Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 425153,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/425153/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 337,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kimaru",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2072,
        "legal_name": "Anthony Mutahi Kimaru",
        "slug": "anthony-mutahi-kimaru"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Deputy Speaker. I stand to support this particular Bill more importantly because of raising the age of consent or what is commonly referred to as the marriageable age. I support this particular provision especially because of the girls. Many of them have found themselves in marriage having not even tried to exploit their potential in life. In this age and time when we talk about the potential of any human being, it has to do a lot with the kind of education that they get. Many of the girls who are married at the age of 13 years and below are never given the opportunity to explore their potential. In a way, they are condemned to eternal disadvantage. They will never be able to rise above those poverty levels that they found themselves in. This is not fair given that we have free education where children should go to school and exploit their potential to the maximum. I have had instance to see girls who come from poor background, unfortunately a couple of them I had even opted to sponsor to attend school, but I blame myself at times because whereas we paid fees for them, we did not bother to find out where they were coming from. Are they provided for in other ways? You would find such girls, even after you have offered to pay fees for them, getting married because they do not have food and other protections that are supposed to be there. Some unscrupulous pests will land on these poor children, make them their wives and actually make them lose forever the opportunity to prove their potential. Secondly, I think that the provision on cohabitation to make it legally binding and that the parties involved after cohabiting are married, the three year provision is necessary. Again, this is because of the pest, but this time not the men. There are those who would want to get into short-term arrangements and then claim the benefits of a marriage. So, men should also be protected in that manner. I have seen us make legislation even on matrimonial properties but a lot of concentration has been on the rights of women. I am afraid that men might be on the receiving end after so many legislations have been made – they will not be provided for. In most cases, we try to protect women and forget that men are also vulnerable. Where The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}