|
Post by fanyamambo on Apr 12, 2006 9:57:05 GMT 3
Let me know why you think it is ridiculous instead of patronizing and calling me names. Because I disapprove of pornography I admitted that I have no problem with a law restricting it. But the fact of the matter is, as stated earlier, Section 16 that caught your attention is supposed to apply to CHILD pornography and the drafting error has been submitted to the House Committee. So let your troubled heart rest. I also am not into censorship and so will not insist on a law banning pornography. That doesn't stop me from being disapproving of pornography as a whole.
I find pornography has no benefits for women. Indeed I think that pornography is an expression of male culture that to a large extent encourages the commodification and objectification of women, and to a large extent dominance and violence. It is important to look at the pornography industry in totality. The pornography industry has a long history of the sexual exploitation of children. This is an industry that is seemingly boundless. I cannot approve of such an industry. This is an industry that reduces human beings to body parts - vaginas, *s, nipples, breasts, buttocks, mmmes. This is an industry that has sanctioned and eroticized violence, rape, slavery. It has a way of numbing the conscience.
What are the similarities between God and an abusive spouse? I certainly agree that the all social movements must be secular. I don't know what 'rationalism' is in this case. I don't know who defines rationalism. Is it the opposite of emotional? I do know women are often accused of being 'emotional' about things. Apparently this is a bad and feminine trait. I am suprised that you are suggesting this bill proposes barbaric punishment.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 12, 2006 11:40:51 GMT 3
I would maintain that pornography is just a side issue within the overall context of this law - though an important side issue, and one that gives a telling and distressing insight into the warped mindset of the drafters.
The utterly convoluted style of its legal wording is telling. Instead of clearly defining and penalizing child pornography (side note for dunces: a 17-year old prostitute is not a child - got that?), the law criminalizes all and sundry erotic writing, depiction, movie, statue etc., only to add a small piglet tail at the end, inconspicuously glued, so that it can (and SHALL) be easily torn off in the parliamentary debate: "This section shall not apply to d) activities between two persons of over eighteen years by mutual consent." The intent is clear: penalize all pornography through the subsequent quick removal of this fig-leaf.
And as usual, any potential good intent is thwarted by ridiculously (should I better write: offensively) high minimum sentences. A reasonable punishment would be a fine or imprisonment up to two years (remember that this section 18 deals NOT with the indeed abominable sexual abuse of children - no, it does NOT).
However, as our ogres would have it, the poor street hawker who offers tugged in among his pile of manifold dog-eared second-hand magazines also an old European "nudist" magazine depicting naked families playing ball on the beach (offensive as such indeed may be to some), is necessarily in for at least seven years upon his second conviction.
As to Fanyamambo's last paragraph: Not a single one of Britain's Emergency laws was as barbaric as this draft. Once it again: it penalizes all *consensual* (often - though not always - respectful and loving) sexual relationships between one or two partners under 18 years of age, with 15 years minimum imprisonment. It thus purposely criminalizes most of Kenya's teenagers. It criminalizes a drink before the embrace (minimum 10 years - and that's just the drink, not the sex!). It condemns thousands of hitherto surviving victims to sexual assault to future death.
To call all this "barbaric" would be an insult to barbarians. "Ogrish" is all I can call it. The irimarimu at loose.
This bill, once again, does NOTHING to protect the weak, the vulnerable, the oppressed. On the contrary, it PERSECUTES them. It criminalizes each and every estate dweller forced by poverty and exploitation to have sex in cramped conditions (that includes 90 % of our police force, and ever so many more poor people). It is a brutal, callous, inhuman law, which will mostly hurt women and children (but of course also men). But it will not stop and not diminish the extent of rapes and sexual abuse. On the contrary, the number of investigations, of prosecutions and most of all, of convictions, will drastically dwindle, if it were to be enacted.
All that you know. For all that, Njoki Ndung'u does not care. She wants her name attached to a bill (which was not even drafted by her, but by CRADLE, initially), at all cost, no matter what the results for wananchi are. Shall all these victims suffer and die on the slaughtering altar of political ambition - fiat lex, dum pereat mundus ?
