Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 632702,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/632702/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 140,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkong’a",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "I thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. I have a lot of sympathies for my good friends. I know Hon. Anami has been the Director of Culture for 15 years and my very good friend, Hon. Gumbo, is a good technologist in terms of electrical work. But the terms we are importing into this amendment are everyday words that Hon. Omulele knows are used by courts. A matter should not be repugnant to morality and justice. These are precedents in court. You can do nothing about them. You can even refuse to legislate here, but you cannot remove it from the precedents of court except if you are going to legislate against it. Secondly, with regard to the question of traditional knowledge, I have a lot of sympathy for Hon. Anami. I know the Constitution uses the word “indigenous” but it also uses the word “traditional” in another part. I have, in fact, agreed with him that the title of the Bill is tautological. There is repetition of the words “traditional” and “tradition”. We can have only one of the words and not both. I agreed with him that when we get to the title, I will move an amendment with respect to that. With regard to the proposal we have made, this is an amendment that the Committee considered well and found that it is the best way of dealing with cultures. We know cultures that are repugnant. I come from western Kenya. Some of our neighbours, some years before, used to eat people. Those are cultures that are repugnant to justice and morality. So, you cannot say that because it is your culture to eat people---"
}