|
Post by adongo12345 on Nov 25, 2006 0:57:41 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Nov 25, 2006 1:11:53 GMT 3
That amendment killed the whole bill. I must confess I had no idea that particular amendment was tucked in there by those hypocrites. May be I should have read the whole bill like my friend Alex suggested.
Nowhere else in the world would people accept such a strange way of criminal prosecution. How about robbers and murderers shouldn't we have a clause that if you accuse me of robbing you and it turns out I am innocent then you should be given the same treatment I would have been handed if I was found guilty.
Effectively that clause means, except for outrageous cases like those who rape kids and are caught red handed, no woman would risk reporting rape and seeking justice because if they loose they are in shit. The cops will warn them about that, the rapists and their lawyers will remind them about it.
Also I was wondering whether the clause can be challenged on the basis that it contravenes the constitution. The constitution says innocent until proved guilty. In this case someone is going to be guilty because someone else is innocent.
But the sexism of our M.P's is beyond measure. The remarks and the law speaks volumes about our backwardness. Something has to be done about this. I think human rights groups and women organisations (even Maendeleo Ya Wanawake) should gang up get international support and force Parliament to amend the law and throw out the escape clause they have given to rapists. It is offensive to humanity.
Adongo
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 25, 2006 1:31:35 GMT 3
It is offensive to humanity. The entire - and do I say: the ENTIRE ! - sexual offences bill, with *all* of its manifold atrocious provisions, is an offence against humanity. Those who are hit worst by it, are women and girls; and of course all juveniles regardless of gender. Hang Njoki Ndung'u in Uhuru Park. Just hang her. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Nov 25, 2006 1:44:12 GMT 3
No Alex
We love Njoki Ndung'u. She has her problems, but I think she had very genuine intentions with the bill. It put her on the world map. Women like like Millie Odhiambo who is a veteran activist for the rights of women and children supported Njoki and the bill. I am sure they know better than me and you what is good and bad with the bill.
Anyhow what exactly are your issues with Sex Offenses Act. I think it is a good move except for that heinous clause which ruins the whole thing.
Adongo
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 25, 2006 2:43:54 GMT 3
I am sure they know better than me and you what is good and bad with the bill. Millie does not have the slightest clue. Not the slightest. I have read her *original* draft, the predecessor to the bill. You haven't. And there is at best one (1) other person in Kenya who can assess the bill as well as I can. This one person has commented on it in the Nation. There is a second one who can assess it half as well. This one has also written in the Nation. Do not talk about things you have not analyzed. Maybe you should have read the whole bill, as you suggested above. What I wrote stands. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Nov 26, 2006 1:49:47 GMT 3
Alex
I think you would help your course by providing concrete information about the Act instead of speculating on what people know or don't know.
Anyhow some people had asked me to paste the initial story from the Nation because they cannot open Nation. So here we go.
NEWS EXTRA
Rights groups to sue over law on sex offences
Story by MILDRED NGESA Publication Date: 11/24/2006 A group of women and children rights organisations are planning to sue the Government over a clause in the Sexual Offences Act which makes a false rape allegation a criminal offence. The contentious clause was inserted at the last minute as one of the compromises hammered out to ensure passage of the Bill in July.
The clause reads: "–...Any person who makes false allegations against another person to the effect that the person has committed an offence under this Act is guilty of an offence and shall be liable to punishment equal to that for the offence complained of...–"
This means that if a rape suspect is acquitted, the complainant could be accused of having given false information and could be at risk of imprisonment for not less than 10 years. This is the same jail sentence that a convicted rapist would earn.
"It is a conspiracy. This is the only law that has the incredible potential to criminalise the victim. Those who contended the inclusion of the clause saw that the standards set by the Sexual Offences Bill was very high and, therefore, saw that their safety grounds must be equally high. If this is so, then it is the highest form of discrimination of rape victims," said Ms Millie Odhiambo, who was instrumental in drafting the Bill that was steered through Parliament by nominated MP Njoki Ndungu.