No. They do not deserve this. This draft MUST be rejected, entirely. By every MP, man and woman alike.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 12, 2006 16:27:05 GMT 3
Emmo
If I did not percieve the beginning of what you adressed to me earlier as an insult, perhaps brought on by my disdain for homosexuality (did I touch a raw nerve or what!) then I would have spent some time explain my interpretation of the ethical implications of utilitarianism and how much further it has been develped since the days of bentham and JSM (for you are clearly miles behind).
I might even have patiently explained how and why I view rape, abortion and homosexuality as sexual offences.
But it is pointless when we begin with personalised insults - argumentum ad hominem.
Enjoy the rest of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 12, 2006 17:11:44 GMT 3
Emmo If I did not percieve the beginning of what you adressed to me earlier as an insult, perhaps brought on by my disdain for homosexuality (did I touch a raw nerve or what!) then I would have spent some time explain my interpretation of the ethical implications of utilitarianism and how much further it has been develped since the days of bentham and JSM (for you are clearly miles behind). I might even have patiently explained how and why I view rape, abortion and homosexuality as sexual offences. But it is pointless when we begin with personalised insults - argumentum ad hominem. Enjoy the rest of the discussion. No, no no....Roughrider, please kindly continue. You mustn't stop there. I have been trying to comment on this issue from a Christian-moral temperament and every time I log onto this thread to comment, I find myself being repetitive. I have already commented on this thread and I presume I made it clear that this is not a legal issue, but a moral one! There is a clear difference. The problem is that a whole load of Kenyans have adopted American pluralism of ethics stunts and they're dumping them in Kenya as though we do not already have a culture! Please keep going! Maina -unedited-
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 12, 2006 17:27:11 GMT 3
You are quite right, Maina.
Morality is a relative concept and it cannot be true that what is perfectly moral in America can also be perfectly moral in Kenya. Christians on the other hand have rejected many of these ideas that many people are trying to sneak in BOTH from a biblical point of view and from an the subjective popular morality of contemporary African culture; this is why the Anglican Church in Africa disagrees with the Episcopal fellowship in the US despite the bible being the same.
I think Emmo erred in quoting utilitarian principles here because they can logicaly justify subjugation of a minority; they can be used against human rights.... I have to go but I will come back to this later.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 12, 2006 17:37:03 GMT 3
I presume I made it clear that this is not a legal issue, but a moral one! There is a clear difference. Quite true. I agree. You elegantly finished Roughrider's non-argument thereby. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 12, 2006 17:48:58 GMT 3
I presume I made it clear that this is not a legal issue, but a moral one! There is a clear difference. Quite true. I agree. You elegantly finished Roughrider's non-argument thereby. Alexander Quite true Alex, if you do not think that there might be a relationship between morality and law; which i hold there is.
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 12, 2006 17:51:12 GMT 3
RR, Now you're losing me! "Relative concept"? Strange usage! Do you mean relative in the sense of it being pertinent? You better come back and explain this one, because morality cannot be relative because it has absolutes! There is a right and wrong and the two cannot be relative, right? About Emmo's comment.................... I also think Emmo erred by utilizing utilitarianism in his arguments. From a Christian perspective, morals are morals and they just don't change overnight because we want to change them. That facilitate a social crisis. It is akin to arguing that the maximum death sentence should be reduced in PA from life in prison to 1 year because there has not been a murder in a century (just an example)! Halafu don't forget that the singular thrust of utilitarianism - pluralism (just like socialism), which is now being interpreted in Kenya to mean relativism of ethics; the result being total chaos!!! Maina
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 12, 2006 18:05:37 GMT 3
The difference between me and you, maina is that I can argue from a christian perspective and I can also argue from a secular point of view.
Relative in the sense that ‘one mans meat may be the others poison’; what Americans find morally acceptable might be morally repugnant in Kenya. What Muslims view as legitimate can be cardinal sin to Christians; that is in essence why we have secularism.
But I am also arguing that law and morality intersect – I think in theory it is called ‘the overlap’; law that is outrightly immoral is unacceptable in society. In fact a section of our constitution says ‘… statutes that are repugnant to justice and morality are unconstitutional’
So there are a set of issues that we might all agree are black or white but others that are grey and therefore subject of much moral and legal soul-searching.
