HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 251089,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/251089/?format=api",
"text_counter": 298,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. M'Mukindia",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 271,
"legal_name": "Kirugi Joseph Laiboni M'Mukindia",
"slug": "kirugi-mmukindia"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir. I was trying to draw the attention of the Mover of this Bill. I know she is consulting, but I hope somebody is noting this down. If you look at all the clauses in this Bill, you will note that the tendency has been to talk about women as being victims of rape. For purposes of equity, it must apply equally to men and women. That is one aspect of the Bill I find faulty. I take this anomaly seriously. I feel, for instance, that my son is not as protected by this Bill as my daughter. He has every right to be protected as much as my daughter. Therefore, this must be reflected in the totality of this Bill. As the Bill is May 2, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 845 now, that aspect is not reflected in that way. I believe that this is an oversight rather than an intention. The intentions of the Bill are, of course, noble. So, every provision of this Bill must apply equally to males and females. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you look at Clause 3(1), which defines the offence of rape, you will see that, perhaps unintentionally, it applies only to the male practically. This is because of the anatomical differences between male and female. Clause 3(1) seeks to provide as follows:- \"a person commits the offence termed \"rape\" if he or she intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs.\" In practice, and biologically, it is impossible for a woman, under normal circumstances, to cause that kind of thing to happen. It is really the other way round. So, we must look at this clause and ask ourselves: \"How does it affect women?\" In effect, it applies only to men. To that extent, it is not a fair clause. It must be reworded in such a way that it applies to both men and women. So, Clause 3(1), for sure, needs to be looked into. I believe this clause was not worded in this manner to specifically target men. It is just the language which is not clear. So, it must be reworded to apply equally to men and women because, looking at our physiological differences, it not possible for a woman to cause penetration using her own genital organs. That is not normal. Only the other way round is possible. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you compare that, for instance, to Clause 5, which talks about sexual harassment, the latter applies to men and women equally. So, this means, between Clause 3 and Clause 5, only men can be accused of the act of rape, which is a more serious offence than an act of sexual harassment. So, if you compare the two, you will realise that it is quite clear that at no time can a woman be accused of rape, and yet it can happen. So, this aspect needs to be looked into since the Bill seeks to criminalise only men and leave women who may commit this crime to go scot-free. They only come under the sexual harassment clause. In the interest of equitability, that ought to be covered. Another clause I have questions about is Clause 7, appearing on page 352, which seeks to provide as follows:- \"A person who intentionally commits rape or an indecent act with another within the view of a family member, a child or a person---\" I take the words \"indecent act\" to mean a sexual act, unless it is defined in another way. This has be defined very clearly. We have to be very careful. We may end up criminalising the poorest of the poor in this country. Let us remember the housing facilities that we have for our police officers in this country. Our officers are provided with single rooms. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us look at this scenario: A man has been working for the last six months. His wife comes to visit him. The only way he can do it is by hanging a curtain in the room to separate the bed from the rest of the room. Is that going to be defined as doing it \"in full view of the child or other members of the family\"? How do you define it? We must recognise the fact that such sexual acts occur under circumstances where people are extremely poor and can afford only one room. How do we ensure that we do not imprison the poorest people in this country, who have no choice other than to do that natural act, at times, within the view of their own children or other family members? That is because they cannot afford anything else. In fact, if we pass this Bill the way it is, all the police officers residing within the police lines will be the ones to be jailed first because they can do it. If you go to Mathare Valley, what do you do? That is a serious thing which needs to be looked into. The intention of the Bill in this regard is right. However, it has the effect of criminalising the poorest of the poor in this country. We all know the shortages of housing in this country, which has a social impact. So, it is not the fault of such people. Another clause I have an issue to raise about is Clause 8(4), which is on page 353. It seeks to provide as follows:- 846 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES May 2, 2006 \"A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the ages of 16 and 18 years is liable, upon conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not less than 15 years.\""
}