Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 839546,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/839546/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 236,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "about. We are law makers. When you make a Statement like that without putting the material before us, that condemnation cannot be justified. He is also forgetting that in the debate for this new Constitution as opposed to the Constitution in South Africa, there was Article 27 which talks about discrimination on the basis of sex. In South Africa, there was a phrase which is right under the Constitution of South Africa about sexual orientation. Our Constitution does not allow protection under the category of sexual orientation. In South Africa, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court is a very religious man. About two weeks ago, he pronounced a judgement where he allowed same sex marriages yet he is a Christian. He did that on the basis of the foundation of the South African Constitution. What Sen. Kang’ata is saying has no foundation under our Constitution. In fact, that was the starting point. You should bring that judgment so that we interrogate it and see whether it accords with Article 27 of the Constitution because sexual orientation is not a basis for protection on grounds of discrimination. There is discrimination on the basis of tribe, race, sex or gender and that is protected under our Constitution. There are certain things that judges say which are obiter dictum . There can be a lot of literature but as a basis of being a compelling decision, if you go to court, they will ask you which particular decision was made. After every case, you are required to obstruct the decision. What I mean is that Sen. Kang’ata should have brought the judgment here. By the way, this is a very liberal Constitution."
}