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 12, 2006 18:18:10 GMT 3
RR, Okay, I agree with you if you continue to use the term "relative" in that context. I just needed it clarified. Thank you! Now please kindly proceed with your analysis. You have taken an interesting position.
Of secularism and morality, how can you purport to endorse a moral law in secular society? Do two worldviews ever mix? Doesn't a moral issue then become a legal issue?
Maina.
-unedited-
|
|
emmo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by emmo on Apr 12, 2006 21:55:14 GMT 3
RR, Please continue. I would like to know how these principles have evolved since. Indeed I would have thought they were pretty much maxims for all time.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 12, 2006 21:57:57 GMT 3
Wrong. There is moral and there is law. The two fora are well distinguished even in Catholic theology. All the more in the secular sphere.
Back to the topic now...
A.
|
|
emmo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by emmo on Apr 12, 2006 22:26:52 GMT 3
And on to my previous point about religious America and Secular Europe. The difference between America with its death penalty and its mass incarcerations and the European tradition of less barbaric punishments.
We borrow heavily it seems from that old Anglo-Saxon tradition that violence and aggression solve social problems. That if you hit a child hard enough he will think twice before he makes a mistake next time.
Jail times and Maximum Sentences have almost doubled for many offences in the UK. On the other hand, the number of people in prison has gone up by more than double. Incidentally,the cost of these incarcerations has more than tripled in the same time.
The UK and the US continue to have massive crime and social crisis.In the USA perhaps to Njoki and Co's liking they even have the death penalty for minors, something even China finds odious. The extremity of these measures has done nothing at all to stem the rise in violent crime expressly because it does not address its root causes.
As the old cliche goes, there were always pickpockets at hangings in England. Cleaning out the wallets and purses of those gathered to watch the hangings of pickpockets.
Read if you can this very short report from Princeton's Robinson and Darley. The basic premise is that for Criminal Law to be effective three conditions have to be met. First off, the potential law breaker must know of the existence of the law, and what it expects of him or prohibits him from doing. Next, the cost/benefits analysis must be such that it swings the potential lawbreaker,if he is reasonable in the direction of staying within the law,i.e the punishment must be reasonably frightening. Finally, the potential criminal, must in contemplation of these two be convinced that there is a real risk of him actually facing that punishment.
Does Njoki's joke achieve this in its attempt at terrifying the public into not breaking the law? Hardly, it fails in all three respects. In fact so much so that it is my contention that this was never their goal. Rather Njoki andher collaborators seem t have set out on a path of retribution, seeking to make examples of those few who got caught, totally without regard to the consequences either for the continued rise in rapes, or for the fate of those who have been violated.
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 12, 2006 23:13:40 GMT 3
Wrong. There is moral and there is law. The two fora are well distinguished even in Catholic theology. All the more in the secular sphere. Back to the topic now... A. Alexander, I think it depends on the context of your interpretation. If Emmo is using the term "maxims" to compare a moral and legal matter in reference to a secular society, then his argument holds. I guess it elicits a different interpretation if you're using it in a legal sense. By the way, I am not trying to challenge your knowledge of the law. No! I am just intrigued by the usage of the term "maxim"; strange usage. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Alexander & Emmo In my view, the problem with your stance is that it does not define the cause and effect. For instance, you’re pretty angry with Ms. Ndung’u’s position. Hear you Alexander: .........................If this is insane, then just how do you determine the moral threshold? What’s more, by neglecting "effect" do you see that the problem might be persist and perhaps get even more complex? There has to be a distinct difference between what is moral and what is legal! For instance, are juveniles "supposed" to have sex? I think even the depraved Freud would question this one. Then there is the other issue of marital rape. While considering its ambiguity, how does one incontrovertibly prove rape? I have read through your definitions and particulars of rape, but still, how do you prove rape in the bedroom? And while proving it what’s really moral and what’s legal? There has to be a difference. There has to be absolutes. I understand your view of rape being illegal and I absolutely agree with you too, but there has to be a moral way both in the interpretation of the act and its “legal signification”, right? And if this is the case, then there is no absolute; every woman can yell rape whenever and wherever she wants to for any reason! This is the problem I am struggling with. There has to be a clear cut distinction between right and wrong. RR mentioned this and I am waiting to read to his analysis. There is also the Issue of Islam where a man can have up to four (4) wives, or even the showy church going Kibaki having two wives et cetera. Is this legal? Is it moral? Is it fair for us to adopt western pluralism and apply its arraignment to certain ethics selectively, and then assume a reactionary stance with certain cultural issues such as rape? Whereas applying sentences so as to literally kill persons is absurd, there has to be clearly defined absolutes as depicted in the moral law! That's all! Maina -unedited-
|
|
emmo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by emmo on Apr 12, 2006 23:29:49 GMT 3
You see Maina that is why I held that the principles from JSM that I had posted before were 'maxims' if you like.
