Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on June 12, 2016, 07:02:04 PM
-
-
Sounds like something police,dpp and NCIC would want to get involved in.
-
He's building hatred, precursor to mayhem and murder.
Recent people who never got prosecuted include: Waititu, and the other Guy forgot his name.
-
He's building hatred, precursor to mayhem and murder.
Recent people who never got prosecuted include: Waititu, and the other Guy forgot his name.
You mean Moses Kuria? He recently got a promotion and is to lead the Jubilee team in IEBC negotiations :D
-
The hate has been on both sides. Muthama is not any different from Moses Kuria. When CORD appointed him; it was obvious they were not interested in any serious debate. Muthama is primary school drop out.As for Real pokot assertion that hate has not been prosecuted; That is false; Kuria is facing charges, so are muthamas, waitutus and many of other politicians spreading hate
You mean Moses Kuria? He recently got a promotion and is to lead the Jubilee team in IEBC negotiations :D
-
And Moses Kuria (the mediator) joins the bandwagon:
Moses Kuria calls for 'Raila's assassination'
Controversial Gatundu South MP Moses Kuria allegedly wants the government to "assassinate" Cord leader Raila Odinga because he is a "threat to the nation".
Kuria made the remarks on Sunday at the thanksgiving rally of a vernacular station radio presenter held at the Safaricom indoor stadium, Kasarani.
A one and half minute video of the MP making the inciteful remarks immediately went viral on social media with Majority of Kenyans calling for his arrest.
“Nyumba ni murathikiriria? Nindiraheiruo wira nimukuona ta nguhota? Matige guitigira, Muthama, na Orengo na nyina moke othe. Ni mui gitumi ni kii? No matume kimudu, giuke na mucinga, Raila rii rithathi ya mutwe akue mauge ni nii.No emenyerere, ona bebe no arie, tutigutorio thinaine ni mundu umue. Na arie bebe tumuthike jumatatu iria inge, maikie mahiga wiki imue na Kenya ithii na mbere . Okoruo ni haro me kwenda niyo me kuona. Muire raila ona bebe no arie na thii ihore na tuthii na no menda thayu moke tuarie tuikare wega IEBC yenda guthii ithii okoruo tii uguo mathii ma kiumaga ”
Loosely translated to…” My people, I was appointed to speak with these people. Do you think I will deliver? They shouldn’t fear in fact let Orengo, Muthama and their mothers come. They want to stage a gunman tasked to kill Raila and then blame it on me. But he should be careful because he can still bite the bullet. We won’t be troubled by one person forever. He can as well bite the bullet and we bury him next Monday. His protesters will throw stones for just one week and life continues. If it’s war they want it’s what they’ll get. Tell Raila he can bite the bullet but if they want peace they should come and let us negotiate ”.
Kuria is currently facing three charges of incitement to violence, hate speech and fanning ethnic hatred.
He is accused of linking the Gikomba terrorist attack, which killed 10 in 2015, to members of the Luo community.
Meanwhile, police are investigating Bahati MP Onesmus Kimani Ngunjiri utterances over the weekend that members of the "Luo community should leave Nakuru".
The MP spoke to a crowd after Cord leader Raila Odinga held a political rally in Nakuru on Saturday.
"The MP will be summoned for grilling," Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet said in a text message on Sunday.
The utterances believed to be hate speech were recorded on a video and audio clip that went viral on social media.
In the clip, the Mp was heard saying, "na sasa tunasema ni bahati yake sikuwa hapa...Tungeonana ( what we are saying is Raila was lucky i was not around).
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2016/06/13/moses-kuria-calls-for-railas-assassination_c1368062
-
Moses Kuria inciting tribal warfare? I have never heard of that.
In the atmosphere created by Al Shabab, how these folks are able to promote outright war propaganda and walk, with all due respect to the prosecutions, is beyond me. It's not like Kenya has the first amendment. These are cut and dried cases.
-
Pundit
Your optimism is frightening. Yes they are being prosecuted, but at this rate a new generation is already over 5yrs old. And these generation can hear this words and they stick, breeding more hate ground.
The hate has been on both sides. Muthama is not any different from Moses Kuria. When CORD appointed him; it was obvious they were not interested in any serious debate. Muthama is primary school drop out.As for Real pokot assertion that hate has not been prosecuted; That is false; Kuria is facing charges, so are muthamas, waitutus and many of other politicians spreading hate
You mean Moses Kuria? He recently got a promotion and is to lead the Jubilee team in IEBC negotiations :D
-
Nothing is cut and dried out in such cases. Moses Kuria enjoy his freedom of speech and right to express himself. It prosecution job to convince the Judges that remarks were inciteful. And that is where context is the king.
DPP has done an exemplary job taking Kuria to court so many times including asking court to waive the bail/bond terms..and have kuria in prison awaiting trial..but judges and magistrates do not think so.
Moses Kuria inciting tribal warfare? I have never heard of that.
In the atmosphere created by Al Shabab, how these folks are able to promote outright war propaganda and walk, with all due respect to the prosecutions, is beyond me. It's not like Kenya has the first amendment. These are cut and dried cases.
-
I don't share your outrage. Pretend outrage I must add. What do you propose we do. Kill any politician or blogger who utter hateful speech. Maybe we should begin with The Donald Trump. Hate is not brewed like instant coffee. This tribal hate was here before the British and will be here for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time. Please take a chill pill and do your part in being a decent human being..and hope the rest will do. Kids who end up hating us for tribal and political reason can only blame their parents. Not Kuria. Not Donald. Not Raila.
