|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 27, 2006 16:40:16 GMT 3
So Loyce Ambasa Akwa is a drug trafficker? She was caught at JKIA with 4.2 Kgs cocaine worth Kshs. 21 million hidden in the false bottom of her suitcase…
Goodness gracious! Hitherto, I only knew her as a beauty queen.
This catch brings drug trafficking too close home for my comfort. I like to consider beautiful women as innocent, harmless, adorable creatures. Pray, why are Kenyans pushing dope? Gee that used to be for Nigerians and other dubious Africans.
But I can’t reconcile the image of a beautiful woman trafficking drugs with the assertion by the Kasipul Kabondo MP Paddy Ahenda, that African women are generally shy and will not say ‘Yes’ to the sexual advances of men. They, in his experience, say ‘No’ when they actually mean ‘Yes’. Speaking in parliament, Mr. Ahenda was protesting a section in the draft sexual offences law that outlaws sexual advances.
‘How will people get married if sexual advances are illegal?’ asked a perplexed Mr. Paddy Ahenda. How do you know that a sexual advance is unwelcome until you actually make it?
Roughrider has no idea what the answer these questions are and since I am not in parliament, I cannot react emotionally by walking out and calling men ‘stupid’. Maybe Jukwaa members know what is supposed to replace sexual advances when looking for marriage and other partners...
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 27, 2006 16:46:34 GMT 3
What some male MPs said in parliament may have been ineptly worded. Some contributions even may have reflected long-standing misogyny and a women-demeaning mindset.
But they were on the right side, with their opposition, with their criticism. Nevertheless.
If I oppose slavery because my company is developing a cotton-plucking machine, my stance is still right and deserves support.
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 27, 2006 16:59:37 GMT 3
Interesting.
I've seen some male colleagues at the office doing the thumbs up for the MPs who opposed the bill.
What disappoints me is the way some women are taking this issue as 'their thing', throwing tantrums and generally alienating the men. They would be surprised how much dispassionate and objective reasoning can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 27, 2006 17:02:28 GMT 3
*A* sexual offences bill should be supported by all Kenyans, men and women alike, for it is not a gendered issue (a gender issue yes, but not a gendered issue).
*This* sexual offences draft bill should be opposed by all Kenyans, women and men alike. For it persecutes, harms and disables all Kenyans, not just men. Especially the weak. Especially the vulnerable.
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 27, 2006 17:07:24 GMT 3
Your opposition is clearly consistent and unshakeable.
I have seen three articles opposing this bill in the recent past - 2 are excellent interventions by lawyers including reps from LSK. One moans the unfairness of a case in which a 25 year old man was sentenced to 10 years because of a peck on the cheeks of a girl. The writer wonders if the minimum sentencing that the judge used in that case was fair....
Someone else is wondering why we should have a 'sexual offences law' and not just laws dealing with all offences.
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 27, 2006 17:26:23 GMT 3
Kiogora Mutai's piece is woirth repreinting
Sexual Offences Bill a legal minefield
Story by KIOGORA MUTAI
Publication Date: 4/20/2006
The Sexual Offences Bill, 2006, is a laudable effort. Legislator Njoki Ndung'u is set to make history by joining the ranks of J. M. Kariuki by bringing to Parliament a private members Bill for legislation. In fact, in terms of its importance and public interest, rape is closer to the hearts of the people than the Hire Purchase Act that "JM" fathered.
The Bill has attracted a lot of public interest. But this appears to be one-sided as only a section of women leaders have reacted to it. There has been almost complete silence from the male population generally, and no comments whatsoever from official circles. This is a bad sign for such an important piece of legislation, considering that it will radically overhaul the law on rape. More public debate needs to be stimulated to avoid its shortcomings being overlooked.
The main shortcoming of the law on rape from the past public debates has been the "lenient" sentences meted out by the courts.
Complete overhaul of the law
Women activists have tried to compare cases of rape with those of robbery with violence and drug trafficking, and lamented that, in these cases, the culprits have received penalties commensurate with their offences. But, in rape cases, it has been argued that the guilty have too often got off with light sentences. It would, therefore, be assumed that all Ms Ndung'u needed to do was to bring an amendment to Parliament, raising the severity of the penalties to rapists.
But what we ended up with was a complete overhaul of the law on rape as we know it, to the point of contravening basic human rights, contradicting some provisions of the Constitution, and changing the whole concept of criminal trial.