Violence in the bedroom is for me unjustifiable, both morally and legally. It matters litle that someone is married or unmarried. Everyone we would agree has a right to protection from violence.
On the other hand unless we can establish,which is I think Njoki's contention, that sex between minors is abusive,then we are treading on a minefield by outlawing it. Do we really believe that 15 year olds are traumatised by sex? Do we really believe that locking them up sets things right?
Does Kibaki's having two wives, if neither marriage is forced impinge on either's rights? Does anyone have a right to an exclusive sexual partner? Is this actually a right?
The issue here should be compulsion and protection from compulsion. It shoud be about consent and abuse, not about the law compelling innocent law-abiding people into celibacy.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 15, 2006 13:12:31 GMT 3
Look at the article of today EA Standard. What an utter cretin: eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143951010That woman describes a fine law; one that does not have the *slightest* resembalance to the actual draft. How lying and callous can one become? Linda Ochiel gives an astounding example of human ignominy. But it is also telling to what kind of wanton and blatant lies the defenders of the monstrous draft have to resort, in order to defend to indefensible, and to hoodwink the gullible public. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 18, 2006 17:38:04 GMT 3
I am going to write quickly and because I haven’t the time to check there could be some inaccuracies in what I say….
1. Classical Economics, Value, Utilitarianism and JSM: Some essential notes for Emmo.
There is a need to understand that classical economists are called ‘classical’ because their knowledge has been the basis of tremendous development in economic analysis and thought. Their ideas have been used by subsequent generations to shape economic thought. It is NOT because these ideas are cast in stone and cannot be challenged and developed. Adam Smith, for instance, was wrong about many key things but other economists have used his ideas, corrected his errors and added to the wealth of knowledge. (There have been criticisms regarding the shortfalls of classicism: for example classical economics are static and incapable of capturing economic dynamics. For this reason classical economics have been unsuccessful as a theory of economic development)
Secondly, I need to point out that the real controversy in mainstream economic thought was not about ethical issues but about the definition of ‘value’…. each definition, then, might have different ethical implications. It is probably not possible to answer your question in the luxury of a quick post (especially when these ideas are formed through years of study) so I will not focus on the specific changes in utilitarian theory over the years – diligent study even on the internet nowadays should do that trick. Instead I will be a bit more general so that this argument can suffice for other areas as well. To the best of my recollection there was a labor theory of value which disintegrated into the utility theory of value – to follow these (exciting!) developments you need to begin with Adam Smith and the other classical economists (Ricardo, Malthus Mill) and you will see subtle differences in their definitions. (Karl Marx, in my view was not an economist but a political scientist; he decided to interpret value theory in political terms. Otherwise he agreed with Adam Smith almost verbatim) – then when you look at people (mostly French economists who came after and were either labeled anti-Ricardians and other epithets) like Torrens, J. B. Say, Senior, Condillac, Cournot Dupuit, von Thunen etc (and this is merely a shortlist) – they move from Smithian descriptions of value and develop the utility theory of value.
After that, the utility theory was developed by Walras and Pareto. And then we come into neo-classical economics with people like Alfred Marshall, Jevons Mary Robinson, Chamberlain, Sraffa, Arrow, Jacob Vinier etc
The aim of this excursion is to show that economic ideas are not static; they are altered and improved by each generation. You can use this schema to examine how thought on utilitarianism as a basis for ethics has developed. For instance you are talking of happiness; others have spoken of preference and several other bases over time. Others have asked the hard questions: who measures happiness? Is happiness the same in one person as in all others? All this hedonistic calculus! Thus the concept of utilitarianism has not remained as formulated by JSM and Bentham but has undergone steady adjustments as reflected in the ‘marginalist revolution’. Its application to ethics, admittedly, has moved slower.
