Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 600380,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/600380/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 112,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Saney",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2988,
        "legal_name": "Ibrahim Abdi Saney",
        "slug": "ibrahim-abdi-saney"
    },
    "content": "is the fact that we must appreciate our cultures and traditions without delving much into ownership. It is cross-cutting. It is just like discussing ancient migratory routes. Every community in Kenya claims to have come from somewhere. If you will be talking of ownership of cultures, then we will be delving into a bottomless pit which may not deliver results. It is just good to appreciate our cultures as divergent as they are. The issue of ownership is not something that can be easily resolved. One other thing is on the objectives of this Bill. It is good, but it appears so vague. It is just good on paper. We would be interested on how to measure and implement those objectives. A serious policy paper that will come up with strategies, objectives and indicators that are measurable will further complement this policy. It is about policies which should be mainstreamed across all the sectors of the Government. The national Government and the county governments will be key in appreciating those wonderful objectives. I am a bit interested in a clause that indicates that there must be consent of the owners of cultures and traditions before broadcasts are made. That will be tying the hands of very many actors, especially the media. It is hard to resolve the ownership of these cultures as I have earlier alluded. Trying to get the consent of owners of cultures will not be practical. Cultures and traditions are vested in communities. Individuals cannot be custodians of cultures and traditions. So, it is a bit vague and ambiguous to claim that there will be authority or consent coming from somebody. Nobody would be keeping the culture of my community. I come from Wajir North and I believe the culture is cross-cutting for every individual from my community. Trying to claim that there will be an authority for use of culture and there will be the custodial responsibilities of keeping cultures will raise a lot of conflict. Our media has always used cultures very positively. If we tie the use of our cultures and the reflection of our diversity on a positive note to consent, which will lead to serious dispute, it will do us much harm. As much as this Bill is good, I still question its capacity. It appears academic because it is very good in writing. It is nice. Yes, we want to appreciate our cultures and we need to keep them for posterity, but the way the Bill has been worded, clearly indicates that we will never attain the capacity for enforcement. It is good and it will pass, but one thing that we will with time be questioning is: “How has it been enforced?” How will the Government make sure that this culture and tradition belongs to a particular community? How will it be used? How will benefits accrued from a particular culture be passed? It looks very academic, flowing and entertaining, but practically it is not implementable. As much as it is a constitutional requirement that this House enacts this legislation, the issue of patents for cultures and traditions, as I have said earlier on must be looked into. Who will be the patent holder of my community’s culture? Some cultures are cross-cutting. They touch on the entire Cushitic Community. How will you patent this? Who will be the actual owners? Who are the custodians? We need to relook into this policy. It is good, well intended, but aspects of practicability are questionable. With those few remarks, I support."
}