Politician job worldwide to me seems to be to utter hateful stuff while walking a fine line btw incitement and free speech.
Pundit
Your optimism is frightening. Yes they are being prosecuted, but at this rate a new generation is already over 5yrs old. And these generation can hear this words and they stick, breeding more hate ground.
-
Nothing is cut and dried out in such cases. Moses Kuria enjoy his freedom of speech and right to express himself. It prosecution job to convince the Judges that remarks were inciteful. And that is where context is the king.
DPP has done an exemplary job taking Kuria to court so many times including asking court to waive the bail/bond terms..and have kuria in prison awaiting trial..but judges and magistrates do not think so.
Moses Kuria inciting tribal warfare? I have never heard of that.
In the atmosphere created by Al Shabab, how these folks are able to promote outright war propaganda and walk, with all due respect to the prosecutions, is beyond me. It's not like Kenya has the first amendment. These are cut and dried cases.
Moses Kuria's outbursts are all over the net. The fact that he still walks, tells me that the judicial process is a sham. A gate-keeping exercise.
-
I don't share your outrage. Pretend outrage I must add. What do you propose we do. Kill any politician or blogger who utter hateful speech. Maybe we should begin with The Donald Trump. Hate is not brewed like instant coffee. This tribal hate was here before the British and will be here for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time. Please take a chill pill and do your part in being a decent human being..and hope the rest will do. Kids who end up hating us for tribal and political reason can only blame their parents. Not Kuria. Not Donald. Not Raila.
Politician job worldwide to me seems to be to utter hateful stuff while walking a fine line btw incitement and free speech.
Pundit
Your optimism is frightening. Yes they are being prosecuted, but at this rate a new generation is already over 5yrs old. And these generation can hear this words and they stick, breeding more hate ground.
Looking south to TZ. How far would a Moses Kuria analogue go in TZ?
-
Well kenya I tend to think is more democratic and heterogeneous than TZ. What is well known is that democracy in heterogeneous society will breed division/ethnicity/tribalism. That is true here, true in the US and true everywhere. In a country where people are free...they are free to even hate and spread hate. That is the price of democracy and freedom.
If you want KANU era of 80s (which is where TZ is still in) or Ethiopia or China...go ahead and say so.
In a democracy it better for one moses kuria to spread hate than for society to enact laws that essentially infringe on freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech and right of expression as per our constitution are interperated widely -not narrowly. If there is any doubt of what Kuria meant --he gets away.
I don't see the DPP winning any hate speech case soon. Mumbi already declared the "misuse of communication device" offence that DPP was using against bloggers to be unconstitutional.
Looking south to TZ. How far would a Moses Kuria analogue go in TZ?
-
In a democracy it better for one moses kuria to spread hate than for society to enact laws that essentially infringe on freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech and right of expression as per our constitution are interperated widely -not narrowly. If there is any doubt of what Kuria meant --he gets away.
I don't see the DPP winning any hate speech case soon. Mumbi already declared the "misuse of communication device" offence that DPP was using against bloggers to be unconstitutional.
Looking south to TZ. How far would a Moses Kuria analogue go in TZ?
Below is the Bill of Rights Chapter 4. How more explicit can the constitution go? Comparing it to the US is misleading. Because, other than the vague clause, fighting words, there is really no limit to free speech in the US. The doubts you mention about Kuria's outbursts are contrived. The constitution leaves no room for them. You have to make a special, even unreasonable, effort to actually doubt that he is committing a crime.
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes--
(a) freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas;
(b) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(c) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
(2) The right to freedom of expression does not extend to--
(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement to violence;
(c) hate speech; or
(d) advocacy of hatred that—
(i) constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm; or
(ii) is based on any ground of discrimination specified or contemplated in Article 27 (4).
(3) In the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, every person shall respect the rights and reputation of others.
-
Windy,
You want to read this...
PART 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS
19.
Rights and fundamental freedoms
(1)
The Bill of Rights is an integral part of Kenya’s democratic state and is the framework for social, economic and cultural policies.
(2)
The purpose of recognising and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms is to preserve the dignity of individuals and communities and to promote social justice and the realisation of the potential of all human beings.
(3)
The rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights—
(a)
belong to each individual and are not granted by the State;
(b)
do not exclude other rights and fundamental freedoms not in the Bill of Rights, but recognised or conferred by law, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Chapter; and
(c)
are subject only to the limitations contemplated in this Constitution.
20.
Application of Bill of Rights
(1)
The Bill of Rights applies to all law and binds all State organs and all persons.
(2)
Every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent consistent with the nature of the right or fundamental freedom.
(3)
In applying a provision of the Bill of Rights, a court shall—
(a)
develop the law to the extent that it does not give effect to a right or fundamental freedom; and
(b)
adopt the interpretation that most favours the enforcement of a right or fundamental freedom.
(4)
In interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or other authority shall promote—
(a)
the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, equity and freedom; and
(b)
the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.
(5)
In applying any right under Article 43, if the State claims that it does not have the resources to implement the right, a court, tribunal or other authority shall be guided by the following principles—
(a)
it is the responsibility of the State to show that the resources are not available;
(b)
in allocating resources, the State shall give priority to ensuring the widest possible enjoyment of the right or fundamental freedom having regard to prevailing circumstances, including the vulnerability of particular groups or individuals; and
(c)
the court, tribunal or other authority may not interfere with a decision by a State organ concerning the allocation of available resources, solely on the basis that it would have reached a different conclusion.
21.