Ms Odhiambo, executive director of the Child Rights Advisory Documentation and Legal Centre (CRADLE), says the organisation will take the Attorney General to the constitutional court over inclusion of the clause, which she says is discriminatory.
"We will be contesting only that specific clause. Ninety-nine per cent of the Act is good, except that one per cent. Sadly, the inclusion of that one per cent trashes the whole Act. The implications of that clause is very real. For a long time the stigma associated with rape stopped many victims from coming forward to report it. Now with Clause 38, where the victim risks being thrown into jail because of a perceived false accusation, then the stigma will even double. Victims will hardly dare come forward," Ms Odhiambo said.
Ms Ndungu agrees that there is a flaw, but maintains that one clause cannot make the entire Act useless.
"The fact that one fails to prove a case does not necessarily mean that they have made false allegations. It will be up to the prosecution to prove that the victim is lying. This can only happen in a case where a victim says she has been raped while she has not. And these cases are rare," the MP said.
According to her, Clause 38 was negotiated as a last minute compromise. "That clause was inserted at the last minute. The Bill was already at the committee stage. Men ganged up and discussed how they would at least win on this issue that was already a clear win for women and children. But that clause does not at all rubbish the whole Bill; it instead rubbishes the presumption by male MPs that they have won," she said.
Section 38 was based on an amendment moved by KANU chief whip Justin Muturi and seconded by Kiharu MP Kembi Gitura.
While supporting the same Motion, Sirisia MP Moses Wetangula was reported saying that the Bill could be used by "hawkers on Koinange Street" to make false allegations.
According to Nairobi lawyer and activist Atsango Chesoni, the contentious clause was inserted in the belief that rape victims are liars.
"This legal presumption has its genesis in old British law on which the Kenyan Penal Code is derived. The clauses against rape contained in the British law of 1885 were enacted to protect men against the 'immoral' claims of women," she said.
Ms Chesoni recalled a 1970 East African Court of Appeal ruling by the then Chief Justice, Kitili Mwendwa, who held that: "It is really dangerous to convict on the evidence of the woman or girl alone. It is dangerous because human experience has shown that girls and women do sometimes tell an entirely false story which is very easy to fabricate, but extremely difficult to refute."
The position has since been reversed by the Kenya Court of Appeal. Justices Richard Otieno Kwach, Samuel Bosire and Emmanuel O’Kubasu ruled in 2003: "If any basis existed for treating female witnesses differently in sexual offences cases, such basis cannot be properly justified currently... we have no hesitation in holding that decisions which hold that corroboration is essential in sexual offences before a conviction are no longer good law as they conflict with Section 82 of the Constitution."
Ms Chesoni sees a sinister motive in the return of Clause 38 in the Sexual Offences law. "The effect of section 38 is to return us to the position prior to 2003 when the Court of Appeal ruled that the legal presumption that rape victims are liars is a form of discrimination. If the concern is to address perjury, why don’t the ordinary laws of perjury suffice? If one lies in any other trial, one is prosecuted for perjury. So why this special clause in respect of rape trials?"
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 26, 2006 2:04:12 GMT 3
Mildred Ngesa.
Her.
Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Nov 26, 2006 15:37:12 GMT 3
I dont understand the argument here in Forum about the Author of the Nation Story... However...back to the Main issue. It is a trash Bill because of this Clause! It is obvious what the MEN MP's thought they reached with it. "WOMEN ARE COWARDS" They think! They are the Cowards to think so. Worlds have changed. Women know their rights. Their Mothers have being teaching them on their Rights since 3 generation. Now watch us! One of them New generation moving back home to strenghen our Sisters back Home
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 26, 2006 19:59:39 GMT 3
However...back to the Main issue. It is a trash Bill Yes. No. That is true. And this bill has betrayed everything that Kenyan feminists have fought for, in the last 3 generations. Everything. Do a search of this forum (use "sexual" as searchword") and you'll already find some - admittedly: dispersed - clues in past postings of mine, Kathure, Emmo. For example, I now see that I had responded here to Adongo's present request for more details and arguments already on 11th and 12th April 2006. jukwaa.proboards58.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1142683061&page=3This is just the page 3 of the entire thread. There are more than enough explanations and examples in it. Tolle, lege.Alexander
|
|
|
Post by KOLONEL BRISK on Nov 26, 2006 23:23:17 GMT 3
You could use the following link to access the bill. I hope those who have not read it will be able to read the statistics of rape in Kenya and newspaper articles on the bill. www.sexualoffencesbill.co.ke/
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 27, 2006 0:19:54 GMT 3
I am seeing it again after several months, and I am more disgusted and appalled than ever.
I think another private member's bill should be introduced soon: The Slavery Act. We'll just call it nicer, let's say "New African Stewardry Act". The same hideous idjts that applauded the Sexual Offences Bill without knowing its contents and its consequences, will probably pass the other one as well, with flying colours.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 27, 2006 15:16:10 GMT 3
If only I were Milton, to wield a scything pen of fire, to express my wrath and ire... of all English poets, I have always esteemed him most. Not surprisingly.
But even though he would probably topple the promoters and propagandists of this evil and horrible bill into a deeper abyss of Hell's crevices, such merely poetic justice would not achieve much on the ground, for the victims of this bill. The victims not of your average estate rapists and domestic abusers, but the victims of people like Njoki Ndung'u, Millie Odhiambo, Fanyamambo (certainly one of the worst and most abject creatures I have ever, ever met among Kenyans; I just wait to meet her in real life...), Kasuku.
Is there a chance to alter that bill, to reverse it altogether? Maybe. But only if we know who the enemies are. The enemies, this time, are not the eternal Zinjanthropi and misogynes like Paddy Ahenda. No, they are those who have betrayed decades of feminist work. Those who are closeted lesbians, yet hypocritical condone and even propagate brutal anti-GLB legislation. Those who pretend to be children's advocates, but try to silence them, and deny the victims their own standing and their own party rights in court, such as Millie Odhiambo. Those who persecute and endanger the victims, instead of strengthening them. Those who criminalize consensual sex, yet at the same time explicitly allow marital rape (for the first time in East African legal history), by inserting a literal condonement clause in the bill. Those who criminalize the near entirety of Kenyan juveniles of either gender, and all poor people and estate dwellers on top of it.
There is a gender war going on, be there no doubt about it. But the real enemies here, of women, womyn, girl children, straights and queers alike, are not men in general. And not even deviant and oppressive and misogyne men in specific.
No, the real and most pernicious enemies are their own "activists"; a class of vampires and leeches in reality, and true ogres more often than not. Those must be fought, wherever they show up. And yes, I want to see Njoki Ndung'u hang. Really. Literally. In Uhuru Park. And all her victims shall dance under her body, and breathe freely the purified air. Let us hope for such a day of liberation; let us work for it.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Nov 27, 2006 20:47:40 GMT 3
Thanks BRISK
The information is invaluable. I perused through, but I haven't had the time to study the material and the links. I intend to do so and put my two cents worth.
I think we should avoid personalizing the debate in terms of Njoki and Millie Odhiambo etc. The Act is now part of Kenyan law, let us address it.
Keep it coming.
Adongo.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 28, 2006 12:22:34 GMT 3
Of course, the bill (and now act) is not bad because those who engendered and hatched it were bad (Millie Odhiambo, Njoki Ndung'u, and let's not forget Moire O'Sullivan, hmmh?). It is rather the contrary: these people are to be judged and condemned because they fought for such a thoroughly evil and horrible bill, betraying all the hopes and confidence that people had set in them.