If this Bill is passed the way it is, a whole host of its provisions will be unconstitutional and open to challenge. Sample the following: It is standard procedure in criminal cases that the credibility of a complainant be tested through his or her previous statement, and the length of time taken between the incidence of rape and when it is reported.
A complainant’s credibility is put to question, let us say, if it takes her one year to report rape.
In section 36 of the proposed Bill, it would not now be material how long a complainant takes to report. Can you imagine a situation where one is jailed for life on a rape incident reported five years after the act?
Evidence of surrounding circumstances is always a material fact in rape cases. Take, for instance, if the accused and the complainant were friends or relatives or were, at the time of rape, in a compromising situation. Cases of rape often happen between friends on a date. All these are factors which are necessarily taken in favour of the accused. The proposed Bill now says that these may only be adduced at the discretion of the magistrate. In effect, the accused will be hindered in giving evidence to show that whatever transpired was not rape but sex between two consenting adults.
Such a hearing cannot be said to be fair, according to section 77 (1) of the Constitution.
A cardinal principle in criminal law is that a court may not accept any evidence without corroboration by an independent witness. Under Section 38, this Bill now says that corroboration of evidence is not necessary. Just pause and imagine that all a lady needs to do is shout "rape!", and the poor victim, without any corroboration at all, will be jailed for life. How different is this from a mob shouting "thief!" on the streets of Nairobi?
This is mob justice. This provision introduces strict liability by negating the need for evidence. A conviction can be sustained on a mere allegation. Such a trial cannot be said to be fair or constitutional. The character and previous history of a rape complainant, and every other, for that matter, is always important. What if a prostitute who has not been paid her dues accuses her client of rape? Is the court going to rule that her character and sexual history is not relevant?
Shifting burden of proof
The burden of proving any criminal case always lies with the prosecution. But section 28 (2) of the Bill reads as follows: "In proceedings for an offence under this section, it is for the accused person to prove that he or she did not distribute, administer or cause to be taken any substance with a view to engaging into sexual activity with another person."
This section shifts the burden of proof to the accused, thus contradicting the provisions of Section 77 (2) (a) of the Constitution. Sections 40 and 41 provide for treatment of an accused person, access and custody of his medical records, and the taking of DNA samples from his body, without any apparent regard to his rights, including the confidentiality of medical records and history, and his right against trespass. These are provisions which, without strong safeguards, would be open to abuse by the prosecution.
Legislator Ndung'u has gone for what is clearly an overkill. The Bill is, however, commendable, as, on the surface, it appears flawless. But we need to see the Government's input, lest we end up with a law that takes away more than it gives. Ms Ndung'u has executed a successful coup for the women's rights movement. No wonder the silence from the male side of the human rights brigade is so loud.
Mr Mutai is an advocate based in Nairobi.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2006 17:38:45 GMT 3
RR, you make me barf. What do physical looks have to do with what one does. And that whole stance of "I like to consider beautiful women as innocent, harmless, adorable creatures" is pathetic. What do physical looks have to do with innocence, harmlessness and being adorable. You are so paternalistic toward women and your own misogyny is NOT even thinly veiled. Are "ugly" women beyond innocence and blah blah blah?
Can't you imagine why Kenyans are pushing dope more than ever? It is for the same reasons that Kenyan men are raping more than ever, the same reasons that there are more robberies and the same reasons that there is more poverty. These are all interlocked.
And that comment "...for Nigerians and other dubious Africans." tells us more about your chauvinistic attitudes. Fancy that, labeling all Nigerians dubious!
Paddy Ahenda and the whole bunch of ignorant male MPs are the exact reason why people want to support the proposed bill even though some of us are opposed to it because it will not achieve what we'd like to see. Like I've said before, a law and order agenda alone will never solve social, political and economic problems and I don't know if your small brain can grasp the fact that sexualised violence is interlocked with these issues. And Ahenda should know better since as he reminded everyone he is in fact trained as a medical doctor. He should know more intimately the terror visited on women and children via rape. His attitude and that of most male MPs displays their wish to cling to their male privileges which include terrorising women and children with impunity. Who does not know how to let another human being know that one is attracted to them in a manner that does not violate other peoples space and rights? Just most men. Who does not know how to take NO for an answer? Just most men.
"...I cannot react emotionally by walking out and calling men 'stupid'. Oh my roughrider, emotionality, what a terrible thing, a display of weakness in your little male brain.
I hope that this bill does not pass because of the problems that others and I have articulated on this blog, but not because of the misogyny of male MPs.