Implementation of rights and fundamental freedoms
(1)
It is a fundamental duty of the State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
(2)
The State shall take legislative, policy and other measures, including the setting of standards, to achieve the progressive realisation of the rights guaranteed under Article 43.
(3)
All State organs and all public officers have the duty to address the needs of vulnerable groups within society, including women, older members of society, persons with disabilities, children, youth, members of minority or marginalised communities, and members of particular ethnic, religious or cultural communities.
(4)
The State shall enact and implement legislation to fulfil its international obligations in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
22.
Enforcement of Bill of Rights
(1)
Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.
(2)
In addition to a person acting in their own interest, court proceedings under clause (1) may be instituted by—
(a)
a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
(b)
a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;
(c)
a person acting in the public interest; or
(d)
an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members.
(3)
The Chief Justice shall make rules providing for the court proceedings referred to in this Article, which shall satisfy the criteria that—
(a)
the rights of standing provided for in clause (2) are fully facilitated;
(b)
formalities relating to the proceedings, including commencement of the proceedings, are kept to the minimum, and in particular that the court shall, if necessary, entertain proceedings on the basis of informal documentation;
(c)
no fee may be charged for commencing the proceedings;
(d)
the court, while observing the rules of natural justice, shall not be unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities; and
(e)
an organisation or individual with particular expertise may, with the leave of the court, appear as a friend of the court.
(4)
The absence of rules contemplated in clause (3) does not limit the right of any person to commence court proceedings under this Article, and to have the matter heard and determined by a court.
23.
Authority of courts to uphold and enforce the Bill of Rights
(1)
The High Court has jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 165, to hear and determine applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights.
(2)
Parliament shall enact legislation to give original jurisdiction in appropriate cases to subordinate courts to hear and determine applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights.
(3)
In any proceedings brought under Article 22, a court may grant appropriate relief, including—
(a)
a declaration of rights;
(b)
an injunction;
(c)
a conservatory order;
(d)
a declaration of invalidity of any law that denies, violates, infringes, or threatens a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights and is not justified under Article 24;
(e)
an order for compensation; and
(f)
an order of judicial review.
24.
Limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms
(1)
A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including—
(a)
the nature of the right or fundamental freedom;
(b)
the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c)
the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d)
the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and
(e)
the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2)
Despite clause (1), a provision in legislation limiting a right or fundamental freedom—
(a)
in the case of a provision enacted or amended on or after the effective date, is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation;
(b)
shall not be construed as limiting the right or fundamental freedom unless the provision is clear and specific about the right or freedom to be limited and the nature and extent of the limitation; and
(c)
shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate from its core or essential content.
(3)
The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of this Article have been satisfied.
(4)
The provisions of this Chapter on equality shall be qualified to the extent strictly necessary for the application of Muslim law before the Kadhis’ courts, to persons who profess the Muslim religion, in matters relating to personal status, marriage, divorce and inheritance.
(5)
Despite clauses (1) and (2), a provision in legislation may limit the application of the rights or fundamental freedoms in the following provisions to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Forces or the National Police Service—
(a)
Article 31—Privacy;
(b)
Article 36—Freedom of association;
(c)
Article 37—Assembly, demonstration, picketing and petition;
(d)
Article 41—Labour relations;
(e)
Article 43—Economic and social rights; and
(f)
Article 49—Rights of arrested persons.
25.
Fundamental Rights and freedoms that may not be limited
Despite any other provision in this Constitution, the following rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be limited—
(a)
freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(b)
freedom from slavery or servitude;
(c)
the right to a fair trial; and
(d)
the right to an order of habeas corpus.
-
Well kenya I tend to think is more democratic and heterogeneous than TZ. What is well known is that democracy in heterogeneous society will breed division/ethnicity/tribalism. That is true here, true in the US and true everywhere. In a country where people are free...they are free to even hate and spread hate. That is the price of democracy and freedom.
If you want KANU era of 80s (which is where TZ is still in) or Ethiopia or China...go ahead and say so.
Looking south to TZ. How far would a Moses Kuria analogue go in TZ?
There is always a sense that Kenya is more democratic thanks to every election having a new party in power since KANU's demise. From NARC, PNU and Jubilee. All this time the most that happened in TZ is that TANU changed its name to CCM. Based on that people tend to think Kenya is more democratic.
I find that simplistic. A political party in Kenya is entirely meaningless except as a vehicle for purposes of elections of a Presidential candidate. Their operations fold up once the elections are over, especially when they lose, ODM being a rare exception. But it is a joke to suggest that NARC to PNU was a change in leadership.
They are KANU in everything but name. Kibaki was a KANU insider until the last minute when pluralism was permitted. Uhuru was Moi's anointed successor. Ruto was a YK92 operator. Even Raila was part of KANU in its last days.
In TZ, while on the surface, it appears that nothing has changed since independence, under the surface, they have actually had a more diversified leadership than Kenya. They have experienced more fundamental changes than Kenya, since independence.
From Ujamaa to capitalism. From Nyerere to Mwinyi. Mwinyi to Mkapa. Mkapa to Kikwete. Kikwete to Magufuli. All from different tribes, each bringing a completely new approach compared to the predecessor. Kenya, with one interruption, has been under the grip of one tribe and looks set to be that way for a while.
Does that mean one is more democratic than the other? I don't think so. You can still oppose CCM in TZ. Just because you can't get away with inciting Sukumas against Chaggas, would that make the place undemocratic?
