Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 251398,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/251398/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 308,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Kajwang",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 164,
        "legal_name": "Gerald Otieno Kajwang",
        "slug": "otieno-kajwang"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, you are being punished by being jailed for life, on top of it, hard labour and viboko ishirini na nne, or as many as the magistrate may be pleased to give you. So, what kind of punishment do you want? This Bill which is being proposed does not propose hanging either. It does not even propose hanging, hard labour or corporal punishment. So, what is it that makes this proposed Bill more severe and serious than this Penal Code? Why are we packaging it as if unless we pass this law, we are done with it since people are raping everywhere because there is no law? There must be another reason why people are raping. We would rather look at that rather than cheat us that there is no law. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not even just rape. There is also attempted rape. Section 141 of the Penal Code states:- \"Any person who attempts to commit rape is guilty of a felony and is liable to 790 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 27, 2006 imprisonment with hard labour for life\". Even attempting to rape as we are now without this NGO-sponsored proposed Bill, any attempted rape leads to life imprisonment with hard labour. Pia kuchapwa na viboko! So, why are we packaging this proposed Bill as if, if we passed it today, rapists will die tomorrow? If the problem is with our courts, we do not run them. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs runs courts and maybe the Attorney-General. Maybe they are independent. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, so what do we do? Do we make law and then tell the magistrate that: \"You know, you must deal with rapists or we sack you or we appoint a tribunal to deal with you?\" However, definitely, it is not lack of law. This is a House which makes laws; it is not a House which plays politics. There is already a very clear law like this Penal Code with clear definitions which has been with us for many years, they want to repeal it and replace it with this proposed Bill---. I am just going through it and you will see why we cannot just do that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, look at page 350 of the proposed Bill which talks about rape. The definition of rape is not shown. It is just written rape on the side there. Clause 3(1)(a) states:- \"A person commits the offence termed rape if- (a) he or she intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs\". This is supposedly a gender-blind law. We must let a law and a definition which also covers women because women can also rape. Why do we not define it properly? If women can rape, show how they can. Do not suggest that women can penetrate men because they cannot!"
}