So, a debate on sexual laws and sexual politics will concentrate on issues, without leaving out suitably instrumentalized prejudice and sexism (Paddy Ahenda style) when and where it can support a noble and just purpose. And the issue is neither the public hanging of NN (as desirable as this be), nor the punishment of this or that individual rapist or child abuser (what is necessary there, is not so much the very occasional and whimsical application of a cruel and exaggerated sentence, to the delight of some bloodthirsty revenge-seekers; but rather the diligent prosecution and swift sanction of all offences with high certainty: what this bill has made rather *impossible* now).
The issue is firstly the necessary interlink of sexual offences laws, reproductory laws, family laws. As I wrote already long ago, time and again, even though the actual and nitty-gritty legal work may often be a piecemeal deal, going step by step, the approach must be holistic. One cannot have liberty while propagating for oppression.
The issue is secondly a workable and practical law. A law that does not presuppose conditions and institutions that will not exist in Kenya within 20 years, a law that can be equally applied to all, and is not so overblown that it will only be used in some capricious cases of personal feud and vendetta against a few hapless poor, whereas most of the culprits will in future go scot free, because police, prosecution and judiciary will shrink back far more than they now do. This new act destroys every progress in practice that had been achieved painstakingly in the last 15 years, and especially in the last 5 years. (That alone would warrant the death sentence for N.N.)
The issue is thirdly a law that defends the poor, the disenfranchised, the victims, instead of persecuting and oppressing specifically *them*. Insofar, my argument even has to do with _class_. Of course, such a thought is very un-Kenyan. It's a nation that jeeringly applauds, with reliability, whenever its weakest are smitten and trampled upon.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 28, 2006 15:42:03 GMT 3
Something has to be done about this. I think human rights groups and women organisations (even Maendeleo Ya Wanawake) should gang up (...) It is offensive to humanity. As I wrote before, it would be good if such organizations, of which there are many, would be the allies of women and girls (and, indirectly, also the allies of men and boys who are victims of sexual violence), and not their enemies. Just take Fida Kenya. Apart from the more general fact that I am sick and tired about Kenyan closet dýkes oppressing their more open sisters instead of solidarising with them (in worst Mark Foley style). Just take their recent campaign with regard to gender violence (somebody apparently has syphoned off a bit of donor money, so that the thoroughly neglected and cobwebbed FIDA website could be updated for the first time in 2 years). It's called "Sexual Violence Campaign in Kericho". Now that is one brilliantly evil, dark pun. The double-entendre itself would be worthy of Borat ( "a sexual violence campaign? me, where can I participate? what are winners' prizes for the best rapist?"). But firstly, I am not at all sure whether the pun was intentional at all. And secondly, the evil brilliance of it is, that indeed in Kericho a true "campaign" of sexual violence mostly against women and girls, but occasionally also against boy children, seems to be going on for one year now. Just have a look and see the continuous horror: www.fidakenya.org/campkericho.htmIt is so distressing and angering. And keep in mind that these reported incidents are not even the tip of the needle. For every one 12-year-old househelp raped by her employer, who actually sought help with Fida (case of May 06 in the list), there are 50 or 100 who don't. Who are helpless, voiceless; economically dependent; who have been taught to blame themselves. The new law does nothing to help this girl. It victimizes her even further. But when she grows up to be 16 or 17 and has - probably for the first time - a loving relationship with a boy of her age, then the law makes sure that both forfeit a 10-years prison term for that. And the bar-owner who served the two young enamoured people a glass of Tusker before they went home hand in hand, he is also in for 5 years. Mandatory minimum sentence. "An offence against humanity"? Indeed so, Adongo. Indeed. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Nov 30, 2006 0:01:50 GMT 3
Alex
I have been pinned to the ground with work and other emergencies. I will respond in a meaningful way soon.
Adongo
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Nov 30, 2006 14:27:09 GMT 3
When you do respond, Adongo, consider the spirit of that amendment, even if the letter is repugnant: isn’t it true that malicious accusations of and prosecutions for rape can and have been made against men and women? To be accused of rape – when it wasn’t – can be devastating, destroying; perhaps as much as being raped.