-
There are many indicators that can tell you whether a country is more democratic or not. There is no doubt that kenya is more democratic than TZ. You want to look at parties and how competitive those parties are, you want to look at media & press, you want to look at freedom of speech (yeah) and Kuria & others going overboard in vindication that people are more democratic, if you cannot abuse the president then that is no democracy, you want to look judiciary and how free & independent they are, you want to look at police & military not engaging in politics, civil services, civil socieites,
My power is running out....but there are so many indicators that can tell you kenya is by far the most advanced democracy in Eastern Africa. I can only say it come second to Zambia.
There is always a sense that Kenya is more democratic thanks to every election having a new party in power since KANU's demise. From NARC, PNU and Jubilee. All this time the most that happened in TZ is that TANU changed its name to CCM. Based on that people tend to think Kenya is more democratic.
I find that simplistic. A political party in Kenya is entirely meaningless except as a vehicle for purposes of elections of a Presidential candidate. Their operations fold up once the elections are over, especially when they lose, ODM being a rare exception. But it is a joke to suggest that NARC to PNU was a change in leadership.
They are KANU in everything but name. Kibaki was a KANU insider until the last minute when pluralism was permitted. Uhuru was Moi's anointed successor. Ruto was a YK92 operator. Even Raila was part of KANU in its last days.
In TZ, while on the surface, it appears that nothing has changed since independence, under the surface, they have actually had a more diversified leadership than Kenya. They have experienced more fundamental changes than Kenya, since independence.
From Ujamaa to capitalism. From Nyerere to Mwinyi. Mwinyi to Mkapa. Mkapa to Kikwete. Kikwete to Magufuli. All from different tribes, each bringing a completely new approach compared to the predecessor. Kenya, with one interruption, has been under the grip of one tribe and looks set to be that way for a while.
Does that mean one is more democratic than the other? I don't think so. You can still oppose CCM in TZ. Just because you can't get away with inciting Sukumas against Chaggas, would that make the place undemocratic?
-
Well kenya I tend to think is more democratic and heterogeneous than TZ. What is well known is that democracy in heterogeneous society will breed division/ethnicity/tribalism. That is true here, true in the US and true everywhere. In a country where people are free...they are free to even hate and spread hate. That is the price of democracy and freedom.
If you want KANU era of 80s (which is where TZ is still in) or Ethiopia or China...go ahead and say so.
In a democracy it better for one moses kuria to spread hate than for society to enact llaws that essentially infringe on freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech and right of expression as per our constitution are interperated widely -not narrowly. If there is any doubt of what Kuria meant --he gets away.
Sorry to "nit-pick", but you might want to broaden your horizons and look around, especially at relevant law and its enforcement in European countries and similar places. And it is also important to recognize that some of what passes for ("unlimited") freedom of speech in the USA is considered unacceptable in many places. For example, just north of the US border, it it has long been established, judicially, that freedom of expression does not include the freedom to publicly promote hatred against an "identifiable" group and that to do so is a serious crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra
(Since then, there have been more changes in Canada that make it even easier to legally deal with Kuria types.)
The Canadian Supreme Court, like many European courts, did not consider that dealing with people who publicly promote hatred would terribly "infringe on freedoms and rights". The law does not take the view that it is somehow "better to ... promote hate than ..."; the view, simply, is that publicly promoting hatred is not helpful and "freedom of expression" can and may be put aside in such cases. That seems quite sensible.
(Of course, Canadians are free to hate and to promote hatred in the privacy and comfort of their living-rooms and bed-rooms etc. But that's about it; there is no "freedom and democracy" beyond that.)
Quite a few European countries actually go well beyond that. No need to go to China or Ethiopia or wherever ...
Kenyans are late entrants in the Freedom-&-Democracy Games. They can learn from observing things elsewhere and reflecting properly, instead of mindlessly swallowing the idea that now anything goes. Kenyans need to get away from the influence of American films and TV shows on some of these matters and determine what is really needed in a country that has, for a long time, been riven by tribal hatreds.
The worst "aspects" of Kenyans tend to show up in "tribal" matters, even if there is no violence. And in the latter, it is not necessary to bring up certain recent reminders. Do people really need an explanation of where we can get to by throwing more flames on the fires of tribal hatred, especially by a person who seemingly has the full support of the president, is backed by all sorts of violent low-lifes, ....? What sort of Kenya do we really want, and how do we get there? We need to reflect on that and move beyond half-arsed and unhelpful notions of "freedom" and "democracy".
-
There are many indicators that can tell you whether a country is more democratic or not. There is no doubt that kenya is more democratic than TZ. You want to look at parties and how competitive those parties are, you want to look at media & press, you want to look at freedom of speech (yeah) and Kuria & others going overboard in vindication that people are more democratic, if you cannot abuse the president then that is no democracy, you want to look judiciary and how free & independent they are, you want to look at police & military not engaging in politics, civil services, civil socieites,
My power is running out....but there are so many indicators that can tell you kenya is by far the most advanced democracy in Eastern Africa. I can only say it come second to Zambia.
There is always a sense that Kenya is more democratic thanks to every election having a new party in power since KANU's demise. From NARC, PNU and Jubilee. All this time the most that happened in TZ is that TANU changed its name to CCM. Based on that people tend to think Kenya is more democratic.
I find that simplistic. A political party in Kenya is entirely meaningless except as a vehicle for purposes of elections of a Presidential candidate. Their operations fold up once the elections are over, especially when they lose, ODM being a rare exception. But it is a joke to suggest that NARC to PNU was a change in leadership.
