Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 953084,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/953084/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 114,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "wording in Section 29 is just three months and the way the three months are calculated is on the basis of working days. Usually, you either say three months, in which case, it is working days or three calendar months, in which case, you do not extend it. When you say three consecutive months, it is confusing between calendar months and working days and that brings utter confusion. Thirdly, I think that this proposal perpetuates an unconstitutional provision already existing in the Employment Act. Section 29 as it exists in the Employment Act is, in fact, unconstitutional. It creates a distinction on the basis of sex, that for women it is three months and for men it is two months. I can tell you that I have seen situations of my friend whose wife, unfortunately, passed away during child birth but who was only given two weeks on the basis of Section 29. Under Article 24 of the Constitution, we cannot perpetuate this kind of discrimination. So, I find myself in the unfortunate position of opposing my friend, Hon. Martha Wangari. With that, I oppose."
}