|
Post by aeichener on Dec 5, 2006 20:12:22 GMT 3
I like your last proposal, and I think it is urgent indeed. I also like that you avoid the mb*** term, which - though widely used - is somewhat derisive. Incidentally, "nanny" would not be the proper English word either, since it only refers to childsitting. I wonder whether the stipulation of a legal minimum wage for household employees would also be a feasible demand, in addition to Adongo's proposal.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Dec 13, 2006 22:41:17 GMT 3
Even More Disturbing: Looks like our debate hear was not just academic chatter. There are some real problems on the ground with the police, the law and its application. www.timesnews.co.ke/14dec06/nwsstory/news2.htmlWhere do we go with this.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 14, 2006 16:21:50 GMT 3
Of course.
I told you so.
Months ago.
This sad event in Nakuru shows in nuce, in a truly exemplary and even didactic manner, a lot of what is wrong with the bill. One could hardly as well invent a case, as this real life one. It fulfills all that I had sadly predicted, almost like a check-list, where you can tick one item after the other.
Yeah, I can hear the ogres licking their snouts. Fresh meat for the Fanyamambos...
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Dec 14, 2006 22:59:28 GMT 3
www.timesnews.co.ke/14dec06/nwsstory/news2.htmlThere are a couple of things to address with this story. Lets assume for arguments sake that the girls (minors) were engaged in consensual sex with other minors before the cops came in as reported in the story. The question to ask is: Has a crime been committed? Under the law yes. Sex with minors is a crime. The next question is how about consensual sex between minors. My sense is that can't be a crime, otherwise both parties are guilty. This is one aspect of the Sexual Offenses Act that need to be fixed. If one minor rapes another minor that is straightway a rape case and the law takes its cause Second series of issues is with regard to the police. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops actually raped the girls. My inclination in such cases is to believe the victims. However there is a possibility the kids panicked when confronted with their parents and made up the police rape story. The cops would have to be extremely brutal (which they often are) and quite stupid to think they could get away with raping the girls after a bar owner already called them to report the activities of the kids. All these brings the question if the kids stick to their story and the matter goes to court and the court finds the cops innocent, do the kids get ten year sentences for falsely accusing the cops? I think it was RR who raised the concern that we need also to identify with the plight of those who are falsely accused of something as heinous as rape. By the way this used to be a big issue in the United States and is exemplified in the Novel "To Kill A Mocking Bird". Basically what used to happen is that white women caught having sex with black men would simply claim they have been raped to avoid being beaten up. In some cases their parents and folks around them would even force them to allege rape. The result: a lot of innocent men were lynched and hanged. The issue here should be the investigation process. The idea of taking the girls to hospital was a smart move. The cops should have done that instead of taking the girls to the cells as they claim. I think the hospital should be able to at least find out if the kids were repeatedly raped as they have claimed. At the end of the day it is the AG's office that determines whether they have sufficient evidence (a key part of which is the statements from the kids) to take the matter to court. I feel like I am walking through a minefield, but let us not forget that we are dealing with 12-13 year olds who claim they have been raped. We have to take them seriously and create a safe environment for them to tell their story. They should be free from intimidation from the police or anybody else. Adongo I forgot something. The bar owner. Suppose the kids consumed some bevarages other than tea or fanta from his bar and ended up being raped and he didn't find out in time to call the cops I suppose the law says he would be guilty of an offense. Good Lord.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 15, 2006 0:31:23 GMT 3
Adongo: When will you finally acknowledge that there are not just "aspects" of the Sexual Offences Act that "need to be fixed" ? That is as short-sighted as to argue that one or the other provision of the Code Noir needs a bit of reworking, and black people can then be content. The entire act needs to be repelled. Wholly. And to be rewritten from scratch. Entirely. Believe one who is trained in that . Alexander
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Dec 15, 2006 23:01:24 GMT 3
Alex
We can't just throw the Act out. I am a realist, whatever that means. I know my Kenyans. It must have been like pulling tooth, to get a parliament with 95% (plus) men (mostly if not exclusively sexist) to pass the Sexual Offenders Act. That is why they did everything in their powers to introduce crazy clauses like the one on false accusations.