They are KANU in everything but name. Kibaki was a KANU insider until the last minute when pluralism was permitted. Uhuru was Moi's anointed successor. Ruto was a YK92 operator. Even Raila was part of KANU in its last days.
In TZ, while on the surface, it appears that nothing has changed since independence, under the surface, they have actually had a more diversified leadership than Kenya. They have experienced more fundamental changes than Kenya, since independence.
From Ujamaa to capitalism. From Nyerere to Mwinyi. Mwinyi to Mkapa. Mkapa to Kikwete. Kikwete to Magufuli. All from different tribes, each bringing a completely new approach compared to the predecessor. Kenya, with one interruption, has been under the grip of one tribe and looks set to be that way for a while.
Does that mean one is more democratic than the other? I don't think so. You can still oppose CCM in TZ. Just because you can't get away with inciting Sukumas against Chaggas, would that make the place undemocratic?
I find the democracy explanation too convoluted and long winding. An attempt to avoid owning up to the fact that there is a serious tribalism problem in Kenya, and the government has done nothing but feed the monster. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.
You mention Zambia as being more democratic than Kenya. How many Zambian Moses Kuria analogues have you ever heard of?
-
Very interesting. Frankly, it seems to me that there are folks who are somewhat uninformed about the U.S. For instance, the right to hate speech in the U.S. is not absolute, particularly if that speech is deemed to incite violence or has the potential to incite violence. Here's a generic example.
You are at a mall somewhere in CA, say, Long Beach. You, the libertarian, approach a Vietnamese American young lady and wanting to test the boundaries of free speech you spout that "innocent" well-worn slur: "you G**k!"Now the lady notices a LB police officer on patrol in the mall and reports what you just said to her. The officer will then be compelled to ask the young lady the pertinent question: Did you feel threatened?
Good luck in court.
-
The double standard is quite predictable.Now that Moses Kuria is the one in hot soup, we want to tell the Judiciary to restrict our freedom of speech. If it was a CORD learning politician; the silence here would be deafening. The judiciary is free and independent to determine what is hate speech. DPP & Police have done well to take more than a dozen politician and bloggers to court on hate speech charges. Some of hate speech charges have gone so overboard Mumbi had to declare it unconstitutional.
-
Tribalism is the natural consequences of democracy. If you want Kagame banning any tribal talk go ahead and ask for Rwanda type dictatorship. Under Moi dictatorship there was less tribalism and Kuria would be in a bad place if he dare say something like that then.
Democracy allows Kuria to say what he wants, for DPP to be free to charge him in court, and for an independent judiciary to determine if it's hate speech or not.
Our democracy is such that despite Kuria & Waitutu being Jubilee loyalist; they have been summoned by police and will probably be charged again. Moses Kuria and his lawyers will argue their case. Our judiciary led by stud man Mutunga will decide. That is all you want in democracy.
Kenya I repeat is more evidently democratic than TZ. And yeah democracy is not one variable thing (tribalism or lack of it). TZ is a country led by one party dictatorship that recently ban live coverage in parliament after CCM mps were found sleeping and drunk.
I find the democracy explanation too convoluted and long winding. An attempt to avoid owning up to the fact that there is a serious tribalism problem in Kenya, and the government has done nothing but feed the monster. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.
You mention Zambia as being more democratic than Kenya. How many Zambian Moses Kuria analogues have you ever heard of?
-
Tribalism is the natural consequences of democracy. If you want Kagame banning any tribal talk go ahead and ask for Rwanda type dictatorship. Under Moi dictatorship there was less tribalism and Kuria would be in a bad place if he dare say something like that then.
Democracy allows Kuria to say what he wants, for DPP to be free to charge him in court, and for an independent judiciary to determine if it's hate speech or not.
Our democracy is such that despite Kuria & Waitutu being Jubilee loyalist; they have been summoned by police and will probably be charged again. Moses Kuria and his lawyers will argue their case. Our judiciary led by stud man Mutunga will decide. That is all you want in democracy.
Kenya I repeat is more evidently democratic than TZ. And yeah democracy is not one variable thing (tribalism or lack of it). TZ is a country led by one party dictatorship that recently ban live coverage in parliament after CCM mps were found sleeping and drunk.
No.
Tribalism is the natural consequence of economic disparity. Basically just herd instinct, like ethnic gangs in poorer areas of the US of A which don't exist in places like Beverly Hills.
We've an illusion of democracy. Each tribe is trying to dominate the others, for that little hope of extra traction to make life just a bit more comfortable.
Nothing serious will come out of the Kuria investigations, just as nothing serious came from RAO when Aladwa mentioned that "people must die for RAO to become PORK".
-
Let me clarify. Tribalism exist and has existed for millions of years.What democracy does is to accentuate or increase the difference or tribalism in country that was already divided into tribes.
No.
Tribalism is the natural consequence of economic disparity. Basically just herd instinct, like ethnic gangs in poorer areas of the US of A which don't exist in places like Beverly Hills.
We've an illusion of democracy. Each tribe is trying to dominate the others, for that little hope of extra traction to make life just a bit more comfortable.
Nothing serious will come out of the Kuria investigations, just as nothing serious came from RAO when Aladwa mentioned that "people must die for RAO to become PORK".
-
I just now listened to the message this perverse nationalist had to say. And what did I draw from this Ngunjiri fellow's emotional and incoherent false patriotism diatribe. Well, the following: the man does not understand the concept of citizenship or nationality. Who is a Kenyan?
If CORD were not so pathetically incompetent, disorganized and unfocused, they would easily latch onto and exploit the issue this ethnic nationalist (I know it's a double entendre) has gifted them, and run up and down the Rift Valley while educating the Kalenjin and Maasai wananchi what exactly it means to be a Kenyan.
