|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Aug 25, 2005 21:46:03 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by johns on Aug 25, 2005 23:37:36 GMT 3
My vote was a big NO, even before the draft was composed and written. I refused to endorse the process that lead to constituting an illegal assembly of some opportunistic law makers whose purpose was trying to tame political ambitions of a mortal human being. They SERIOUSLY want to leave thIS Traversity of a constitution for posterity. What a joke?
|
|
|
Post by Abdul wa Malindi on Aug 26, 2005 10:33:33 GMT 3
Every true nationalist who love this country will definately vote NO to this constitution which was constituted illegal to benefit one community.This should not be accepted. ABDUL
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Aug 26, 2005 11:36:46 GMT 3
I can tell you from where I sit in Nairobi that a battle of titanic proportions is shaping up...
I have heard that the people in Kibaki's government are getting really uneasy especially with regard to Raila Odinga who over the past week has been busily fine-tuning his forces, constantly holding meetings, strategizing.
Everyrthing shows he's preparing for a bloody fight against what seemed like misplaced hopes of a retreat by Agwambo amongst some coterie of Kibaki's Kitchen cabinet.
When it comes to propaganda and mobilisation of the masses - hate them or love them - the Raila camp seem to have the upper hand. If you listened to the delivery of his attack against Simeon Nyachae last week in Oyugis - electrifying and devastating. The man has a certain gift.
Then the mostly charismatic churches are asking their congregations to say NO. Bishop Margaret Wanjiru of the Jesus Is Alive Ministries was most telling on TV last night, "Our NO is not just against the constitution, it is a NO against this government and will extend to the elections in 2007..."
And contrary to popular fiction, these churches are not just against 'religious courts'; they are also rejecting an illegitimate process and a content that has no little to do with what the people want.
And these are the people who have what every politician envies: gift of garb, a platform and millions of ardent followers. Just last weekend Juanita Byrnum and the kenyan collaborators pulled 250 thousand to Uhuru park...
(Within the Catholic chuerch there is talk of a major disagreement regarding the position to take on the constitution, testimony to the underlying power struggles that insiders know only too well)
I tell you, the kukus are coming home to roost.
I agree: Just say NO.
|
|
|
Post by Josephine on Aug 26, 2005 14:27:05 GMT 3
Democracy is about freedom to decide. For me I will vote YES because i think that is the kind of constitution Kenya should have. I fully support it.
|
|
|
Post by Bupa on Aug 26, 2005 18:11:10 GMT 3
I agree with u josephine democracy is freedom to decide. But do we really know what we are deciding? I say read the draft, try to understand it then make a decision.But do not say no or yes just to follow a bandwagon of politicians for all i care they are politicians - never honest, always care about their interest. As for the churches -kadhi courts have always been there- let them continue as they were.
|
|
|
Post by lorenzo obama jnr on Aug 28, 2005 19:58:42 GMT 3
i just fvcking hate this country so so so damn much,i pray i never set my foot there again....they alwayz surpress the poor,i hate to see kenyasn waking up,walking to town,shoe shining for rent and food and still rich people wanna take even the little they have......when is this kibaki bullshyt gonna end....maybe its time for a revolution from without...i say kenyans abroad should unify there mechanism and form a common body and just move to kenya in 2007.....with the little influence we have,and the education backed with funding,we can remove and put someone in that chair...someone who know's that he works for the poeple of kenya...someone like kilonzo mutusia....but till then am certified playa hater on the kenyan gorvament
|
|
|
Post by Mr NO VOTE on Aug 29, 2005 10:09:10 GMT 3
Lets be realistic, at least for a moment! The whole thing is a blaff and just incase our so called MPs bump onto this, I just wish them to know that - this is a whole NEW KENYA - despite the fact that its still unfortunate we are having (NOTE) "some of them" as our MPs. The truth of the matter is Mr. Wako did some reall good mixing (DJ style), but for the wrong purpose. The main contantious issues which -are- the main reason for the NO VOTE has been mixed with some other good staff, say like increasing the number of seats for the women, just so that all are blindfolded with the whole consitution (DRAFT) expecting Kenyans to make a YES Vote. But unfortunately for him (Mr. Wako), we (Kenyans) are way beyond such cheap tricks and so be prepared for a big NO.
|
|
|
Post by Visitor on Aug 29, 2005 21:41:39 GMT 3
Did someone just say that Kalonzo works for the poor. Hahaha. Don't make me die laughing. Seriously, though. It is possible for good intentioned people to disagree without calling each other names. There is a lot that is good in the Draft Constitution. There is a lot that is unwise. There is a lot that is bad.
We can say the same of the Bomas Draft. It has serious weaknesses. Let's not see the world the George Bush way (angels and devils).
I have no problem with the Kadhi Courts the way they stand in Kenya today. I worry about entrenching inequality in the Constitution as the Kadhi Courts might do. What we have here is a clash between the theories of multicultural tolerance and equality. Advocating for either without acknowledging the difficulties is being an ideologue. An absolutist moral position on either does not resolve the clash. It only worsens it.
|
|
|
Post by d on Aug 29, 2005 22:33:04 GMT 3
.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Aug 30, 2005 2:02:12 GMT 3
I have no problem with the Kadhi Courts the way they stand in Kenya today. I worry about entrenching inequality in the Constitution as the Kadhi Courts might do. What we have here is a clash between the theories of multicultural tolerance and equality. You have a point here. But it is the typical legal mode of minority protection to enshrine and thus safeguard their rights in a constitution, not just in a simple law. This does not contradict equality. For equality in law is equity; and this is not schematic. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by ;;::::: moto on Sept 1, 2005 18:05:57 GMT 3
your infantile remark peppered with attention seeking foul language has been wiped out.
oo mtl
|
|
|
Post by Shadrack Angwenyi on Sept 2, 2005 11:25:57 GMT 3
Nooooooooooooo!!!
|
|