JSM was an intriguing economist in some very unique ways, as I recall he was a child prodigy; he never went to school but was taught by his father and by early teenage could speak/ write Greek and Latin. He fell in love with a married woman and when her husband died he married her –I believe her name was Harriet. He loved Harriet in a way that no man has ever loved a woman. In fact his respect for women led him to write a treatise on women (its title was something like ‘on respect for women’) and if memory serves me well, his respect for women led to his falling out with sociologist Comte who thought women were lesser than men. The sad thing is that JSM suffered a nervous breakdown despite all his knowledge about pain and pleasure principles. He found solace in Coleridge’s poetry. JSM chewed his nails off, worrying about the possibility that the finite combinations of music notes would be discovered and that would herald the end of musical ingenuity; JSM said that given his knowledge on utilitarianism, if he lived life afresh, he still wouldn’t be happier.
How do I know all this? I read his autobiography four years ago (its probably the best in a 100 year radius of his time)
2. Law and Morality: Of course Alex is wrong
Alex said that law and morality are two different things. He is right. But they intersect, overlap and even fuse in many places; so he is, in fact inaccurate. One such arena of overlap is found in the concept usually known as ‘Natural Law’. What is natural law? It is an ethical and a legal concept. It is the behavior that nature has taught all animals. It is the command of reason and necessity. It is morality. It is all that follows when we make a statement that begins with the following words ‘we hold these truths to be self evident…..’ Lawyers use it all too frequently; ‘this ruling goes against natural law’.
But it’s not up to me to give lectures on the ‘sources of law’, is it?
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 18, 2006 17:46:40 GMT 3
Look at the article of today EA Standard. What an utter cretin: eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143951010That woman describes a fine law; one that does not have the *slightest* resembalance to the actual draft. How lying and callous can one become? Linda Ochiel gives an astounding example of human ignominy. But it is also telling to what kind of wanton and blatant lies the defenders of the monstrous draft have to resort, in order to defend to indefensible, and to hoodwink the gullible public. Alexander Listen to Linda Ochiel again: 'The interesting thing about the fears around the passing of Sexual Offences Bill is the belief that, the Bill will interfere with what many perceive as ‘sexual rights’ or ‘poetic license’ around matters sexual...' The question of sex in marriage has not been exhaustively discussed. If indeed the bill interferes with this 'percieved' right we should ask why? Is sex in marriage, in fact, a right? Doesn't marriage imply that the two people consent to have have sex? Haven't marriages been annuled on the basis that one partner no longer wanted to have sex with the spouse or that in fact he or she wanted or was having sex with other partners? In a reverse kind of way, making sex in marriage more difficult than it already is (married people, please pardon my liberty of saying so even when I am not married and correct me if I am wrong) could lead to increases rape outside the marriage. Finally, I highly doubt if Linda is married.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 18, 2006 18:05:13 GMT 3
Well, the bill does not punish marital rape (as it should, if it wants to bear its title with any right), but still tolerates it; so the assumption that the draft bill would make "sex in marriage" more difficult may not be right on this account. What other reason do you see, Roughrider?
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 18, 2006 18:16:41 GMT 3
Precisely.
Shouldn't we be discussing 'marital rape' in the context of a 'Sexual Offences Bill'? What exactly will or should constitute marital rape? Is it a lesser crime that other types of rape? If rape is rape, why is the prefix 'marital' even necessary? There are rather thin lines here... I am not sure if I understand what marital rape really is. To many African people, that is an oxymoron. They'd rather discuss conjugal rights. Maybe the challenge to this parliament is to discuss 'thorny issues' and not skirt them.
I am amazed that bills are often cleaned up before presentation to the floor of parliament where MP's ought to do the ammending - if they are worth their salt.
But in general, the increased awareness of sexual offences, the very presence of a sex offences law will make sex, even in marriage, a much more difficult affair - not that it is a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 18, 2006 19:05:37 GMT 3
The questions which Roughrider now asks are indeed important ones. The evil drafters of the present bill have evaded them; they were much too busy with criminalizing the larger part of the entire Kenyan population for *consensual* sex, then with really going for the perpetators.
