Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 251418,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/251418/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 328,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Kembi-Getura",
    "speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Agriculture",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 242,
        "legal_name": "James Kembi Gitura",
        "slug": "kembi-gitura"
    },
    "content": "All these are dangers. I would like us to deal with the core things that brought this Bill here because I would want to support it. I would not want to throw out the child with the bat! The truth is, however, that, that might have to happen if we allow it to go the way it is. Is it possible to salvage it at this late moment? Could we still withdraw it; sit down as a Committee and decide what exactly we want to achieve for the betterment of our nation and safety our children, both boys and girls? We should remember that this is not an argument for gender. As I stand here, I am a father of girls and a boy. I want all my children to have an equal opportunity. They have been given an equal opportunity. When my son is at his prime, just when he has completed his university education; when he has just bought a new car and starts to see what life is all about; just because he crossed a girl or because she said things that may have not been true; remembering that Clause 38 of this Bill has removed one of the cardinal pillars of the law of evidence, corroboration; or because the young girl said he did it at 24 years old, he goes in for ten years. He comes out when he is 34 years old, a bitter angry young man who cannot live in society any more. Is that what we are trying to achieve even as we try to remove the evils from society? With a lot of respect, I would like to submit that these are some of the things that we need to re- look so that we can save the very important intentions herein. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are also technical issues of juristic persons and I do not want to deal with these issues. However, when we go to Clause 23, the one that has been discussed at great length by almost everybody, what exactly does Clause 23 mean? It is at page 367 and it says - and this again is a danger I see in the interpretation of the law when the time comes:- \"Any person who undertakes any unlawful, unsolicited and unwelcome sexual advantage or is paid for sexual favour is guilty of an offence of sexual harassment.\" This begs the question immediately. It assumes that, therefore---"
}