Pray what should the law do?
But there is a contradiction – sexual offences are not ordinary crimes; they have been put on a pedestal and they carry stiff sanction. Subsequently the false and malicious accusation thereof cannot be reasonably considered ordinary and subject to the normal sanctions of perjury. This position is a preliminary response Ms Chesoni’s assertion that: “….If the concern is to address perjury, why don’t the ordinary laws of perjury suffice? If one lies in any other trial, one is prosecuted for perjury. So why this special clause in respect of rape trials?"
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Nov 30, 2006 17:40:25 GMT 3
Interesting, interesting... Lynne Muthoni Wanyeki has just commented on a similar issue, and her comment fits so very precisely into the structure of my argument (okay: my fiery but ever-so-justified-diatribe) above. You know Lynn very well, Adongo, and I know her, uhhh, indirectly... so here is what she just wrote in the East African weekly: "We live in the age of externally funded non-governmental organisations. And these NGOs are staffed, in the main, by professionals with social interests who may not be interested in mass mobilisation and organisation of the kind seen in our past.
The African women’s movement is not exempt. Here in Kenya, recent events call into question the commitment of the individuals involved in women’s rights as well as the kinds of organisations we have chosen to carry the women’s rights agenda forward." Source: www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/27112006/Opinion/opinion2711062.htmAlexander
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 1, 2006 12:25:43 GMT 3
I have given up to hope for a comment by Kathure. And Fanyamambo won't show up for another flogging either (good for her; she prefers the closet). So, I shall just content myself by quoting Emmo from www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=9 : "I saw Njoki giving an interview on the BBC recently, apparently the gravity of the harm wrought by the Bill has not yet come through.
Let us hope Cassandra is you, and that all goes well. The Kenya Police badly need retraining and equipping to boost both arrest and succesful prosecution rates.
Most of all though, Kenya needs to re-educate herself so that we properly treat victims as the wronged, instead of judging them. This is what causes the endless spiral, as perpetrators of crimes especially against women are act with impunity."
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Dec 4, 2006 12:06:12 GMT 3
Interesting, interesting... Lynne Muthoni Wanyeki has just commented on a similar issue, and her comment fits so very precisely into the structure of my argument (okay: my fiery but ever-so-justified-diatribe) above. You know Lynn very well, Adongo, and I know her, uhhh, indirectly... so here is what she just wrote in the East African weekly: "We live in the age of externally funded non-governmental organisations. And these NGOs are staffed, in the main, by professionals with social interests who may not be interested in mass mobilisation and organisation of the kind seen in our past.
The African women’s movement is not exempt. Here in Kenya, recent events call into question the commitment of the individuals involved in women’s rights as well as the kinds of organisations we have chosen to carry the women’s rights agenda forward." Source: www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/current/Opinion/opinion2711062.htmAlexander At least, L. Muthoni Wanyeki is honest enough to confirm what we always suspected; feminism is just a fancy byword for introducing elitism and contemporary western cultures such as lesbianism which she shamelessly asks us to ‘celebrate’ Along the same lines of the ‘very disturbing’, I was deeply troubled to learn that South Africans have legislated debauchery. How can sodomy be legalised in an African country? Does this have to do with the greater influences of the white populations down south? Is cultural assimilation taking over from apartheid?
