit Act, and if a financial assessment should be conducted in the case of a suretyship agreement. The main aim of the article is to try to identify what the concept of a “credit guarantee”, as defined in the Act, encompasses and ultimately if the common-law contract of suretyship falls under this definition. Our conclusion is that “credit guarantee” is as vague and problematic as many of the other definitions in the Act. If one reads the Act in its entirety (including the regulations to the Act), it seems unlikely that the legislature intended not to regulate common-law suretyships also.

OPSOMMING Die 2014 Kreditinligting Amnestie Regulasies: Wat behels hulle regtig?Op 1 April 2014 het regulasies ingetree wat behels dat sekere nadelige verbruikerskredietinligting en inligting aangaande volopbetaalde siviele vonnisse van alle kredietrekords van verbruikers wat gehou word deur alle geregistreerde kredietburos verwyder moet word. Die regulasies maak voorsiening vir 'n proses ten aansien van die eenmalige verwydering van sodanige inligting sowel as om inligting aangaande volopbetaalde vonnisse op 'n voortdurende basis te verwyder. Die Nasionale Krediet Wysingswet 19 van 2014 maak ook voorsiening vir die deurentydse verwydering van sodanige inligting. Alhoewel die regulasies redelik eenvoudig is, is daar tog 'n paar fasette wat onduidelikheid veroorsaak. Grotendeels het dit te make met die korrekte interpretasie van sekere woorde en uitdrukkings wat in party subregulasies gebruik word. Dit is byvoorbeeld onduidelik of die regulasies ook van toepassing kan wees op sekere regspersone. Daar is ook nie sekerheid oor welke inligting steeds in verbruikers se betalingsprofiel mag verskyn en hoe sodanige regulasies die betalingsprofiele beïnvloed nie. Die regulasies bepaal duidelik dat die inligting wat verwyder is van die kredietrekords van verbruikers ingevolge die regulasies nie deur kredietgewers gebruik mag word tydens die assessering of 'n verbruiker kwalifiseer vir enige krediet nie. Wat die regulasie egter nie bepaal nie is of sodanige kredietgewer sodanige inligting mag gebruik waar hy dit bekom het deur nie na 'n kredietburoverslag te kyk nie, maar deur sy eie interne rekords na te gaan, byvoorbeeld in die geval waar hy met 'n bestaande kliënt te doen het nie. Hierdie aspekte, sowel as 'n paar ander, word in diepte in hierdie artikel bestudeer. Die impak wat die regulasies op die verbruikerskrediet mark tot dusver gehad het, sowel as 'n paar voordele en nadele van die regulasies word ook kortweg bespreek.