Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 945160,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/945160/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 228,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dagoretti South, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Kiarie",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13322,
        "legal_name": "John Kiarie Waweru",
        "slug": "john-kiarie-waweru"
    },
    "content": "heal an inequality. If we talk of the issue of PWDs, that one is agreeable. We can try to level the playing field between an able-bodied person and a PWD. Good examples arise and some of them come to the top of my head. For example, if we are going to go to a campaign rally and a dais is constructed it will, of course, require a ramp for a PWD to access it. However, if we try to make the level playing field unfair to the gender of men because they are the majority in the House, we shall be losing it. We shall be according an unfair advantage to one gender against the other. This is an issue that we need to revisit on this proposal. With those two reservations, I am in support of the proposal. One of the things that make me happy supporting this is how they seek to make Election Offences Act a bit more robust. They seek to do this by introducing an amendment that seeks to criminalise the use of demeaning or derogatory language targeted at special interest groups in the election process. In our politics, so much untidy language is used. Some of us can survive it. I have been called a cartoon because of my history. I have also been called a comedian because of my history not taking into account that I am a graduate, not only a graduate, but also a candidate for a master’s degree. However, I can manage that. If you insult a disabled person, that is not fair. One of the reasons I support this is because of that. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, allow me this last minute."
}