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 4, 2006 14:40:09 GMT 3
At least, L. Muthoni Wanyeki is honest enough to confirm what we always suspected (...) contemporary western cultures such as lesbianism which she shamelessly asks us to ‘celebrate’. And right she is. What she hopes to celebrate is a culture of diversity and tolerance, of which queerness (GLBT) is just a part, though a valuable one. But let me add one free plug for a new book, which I have not yet seen: Donna Smith, along with the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), launched a book at the conference titled Tommy boys, Lesbian men and Ancestral wives: female same-sex practices in Africa. It documents female homosexuality in east and southern Africa through personal narratives from women in Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania and Uganda where lesbianism is little understood and not accepted. "We are invisible in Africa, but a naturally occurring phenomenon in the universe," Smith said. "People discriminate against us and say things carelessly about us. This has led to suicide and violence." Debauchery is a moral term, not a legal one; there is nothing to be legalized or illegalized about it. What South Africa did - and had to do - was simply to respect the clear and binding decision of the Constitution, of the supreme law of the land. The decision of the constitutional court made this legislation - what was anyhow clear - mandatory for parliament. I am now quoting www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=southafrica&id=1407 : The Act seeks to regulate the solemnisation and registration of civil unions, by way of either marriage or a civil partnership, and provides for the legal consequences of the solemnisation and registration of civil unions.
This is line with the Constitutional Court judgment in December last year in the case of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Eighteen Others v the Minister of Home Affairs and Others. The court found that the common law definition of marriage in the Marriage Act of 1961 was inconsistent with the Constitution, and invalid to the extent that it did not permit same-sex couples to enjoy the status, benefits and responsibilities it accords to heterosexual couples. The court set a deadline of December 1 this year for the necessary legislative amendments to be put into place.
Following extensive public hearings on the issue - during which it was strenuously opposed by religious and some other groupings - the national assembly adopted the bill last Tuesday and the national council of provinces a week later. Alexander
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2006 19:29:03 GMT 3
You see Roughrider L.Muthoni Wanyeki is not the only Kenyan who is clamoring for the rights of Lesbians. And believe you me she is clamoring for more rights than those alone. The South Africans did us proud. Like Alex and this other man says we have to respect the law when it upholds the rights of oppressed people. And also remember opende usipende you will not erase the fact that a diversity of sexual orientation is the reality. www.timesnews.co.ke/28nov06/nwsstory/opinion1.htmlS. Africa’s same sex law perfectly in order By J. M. KARIUKI I wish to respond to arguments published in the media on a topic titled: “SA a let down over gay laws”. Papers do not only report news (an endeavour they discharge and articulate so evidently and is commendable) but also shape public opinion. In this regard, a story which in my view is biased cannot go unchallenged because to do so would not only misinform the public but shape an opinion that is biased. By responding to the story I will be broadening the arguments. The writer quotes considerably from various people and rulers present and past. He does so to prove his point with regard to homosexuals. On the other hand Kipkoskei who also wrote on the same subject, refers to Leviticus 18:22: to argue how the gay law is a shame to South Africa and that Kenyan MPs have not stooped that low. One may appreciate the arguments made by the two and many others over this matter but their opinions are by far not objective and leave a lot to be desired. It is true that by legalising same sex marriage, it would appear that South Africa is joining the “enlightened club” of the few who have dealt with “homophobia culture” against gay people, and that the legalising act seemingly is not supported by the majority of the citizens of the Republic of South Africa. No does the act reflect the African-ness of the African peoples and their cultures. It is also true that leaders like President Robert Mugabe and ex-president Moi etc., abhor homosexuals and equate them with hell on earth. I am not sure that homosexuality has a European lineage otherwise the holy book would not have mentioned and discussed about it. I think it is very true and probably so that homosexuality is practised (but not spoken openly about) in Africa by African peoples. I stand to be corrected to the contrary with empirical evidence. The points that such arguments miss or ignore are: * Homosexuality is another way of expression just as heterosexual is. As such, the suppression of it is a suppression of the freedom of expression enshrined in the constitutions of Zimbabwe and Kenya and other countries, let alone Europe. In this regard it is the Mois, Mogabes and other like-minded people who are confused