Alexander, "...they were on the right side, with their opposition, with their criticism." Oh come on. All the comments that I saw from the male MPs are securely rooted in their conscious and subconscious hatred for women and do not arise out of the concerns that you and others have expressed here and elsewhere. So, their opposition to the bill will work to help us, but lets not forget that we and them are coming from a very different place ideologically in terms of sexualised violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 27, 2006 18:22:56 GMT 3
I shall "come on", Kathure, don't doubt it... ;-)
And indeed, my (and your) position are in all probability very different from the mindsets and the gendered feelings of these MPs ( whereas the female MPs are even worse than their male colleagues here).
But nevertheless, the otherwise (and former) allies and fellow fighters are our enemies here; and erstwhile enemies are now, must now be, valuable and cherished allies for this cause. So be it.
Let me quote some blogger (who otherwise I should regard as a sworn adversary):
If you know what you believe is right, even when it goes against what 99% of the population thinks, why are we not willing to go all the way to defend it at every opportunity?
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 27, 2006 18:24:39 GMT 3
Oh dearie me.
I yearn for the days when satire and stylistic exaggeration was taken for what it was.
I am beginning to really like you Kathure, you and I are one of kind. (is this an illegal advance punishable under Njoki’s new law?). You are a ferocious cat but you also have soft, cuddly fur on an underbelly that you can’t hide.
But perhaps Kathure, aren’t you too emotional about things to appreciate little nuances here and there? This thing of ‘beautiful women being harmless creatures’ was never a roughrider creation – in fact all roughrider is doing is using the drug case to point out that it is perhaps the wrong perception. Beauty has nothing to do with innocence.
What’s it with ‘little male brains’, ‘small male brains’ and ‘male brains’? Isn’t this the same disease you are trying to cure roughrider from? Why is the pot calling the kettle black?
And when it comes to making advances and whether NO means NO, did I not indicate that I am ignorant of the matter? And it is true that I am NOT a parliamentarian and even if I was emotional I couldn’t walk out of ANY parliament in ANY protest. I merely pointed out that this is NOT possible. Yet, you Kathure; yes, my very Kathure, crucify me for saying that?
C’mmon, be a sport, Kathure and stick to the issues; there is not a misogynistic molecule in roughriders lithe body… and you know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 27, 2006 18:36:30 GMT 3
I am beginning to really like you Kathure, you and I are one of kind. (is this an illegal advance punishable under Njoki’s new law?). Yes it is. Impersonation of another who is personally known to the victim (and Kathure certainly knoweth herself) with lewd intent. 15 years. And given the overcrowding of our prisons, you'll share a cell with Njoki Ndung'u. Hah. Alexander |
|
|
|
Post by pharlap on Apr 27, 2006 20:12:47 GMT 3
We quite nevevr learn from past mistakes. A lot of the new powerful economies analysed what the rest of the world has been doing and took the best of it and implemented that. The same continues in australia, china, Dubai, but kenyans want to do everything from scratch. Why re-invent the wheel when somebody else did it already? Some of those female Mp's are not in touch with the needs of the common Njoki. Just listen to some of their comments. Goodness!!! This has the potential to be one of the most abused laws ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 27, 2006 20:52:47 GMT 3
"Some of those female MPs"!? ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On another forum I saw a nice and juicy diatribe against the female MP and NGO sycophants and supporters of the bill. Maybe I should repost it here. It was 100 % accurate (as to social status, class bias and total ignorance of the real, ground situation of the poor and victimized), but i fear Kathure might chide me for rendering it here... ;-)
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by museveni on Apr 27, 2006 22:47:14 GMT 3
One thing that strikes me about African countries is that they try to implement what western countries practice without looking at the rummifications and side effects.
One thing is clear, Kenyans welcome the bill, and I applaud Njoki Ndungu. Rape cases have been on the rise, and it is time to act so as to deter the act.
On the other hand, one must look at the draft bill, its contents and flaws. We cannot decide to enact the bill in a way that will pit women against men. We cannot allow it to be used as revenge wepon on a man that a woman would like to 'purnish'.
Like someoneone cited, a case where a man was jailed for TEN years simply for pecking a woman ! That is abuse of justice. He could have been sentenced, but not with that kind of severity !, unless ofcourse we say that from now on, the courts will literally cut off all thieves' hands.
Sanity must prevail in enacting the bill. It must be debated in an open way. Women must understand that not all of them have good intentions. They must also try to stop looking at the isse as though it is a fight between Men and women. Let the women stop being too emotional about the bill.
They must remember that their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons could fall victim to a vindictive woman who wants to abuse the use of the law.