-
I just now listened to what this perverse nationalist had to say. And what did I draw from this Ngunjiri fellow's emotional and incoherent false patriotism diatribe. Well, the following: the man does not understand the concept of citizenship or nationality. Who is a Kenyan?
If CORD were not so pathetically incompetent, disorganized and unfocused, they would easily latch onto and exploit the issue this ethnic nationalist (I know it's a double entendre) has gifted them, and run up and down the Rift Valley while educating the wananchi what it means to be a Kenyan.
But that's exactly the point.
They (RAO, Uhuruto, and all the other make believe "national" leaders) have absolutely no idea what it means to be Kenyan. They're tribal leaders first and foremost.
A closer look at their respective intimate kitchen cabinets reveals the ugly truth. They all, without exception, surround themselves with tribe mates, with a token few other tribes on the fringes for show.
-
Let me clarify. Tribalism exist and has existed for millions of years.What democracy does is to accentuate or increase the difference or tribalism in country that was already divided into tribes.
Ah yes, understood.
Thanks for clarifying.
-
You are right, one has to really know USA culture to talk about free speech. If I incite people to hate muslims and that harm should be done to them, I will not last 5min without being arrested. In Kenya looks like they investigate for 5yrs and by that time its forgotten. It is justice denied at the highest level.
Very interesting. Frankly, it seems to me that there are folks who are somewhat uninformed about the U.S. For instance, the right to hate speech in the U.S. is not absolute, particularly if that speech is deemed to incite violence or has the potential to incite violence. Here's a generic example.
You are at a mall somewhere in CA, say, Long Beach. You, the libertarian, approach a Vietnamese American young lady and wanting to test the boundaries of free speech you spout that "innocent" well-worn slur: "you G**k!"Now the lady notices a LB police officer on patrol in the mall and reports what you just said to her. The officer will then be compelled to ask the young lady the pertinent question: Did you feel threatened?
Good luck in court.
-
Okay so our cops are out there arresting people for hate speech. I bet you all like it now. This has always been a slippery slope full of banana peelings.
-
Trying to legislate and make some of these natural instincts like love and hate, criminal, is totally absurd and can never work; it in fact drives the instincts underground, where it is harder to police when all venting spaces are closed. This is main reason why young Muslims are easily falling prey to 'terror'. They have no venting place apart from the mosque -do we want to go there so that nobody can talk ill of Uhuru, Raila, Ruto??
A google search on say kill obama /obama death threats yields so much. It is democracy!
-
Now at least we have someone who have thought about this deeply. Thanks Gout. You speak for me. I am was a little perturbed when I heard that US of A has cops out there policing hate speech. This is just crazy. In a democracy you want the judiciary really having very strict definition of what hate speech is. For me it should be hate speech if for instance people went out after that and started rioting or killing. If some idler somewhere say Obama should be killed, police should only be interested if there are other factors...for instance the guy has a gun or has been seen loitering around DC or actually planning to do that or has real influence...sort of what Raila for instance has on his people. Kuria might say anything..but will people act on it? That is key criteria for what make incitement or not. If Ruto for example tell Kalenjin to attack XYZ..then that to me is pure incitement. If I do the same..that is plain idle talk.
Trying to legislate and make some of these natural instincts like love and hate, criminal, is totally absurd and can never work; it in fact drives the instincts underground, where it is harder to police when all venting spaces are closed. This is main reason why young Muslims are easily falling prey to 'terror'. They have no venting place apart from the mosque -do we want to go there so that nobody can talk ill of Uhuru, Raila, Ruto??
A google search on say kill obama /obama death threats yields so much. It is democracy!
-
I think threats are covered under the basic law of tort where for a threat to be taken seriously, there has to be evidence of capacity to carry out the threat.
Watching the shenanigans of arresting Junet at Nation Centre, totally absurd and unnecesary.
Societies have and should have natural sanctions on natural instincts to ensure they ain't toxic. For political hate speech church, IEBC, Kaparo old men or registrar of parties can easily work out sanctions-even if it is the Ngunyi's goat; from where the EACC, police, DPP and judiciary gets involved if it has criminal weight.
Given it is the era of the mobile phone with camera and data bundles, the police will be reduced to hate speech watchmen.
-
Thanks for info. Yeah threats. I agree that we might end up elevating what essentially is misdemeanor to crimes against humanity like we did with robbery with any violence. PEV was not caused by hate speech. No. It was triggered by Kibaki brazen rigging election. People did not sit there idly waiting for incitement. There was just national anger that boiled over and brought out all sort of issues to the fore.
I think threats are covered under the basic law of tort where for a threat to be taken seriously, there has to be evidence of capacity to carry out the threat.
Watching the shenanigans of arresting Junet at Nation Centre, totally absurd and unnecesary.
Societies have and should have natural sanctions on natural instincts to ensure they ain't toxic. For political hate speech church, IEBC, Kaparo old men or registrar of parties can easily work out sanctions-even if it is the Ngunyi's goat; from where the EACC, police, DPP and judiciary gets involved if it has criminal weight.
Given it is the era of the mobile phone with camera and data bundles, the police will be reduced to hate speech watchmen.
-
Tribalism is the natural consequences of democracy. If you want Kagame banning any tribal talk go ahead and ask for Rwanda type dictatorship. Under Moi dictatorship there was less tribalism and Kuria would be in a bad place if he dare say something like that then.