with what their constitutions say and stand for. Of course such like leaders do suppress the freedoms of expression of their people, but many other liberties to the extent that the citizens live more or less as slaves. * Cultures and religions are notorious of human control. These two institutions operate as they are the only “true human perspective”. In this regard, whatever they prescribe as true must be held as “truth”. Such behaviour knows and respects less other human perspectives and styles of living. Given that Zimbabwe and Kenya and other societies are not constituted as theocracies, to hold the view against homosexuals based on religious beliefs is discriminatory and biased on the basis of the law. In this regard, in light of this, and in the constitution of South Africa, homophobia is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Consequently the constitutional court (Highest legal organ in the Republic of SA) gave parliament one year to change the Marriage Act because as it stood, it was unconstitutional and on this basis parliament acted to make legal same sex marriage. * It is worth noting that suppression of the life-style of homosexuality is not only a suppression of the freedom of expression, but more so, a denial of the freedom of association. Just as heterosexuals freely associate and at times with several different individuals at a given time, one would expect that homosexuals would be accepted and protected legally when they freely associate with partners of their choice in respect, in line and reference to the constituted order of secular states. In summary, Africa is notorious for not respecting human dynamics and different perspectives, consequently ethnic strife and tribal wars coupled with religious bigotry are an every day life experience for many African countries and the world at large. This could probably be avoided if people learn to respect and honour their constitutions and accept the liberties of people as provided for in the laws. Copyright © 2006 Times
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Dec 5, 2006 17:37:10 GMT 3
The sexual offences law in Kenya, some argued, was bad law to the extents that some of its provisions would interfere with the constitutional right to marriage; in some ways it criminalized courtship. ……………………………………………………………………………………………
They are clever by half, those who support putting lesbian and gay marriage into law because it is ‘recognizing diversity’. We are as diverse in virtues as we are in our vices…. That doesn’t mean we should condone and celebrate our vices. Or does it? Similarly rights to expression or association are not necessarily absolute; there are acceptable barriers that define the limits to those rights.
I find it strange that something some people hold as ‘normal’, as ‘natural’ and as ‘good’ as gay marriage was not already, naturally in law and practice. That it is only today that we have to confront it. Does that tell you something?
What sets humans apart from other forms of life is the ability to suppress animal instincts. "Traditional marriages, in which one man and one woman create a lasting community, pass on time-honored family values to secure the future and, therefore, are worthy of protection," South African Steve Swart.
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Dec 5, 2006 19:41:24 GMT 3
Alex & The Crowd
People are raising some big issues in this thread. When I put the heading "Very Disturbing" I had no idea that the stuff may be this disturbing and intense, but such is the nature of the debate on issues of guaranteeing and protecting women's rights under the law. Now you add the issue of gay and lesbian rights things can get pretty stormy. But we will not run away from the issues.
My first issue was with the clause in the Sexual Offenses Act which specifies that a person (woman) who accuses someone of rape could be punished with a minimum of ten years if the person was found innocent. I thought this was unconstitutional for the simple reason that it intends to criminalize a failed attempt to prosecute alleged rapists. Obviously the intent of the clause is to provide a sledge hammer for alleged rapists, police officers, lawyers and God Knows who else to intimidate rape victims and scare them from seeking prosecution.
Alex is right that for every ten or twelve year old who reports a rape case may be a few hundred never report because of the stigma, fear, pressure from family members. Remember in some communities rapist and other sexual predators actually pay some compensation to the family (not the victim!!!). In other cases the women are forced to marry the rapist. My point here is that as bad as things are now, this particular clause will only make it worse.
On the other hand someone like Alex insists the whole Act is crap. One of the argument advanced by Alex is that the Act will do nothing to reach out to young girls too terrified to report. I agree, but I know of NO law that provides outreach mechanisms to victims. That is the role of activists to mobilize and make resources available to people and to young women where they need it the most.
Let me tell you something. I will come back to the nature (predatory) of some of the NGO's that occupy centre space in mass work at home. Actually they specialize in endless workshops and seminars with power points and all the paraphernalia to make them look serious. I'll come back to that.