A am also sure that Ahenda would probably kill if his daughter were to be subjected to rape.
|
|
|
|
Post by pharlap on Apr 28, 2006 2:00:12 GMT 3
Well put M7, a lot of the times, we kenyans make decisions based on emotion, remember the issue of aborted foetuses which were dumped on Mombasa road; the whole nation was crying out for the gynaecologist's head; then after a few weeks, he was released free of charge, nothing really came out of it. Same case with teh bomas draft, there was a lot of emotional moments especially with regards to issues such as censorship where christian supporters or rather most religious groups would vote in block to push for clauses which were in line with their religious beliefs. That is why at times it is important to borrow a leaf from some of the more successful democracies in the west. I am not sayig that we should ape everything Canada does, but there are certain good things that we can borrow. We don't have to go enacting bills that will only cause more trouble than gain when we can implement what has worked elsewhere. I think the most silly thing the female MPs could have done was to storm out of parliament because of whatever reason....heckling? It shows that they are not in any right mind to debate this bill. ati akina wangari maathai and koigi wamwere will sit and decipher this bummer? My fingers are crossed. I think we will have that castration thing enacted. Remember someone had recomended that rapists be castrated? That was so stupid...people rape for other reasons than just intercourse. If we cut off their mmmes  *lol*, they might end up using bottles on their victims. Crude, but thats true, some politician pushing for castration without knowing exactly the psychological/behavioral patterns and problems associated with rape.......just so that they can feel they had a say is pretty much insane. The bill should not paint Kenyan men as if they are primitive sex maniacs and animals. No one should really come out claiming they won in the end since this affects us all in many ways. Men get raped too. |
|
|
|
Post by mossad on Apr 28, 2006 2:07:49 GMT 3
I think the bill should be able to address the difference b/t sexual harassment and rape. For example, the case of a guy who was senteced to 10 yrs for pecking a lady is not rape. Thats what we call sexual harassment. And i believe someone should be fined not jailed for such offenses.
Mossad.
|
|
|
|
Post by pharlap on Apr 28, 2006 2:56:32 GMT 3
@ Alex, can you please quote the post or provide the source?
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 28, 2006 10:38:03 GMT 3
I was still a bit hesitant, Pharlap, whether I should quote the flame, since Jukwaa has mostly - except for the usual flotsam of tribalism and the assorted insults associated thereto - remained a halfway flamefree zone. Hmhm...
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by pharlap on Apr 28, 2006 13:16:03 GMT 3
I was still a bit hesitant, Pharlap, whether I should quote the flame, since Jukwaa has mostly - except for the usual flotsam of tribalism and the assorted insults associated thereto - remained a halfway flamefree zone. Hmhm... Alexander I get it..  ...But surely linking the article, might not be so bad after all. Its good to hear what other people are saying out there. At times some of those flames are well deserved. However, its good to respec the rulz.  |
|
|
|
Post by 50cents on Apr 29, 2006 21:49:58 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by pharlap on May 3, 2006 1:46:56 GMT 3
nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=1&newsid=72329The article goes on. Now, someoene suddenly realized that there are votes in large numbers in muslims and kenyan women nand decided, after all, this bill is actually quite sensible and can really go through... Infact it is a blessing. Now this reminds me of a redykylas comedy i just heard on eric wainaina's cd's Nchi ya kitu kidogo. The cops stop a newbie from shags and read him a list of ridiculous crimes, like smoking with violence and all that crazy stuff...then after he parts with a few shillingi's they suddenly tell him he is a good law abiding citizen and that even if he would have done all those things, he was free to go, they even offer to give him a push..puch. Now seriously speaking, do you really think that those fat cats in parliament genuinely care with this kind of habitual flip flopping? Its votes that count and some are desperately trying to get them early enough by all means. This bill sux, and if it needs some work, they should just send it back where it came from and have it rectified alafu we can debate further, but the kondoo mentality where if one jumps, all jump seems to prevail in the house, rather than reason. Lets hope they do the right thing.
|
|
*lol*, they might end up using bottles on their victims. Crude, but thats true, some politician pushing for castration without knowing exactly the psychological/behavioral patterns and problems associated with rape.......just so that they can feel they had a say is pretty much insane. The bill should not paint Kenyan men as if they are primitive sex maniacs and animals. No one should really come out claiming they won in the end since this affects us all in many ways. Men get raped too. 
...But surely linking the article, might not be so bad after all. Its good to hear what other people are saying out there. At times some of those flames are well deserved. However, its good to respec the rulz. 