And I agree with Roughrider's statement that "the challenge to this parliament is to discuss 'thorny issues' and not skirt them". Thanks for saying that clearly.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 19, 2006 1:51:45 GMT 3
Hear you RR: Now RR, There is clear distinction between something moral and something legal. The two do not mean one and the same thing, and neither are they connate. There is also morality and law. I maintain that the two are connate and contradistinct depending on their usage and applications to reality and not the law. For instance, law is obviously based on morality, and not/never the other way around. That is because in morality, there are absolutes which define the meaning of reality as we know it. You can define a law and make it specific to morality but not the other way around. Do you then see how problematic this bill is because it raises moral questions with legal implications in a becoming secular society? Do you then see that you will be tempted to question what is moral and what is legal? Why not just stick to the basics?
Maina
-unedited-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2006 5:01:48 GMT 3
Kenyan men are raping women and children more than ever before. Why is this? Did Kenyan men just turn bad? People have argued here and elsewhere that this law will not serve to stop rape, but will criminalize thousands of youth. Do Kenyan youth wait until they are 18yrs old to have sex? I bet that most don't. Why are the proponents of this bill not tripping all over themselves dealing with the why of rape and not only the penalties they want meted out?I asked else where, and could someone tell me if having your genitals lobed off is better or worse than being raped? And is it better to be raped by your spouse, most likely after he has violated you in other ways and on numerous occasions and for years and years? Oh, fannaymambo said that it has something to do with convincing legislators to pass this bill. RR said something about African culture and that marital rape isn't rape. RR also said that rape is synonymous with homosexuality and abortion. In case anyone has not noticed Kenya is a male dominated misogynist, classist and not to mention homophobic society.
Those of us who are sick and tired of men terrorizing women and children want changes in the law that will help bring about a just peace. Not one that will have men thrown in jails only. What jails are they putting these people in any way? Have you seen the one in Meru? What do you think these men will be like when they emerge out of those prisons. If only working class and all other oppressed men could get a grip. They would realise that oppressed women are their allies in kicking the buts of the Kenyan elites. But, given patriarchal socialisation and privilege (RR woman hating is a part of our African culture) Kenyan men will target women with their justifiable rage which aimed correctly would target those who make a mockery of their lives. And this justifiable rage would not target women stupid!
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 19, 2006 11:50:42 GMT 3
Many further important aspects have lighted up in the discussion now. The problem of the legal concept of "marital rape" is one (indeed, not to be taken lightly); the political and economic background of sexual offences another. The barbarian and mindless approach of Fanyamambo and her ilk is not a solution; it will only make things much worse.
All that could lead us to pondering how a reasonable and just sexual offences law would look like, after the present draft has been rejected. I wonder whether a second thread should be opened for this spin-off discussion`?
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 21, 2006 14:22:17 GMT 3
I am not astonished that Fanyamambo (or one of the numerous defenders of the draft) have not taken the chance to open a second thread. They are not interested in drafting a good, workable, equitable bill, one that would really help in achieving the purpose behind it.
They want a bad bill, because their real intent is not at all to help the victims of sexual crimes, nor to make the crime rate drop. They want a bad bill out of spite and stubbornness now, plain and simple, that is the main motive. A historic parallel shows this clearly, by comparison: one who has been working for years on the improvement of the existing slavery law will be the most vicious opponent of any attempt of abolition. Furtherone, this is a pet child of Njoki Ndung'u (even though she was not the originator of the draft, as is always wrongly written: that's a plain lie). She wants this to be hailed as a show-off government project, intented as a whitewashing both for the government and for her (as "nominated MP") very personally. The government wants to show to gullible donors and voters (whom it anyhow regards as "wapumbavu") alike, that is "does something to curb the evil" - while it actually worsens it immensely - and N.N. aspires for a minister seat in 2007.
They both need this bill for their own low political purposes, no matter if thousands of women and girls will die because of it, no matter that it criminalizes the near entirety of young Kenyans for consensual sex, and many parents and relatives too.
Now, we need a reform of the sexual offences provisions in the Penal Code, yes. But this can only achieved if the way is made free for it, if this draft is REJECTED first.
It is quite the same situation as with the Wako constitution. Kenyans saw that they were taken in for a very bad deal, and they rejected it. Parliament must now do the same with this bill.
Alexander
|
|