Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 702207,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/702207/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 167,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, I withdraw. However, when I put the question to Justice Mwilu as to what her views were on this subject, she clearly expressed herself on the basis of the answer that was given. I oppose because those statements, in my opinion, denote her as a person who does not appear to appreciate the need to uphold the family unit. As Members of Parliament, we have been given this role by our voters. That is a key reason for those of us who are Christians. As a conservative Catholic, I am of the view that we must ensure that the Supreme Court is not comprised of people who hold such views. What will happen if a petition is filed in the High Court or in the Court of Appeal? We all know the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They will make a finding, which cannot be overturned by any other authority on this land. It becomes a precedent under the Constitution. A finding of the Supreme Court is binding to all the other courts. Therefore, we must look at the philosophy of the people we are appointing to that court. In my case, I asked that particular question to inquire into the philosophy upheld by that Judge. From the answer that she gave, I realised that her philosophy does not rhyme with my philosophy of a person who believes in strong religious grounds. I supported Chief Justice Maraga for only one reason, namely, when he said he was a strong Christian. On that basis alone, I knew that he is the kind of person who, if such a petition goes to the Court of Appeal, can stand with strong Christian values. He wanted to bring a demarcation between private values and legal values. Those who have learnt jurisprudence know that this is usually a fallacious demarcation. You cannot say that you are a Christian and you love each and every person. You can as well argue that way. Even me, as a Christian, I love robbers and killers, but I do not love their actions. As a Christian, I love gays. I have no problem with them, but I hate what they practice. I would not want them to escalate their evil ways to my children. It is on that basis that I dislike their practice. I urge the Members to rise above any other form of division and look at the larger interests of Christians and people of other religious faiths because the Supreme Court will always deal with those issues since they will always escalate to that level. On that ground, I oppose and I urge those who know the importance of the Supreme Court, particularly in terms of interpretation of the Constitution, to come up with new norms. We need to ensure that we have people who can retain the moral fabric of this society serving at the level of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I oppose her appointment on the basis of the answer that she gave regarding her views on gay relations. 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"
}