Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 79632,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/79632/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 289,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Mungatana",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 185,
        "legal_name": "Danson Buya Mungatana",
        "slug": "danson-mungatana"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hold a slightly different opinion; I want to commend the Assistant Minister for responding to public pressure. This is the way we want the Government to operate, and I think I appreciate that bit. We have heard a lot of complaints and not just this one. This one has been highlighted. What are the clear appeals procedures that exist within the military when someone feels aggrieved as in this situation? It seems even if she is to go back nothing is clear-cut. The decision you have taken is inconclusive; if it is vaginal bleeding, then there is no conclusion either way. I think it is unfair for the Assistant Minister to lean on one side. I am seeking a clarification on what the clear channels for appeals are. In this case, where appeal channels are not clear, why can the Assistant Minister not interpret the rules in favour of the applicant in the spirit of the new Constitution? He should accept that vaginal bleeding is a normal thing, so that she can be taken back. Under the new Constitution interpretation is always in favour of promoting human rights, and not against human rights."
}