Democracy allows Kuria to say what he wants, for DPP to be free to charge him in court, and for an independent judiciary to determine if it's hate speech or not.
Our democracy is such that despite Kuria & Waitutu being Jubilee loyalist; they have been summoned by police and will probably be charged again. Moses Kuria and his lawyers will argue their case. Our judiciary led by stud man Mutunga will decide. That is all you want in democracy.
Kenya I repeat is more evidently democratic than TZ. And yeah democracy is not one variable thing (tribalism or lack of it). TZ is a country led by one party dictatorship that recently ban live coverage in parliament after CCM mps were found sleeping and drunk.
I find the democracy explanation too convoluted and long winding. An attempt to avoid owning up to the fact that there is a serious tribalism problem in Kenya, and the government has done nothing but feed the monster. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.
You mention Zambia as being more democratic than Kenya. How many Zambian Moses Kuria analogues have you ever heard of?
Tribalism for purposes of this discussion is negative ethnicity. Not mere existence ethnic groupings. It's ethnic hatred in the modern nation state. It is not the ethnic violence we see between Pokots, Marakwet, Turkanas, Toposa, Karamojong etc. Otherwise I could just mention them to easily debunk your theory without adding anything valuable to our understanding of the issue.
We still don't understand why Zambia, TZ, Uganda etc does not have a Moses Kuria, Waititu, Aladwa, Muthama, Ngunjiri etc. This sort of character last thrived under Habyarimana's Rwanda; a veritable dictatorship.
Rwanda under Habyarimana was one of the most tribalistic nations in Africa. Your theory says it should have been suppressed. Instead, massacres of Tutsis was routine. Was it a democratic place that we just weren't aware of? No. It was a space where state gave tribal loyalists carte blanche to spew tribal venom.
The better more relevant explanation for the Moses Kurias is that they have the blessings of the government. The government(as opposed to democracy) is feeding the monster.
-
Trying to legislate and make some of these natural instincts like love and hate, criminal, is totally absurd and can never work; it in fact drives the instincts underground, where it is harder to police when all venting spaces are closed. This is main reason why young Muslims are easily falling prey to 'terror'. They have no venting place apart from the mosque -do we want to go there so that nobody can talk ill of Uhuru, Raila, Ruto??
A google search on say kill obama /obama death threats yields so much. It is democracy!
A very basic misunderstanding there. Of course, it would be absurd to try and legislate to make criminal "natural instincts like love and hate". But I have never seen legislation that aims to do that. What legislation does, where it exists, is aim to limit the extent to which people can act on hate. Let me repeat: you may hate whatever and whomever you like, but in properly run places you cannot act arbitrarily on it.
Another thing: It is in fact those countries that are considered the most democratic that also have the most stringent laws on hate (i.e. the extent to which one can act on it). And, more importantly, they have arrived at such laws after very painful experiences.
Finally: People do get arrested and prosecuted for threatening to kill Obama. Here are two examples:
http://www.zerocensorship.com/t/uncensored-ohio-crime/245306-ohio-man-jonathan-smead-indicted-charged-with-threatening-president-barack-obama-hillary-clinton#axzz4BYsXbDAA
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Man-Accused-Of-Threatening-Obama-Due-In-Court-142042453.html
(I have yet to see either perp or perp's lawyers argue "democracy!" in such cases.)
-
You are right, one has to really know USA culture to talk about free speech. If I incite people to hate muslims and that harm should be done to them, I will not last 5min without being arrested. In Kenya looks like they investigate for 5yrs and by that time its forgotten. It is justice denied at the highest level.
Very interesting. Frankly, it seems to me that there are folks who are somewhat uninformed about the U.S. For instance, the right to hate speech in the U.S. is not absolute, particularly if that speech is deemed to incite violence or has the potential to incite violence. Here's a generic example.
You are at a mall somewhere in CA, say, Long Beach. You, the libertarian, approach a Vietnamese American young lady and wanting to test the boundaries of free speech you spout that "innocent" well-worn slur: "you G**k!"Now the lady notices a LB police officer on patrol in the mall and reports what you just said to her. The officer will then be compelled to ask the young lady the pertinent question: Did you feel threatened?
Good luck in court.
The US comparison was brought up to excuse the obvious violations of the Kenyan constitution. Pundit was saying if Donald Trump can do it, so can Moses Kuria. Never mind the different statements or jurisdictions.
-
You want to make really simple stuff sound like rocket science?. Democracy means people are free to say whatever they wish. Of course that also mean most people in a free society do go overboard once in a while. When people are under a dictatorship then people don't say much. These issues simmers underneath and eventually erupt.
Which one would you prefer...some few guys going overboard..or everyone being so careful and contrived when speaking so they don't cross the line. I say let people enjoy the widest possible freedom of speech and expression..and punish those that go overboard..once in a while. This should be exception. Not the rule. Kenya police have tried Kuria and his ilks so many times...they deserve nothing but commendation.
Rwanda had this coming the day they embrace democracy from tusti minority rule...it was expected people will mobilise along tribal or racial or whatever lines..and that is what happened in Rwanda. Of course Rwanda is back to it's default...dictatorship by Kagame and his elite tusti..the moment they allow Rwandese to have freedom of speech and expression...things get south. The same has happened in every country with many tribes.
As for Kuria double standard...that is rather obvious bias. Kisumu people were stonning Kikuyu owned business (Naivas & Tumaini)...and we got a defining silence here. If that was not tribal hate..I don't know what is.