My issue is this, I come from Bondo town. Last time I was there, three years ago, the biggest business going on was coffin making. It is actually stunning to see coffins displayed prominently everywhere you turn. Bondo people work hard. We have incredible resources, not least of which is our proximity to the mighty Lake Victoria. My point here is that there is stifling poverty in the area.
Now imagine a group comes up and says we are going to start a small clinic here in Bondo, where young women who have been victims of rape and other forms of sexual harassment can come for help and report the matter. How are the people of Bondo including the young girls going to receive you? May be not very bad, but trust me if you came up with a project to help the young folks get access employment opportunities, start their own business or otherwise just have prospects to improve their earning abilities, they will embrace you with both hands.
My point is that the greatest crime of all in Kenya today is mass poverty and until we address that, everything else are band-aids,, just to stop the bleeding. Poverty, sexual abuse and harassment as well as HIV/AIDS infections go hand in hand. I personally would campaign for Njoki to get a UN award if she introduced something, anything that could help alleviate the stifling poverty that millions of Kenyan women endure today, but I have no such expectations from her.
Does this mean the Sexual Offenses Act is useless. Absolutely NOT. But yes there are problems with it and after reading the whole thing some of the problems are glaring. The bit Alex talks about regarding owners of bars and other premises where alleged substances including alcohol are served that could lead to someone being sexually assaulted is just too cumbersome and ridiculous.
Then we have consensual sex part of the debate. In Canada the age of consent I believe is sixteen. That is what they call statutory rape. The essence of the law is not to frighten youngsters from keeping each other's company but to deal with predators who take undue advantage of young people. We have the same case regarding students and their teachers.
My sense is that the Act needs to be cleaned up, but we may have to accept that for folks like Njoki this is probably the small part they can contribute to the plight of Kenyan women, let us not condemn them for it.
Now I think I have run out of time to address the problems of N.G.O's in Kenya being overran by probably well intentioned people whose primary obligation is to write glowing reports secure their funding and cherry pick here and there. One of the things that is truly bothersome is that most NGO's dealing with women's issues as well as human rights are based in Nairobi and other urban centres. They do occasional workshops in the rural areas but you get the clear impression they have no clue what to do with rural folks and rural folks have no clue who they are.
We have to be careful, though with folks who just hate the NGOs particularly those doing human rights work. They find every excuse to heap redicule of the NGOs and yet they themselves have never done anything on human rights protection. I have no patience with those types.
On the issue of Gay and Lesbian rights I agree with people like Kathure that is is rather too late to give or take away these rights. The right for gay and lesbian folks to seek each others' companionship, marry and undertake all the responsibilities and rights of marriage are fundamental rights and it is a reflection of the social oppression these groups have endured that it is only now that we are fighting to entrench these rights in our constitutions.
People have a right to have sex and other forms of relationship with whoever they want. If it is a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman that is none of anybody's business. We don't visit people's bedrooms to see what form(s) of sex they are engaging in (if at all) and my guess is there are all sorts of stuff going on under the roofs of those heterosexual couples. I have no interest in the details, neither should anybody else. People do there thing in the privacy of their rooms, why should it bother us? Even those religious folks you would be shocked what they do in their bedrooms. Trust me.
Adongo.
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Dec 5, 2006 19:59:13 GMT 3
Folks
I forgot something I think is important;
This is something I think can be done at the practical level. The worst dens of rape in Kenya are in the homes and apartments of our middle class folks in the city and other urban areas.
The nannies and other house helps are sitting ducks. In every village there are hundreds of nannies (japidi) coming back often with a child of their boss who has kicked them out. My sense is that most of the sexual activity in those homes are non-consensual. They not only rape the girls, they don't pay them, they hide their property so they cannot escape. It must be one of the most traumatic lives.
I think women groups should set up support centres for domestic workers in every urban centre to provide support when they are not being paid, to address issues sexual harassment and protect the dignity of these girls and women. But then again some of the offensive employers of the nannies are women and some are the very honchos of the women NGO's.
But this is something I think is doable and could yield results.
Adongo
|
|