I also think repealing the ACT could send a very dangerous message to the public. What we can and must do is to look at practical cases like this sad incident and identify aspects of the Act that hinder rather than enhance prosecution of sexual offenders.
I think Kenyan women lawyers and human rights activists should give this ACT a thorough look, comb through it and propose comprehensive amendments after lobbying for support from M.P's. That is my practical suggestion.
Adongo
|
|
|
Post by adongo12345 on Dec 15, 2006 23:53:58 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 16, 2006 4:33:26 GMT 3
A gross miscarriage of justice. The judge should hang before the culprits. Whosoever is not able to read and apply such an utterly clear statutory provision, is just a waste of valuable oxygen. Kenyans. Again. Kenyans. The only way to introduce at least a superficial sheen of judicial knowledge into the country, will be to hire expatriate justices again. Exclusively. Venerable Mzee Adongo: I have homework for you . *Before* you ever set out post a follow-up to this, please read *AND* quote in detail the applicable provisions of the new Act, such as to demonstrate to yourself the idiocy of the judge. READ IT. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Dec 19, 2006 18:01:49 GMT 3
Still speaking practically, parliament, I submit, does not have time to dillydally and nit-pick on the sexual offences bills when it reconvenes in March – I am aware that there are hundreds of other important laws – including agricultural bills waiting to be considered.
Is it fair to give inordinate amounts of time to the sexual offences bill; when it got its time – under the watchful eyes of feminists - and ended up botched? Maybe we should live with the SOB for a while
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2006 21:28:13 GMT 3
Those of you who feel the need to come up with proof that women and children "lie" and implicate Innocent men in sexual abuse and rape will be looking to interview this baby for proof! Need we repeat that sexualized violence is very very under reported and I don't mean only to the press but to authorities, parents. www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143963099
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 31, 2006 13:39:10 GMT 3
I am livid with rage. But not because of the poor baby. One honorable MP asked on May 31st 2006 in Parliament whether a person who rapes a one-year-old child can at all be considered sane (and thus his crime imputable), and this terrible incident is not for the first time that such a thing happens. But that rage of mine is already from yesterday.
My today's rage, fresh and hot, is about something else. It's about idiots who accused honorable Members of Parliament of being dunces and misogynes altogether. Gullible dunces like Oloo, Adongo, and - yes ! - idjits like Alexander, yours truly. Shame on us all.
Only today, I have looked up the Hansard of 31st My 2006. It's accessible online, on the web. I have read the debate on occasion of the third reading of this cursed and nefarious bill. ("Et ceterum censeo: May Njoki Ndung'u hang for it.") It is a reasoned debate. What astonished me most, is that many MPs have actually seen several of the bill's most severe weaknesses. And have addressed them. Insecure, daft and sometimes dabbling, but have addressed them in the debate, expressedly.
It were others (e.g. shameful Beth Mugo, and among them Martha Karua, who is either one of the most vicious liars, or one of the most abominable legal ignorants who have ever disgraced Bunge; I opt for alternative no. 2, which is more likely anyhow) who sweet-talked and bullied the MPs out of their often astute and judicious concerns.
Kenyan jurists ("so, where have _you_ been uneducated, my learned friend?"). And self-appointed "women's activists", the true enemies of women.
Scum.
A.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Dec 31, 2006 13:52:50 GMT 3
Oh by the way, you want to know who made the *crucial* intervention in favour of the callous amendment that is now threatening every women or girl reporting a sexual crime? The intervention that ultimately made it sail through? (Hansard page 1099 and 1100) None other than Paul Muite, with a crocodile tear in his buttonhole, and fake allure of moderation.
And it was MP Justin Muturi who made sure that now the entire sexual history of any victim of a sexual crime can be harangued in court, that they can and will be maligned, morally assaulted and publicly pilloried. Great job ! (Hansard page 1103, left column)
Both Kenyan jurists. Of course.
A.
|
|