Democracy breed tribalism in heterogeneous society. Dictatorship breed coups and civil wars in heteregenous society. You choose your medicine. Countries that are luckly are those that are largely homegenous. They can do well both in democracy and dictatorship. China, most of Asia and Europe are lucky in this regard because in most of their countries the main tribes are like 90% of the country population.
Tribalism for purposes of this discussion is negative ethnicity. Not mere existence ethnic groupings. It's ethnic hatred in the modern nation state. It is not the ethnic violence we see between Pokots, Marakwet, Turkanas, Toposa, Karamojong etc. Otherwise I could just mention them to easily debunk your theory without adding anything valuable to our understanding of the issue.
We still don't understand why Zambia, TZ, Uganda etc does not have a Moses Kuria, Waititu, Aladwa, Muthama, Ngunjiri etc. This sort of character last thrived under Habyarimana's Rwanda; a veritable dictatorship.
Rwanda under Habyarimana was one of the most tribalistic nations in Africa. Your theory says it should have been suppressed. Instead, massacres of Tutsis was routine. Was it a democratic place that we just weren't aware of? No. It was a space where state gave tribal loyalists carte blanche to spew tribal venom.
The better more relevant explanation for the Moses Kurias is that they have the blessings of the government. The government(as opposed to democracy) is feeding the monster.
-
You want to make really simple stuff sound like rocket science?. Democracy means people are free to say whatever they wish. Of course that also mean most people in a free society do go overboard once in a while. When people are under a dictatorship then people don't say much. These issues simmers underneath and eventually erupt.
Which one would you prefer...some few guys going overboard..or everyone being so careful and contrived when speaking so they don't cross the line. I say let people enjoy the widest possible freedom of speech and expression..and punish those that go overboard..once in a while. This should be exception. Not the rule. Kenya police have tried Kuria and his ilks so many times...they deserve nothing but commendation.
Rwanda had this coming the day they embrace democracy from tusti minority rule...it was expected people will mobilise along tribal or racial or whatever lines..and that is what happened in Rwanda. Of course Rwanda is back to it's default...dictatorship by Kagame and his elite tusti..the moment they allow Rwandese to have freedom of speech and expression...things get south. The same has happened in every country with many tribes.
As for Kuria double standard...that is rather obvious bias. Kisumu people were stonning Kikuyu owned business (Naivas & Tumaini)...and we got a defining silence here. If that was not tribal hate..I don't know what is.
Democracy breed tribalism in heterogeneous society. Dictatorship breed coups and civil wars in heteregenous society. You choose your medicine. Countries that are luckly are those that are largely homegenous. They can do well both in democracy and dictatorship. China, most of Asia and Europe are lucky in this regard because in most of their countries the main tribes are like 90% of the country population.
Tribalism for purposes of this discussion is negative ethnicity. Not mere existence ethnic groupings. It's ethnic hatred in the modern nation state. It is not the ethnic violence we see between Pokots, Marakwet, Turkanas, Toposa, Karamojong etc. Otherwise I could just mention them to easily debunk your theory without adding anything valuable to our understanding of the issue.
We still don't understand why Zambia, TZ, Uganda etc does not have a Moses Kuria, Waititu, Aladwa, Muthama, Ngunjiri etc. This sort of character last thrived under Habyarimana's Rwanda; a veritable dictatorship.
Rwanda under Habyarimana was one of the most tribalistic nations in Africa. Your theory says it should have been suppressed. Instead, massacres of Tutsis was routine. Was it a democratic place that we just weren't aware of? No. It was a space where state gave tribal loyalists carte blanche to spew tribal venom.
The better more relevant explanation for the Moses Kurias is that they have the blessings of the government. The government(as opposed to democracy) is feeding the monster.
The point you make on Rwanda are confusing. I don't know if you understood my views on Habyarimana. He ran a Hutu dictatorship during which massacres of Tutsis were routine; way before Kagame became relevant.
Both Nyerere and Kenyatta were dictators. All throughout Kenyatta's dictatorship, Kenya seethed with ethnic tension; actual ethnic violence between Luo and Kikuyu in Nairobi, mowing down people in Kisumu by police, these are not things that happened for the first time in 2007 but under Jomo Kenyatta's dictatorship.
None of that kind of thing happened in TZ under dictatorship or democracy.
The only one making it rocket science is you. Because you've made up your mind democracy is the reason for the Moses Kurias, you have immunized yourself against any other explanation. So that you can dismiss Kenya/TZ differences as democracy based.
Are there differences in Kenya and TZ that could explain virulent ukabila in Kenya other than Nyerere and Kenyatta? Yes. But democracy isn't one of them. Maybe Nyerere's small tribe left him no option but weaken allegiance to tribe. But that merely explains his motivations rather than the result of his actions. To keep it simple, make some time to listen to the speeches of Nyerere and Kenyatta.
-
But democracy isn't one of them.
And I wonder is these "democracy" arguments apply to places like Botwsana, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, ....
-
But democracy isn't one of them.
And I wonder is these "democracy" arguments apply to places like Botwsana, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, ....
I bet you will hear something like they are homogeneous. It's just a wrong lesson and Kenyans seem pretty adept at picking those ones out of everything that happens there.
-
I bet you will hear something like they are homogeneous.
That won't work, for the very simple reason that it doesn't take into account fundamental aspects of human nature---that even if you have just "the same type" of people, they will find reasons to for "destructive differentiation". "Clans" within a "tribe", "sub-clans" within a "clan", etc. Even in the USA not all whites are "the same": people will note the differences between, say, "proper whites" and "white trash".
As far as I can tell, "homogeneity", regardless of the "level, helps only when looking outwards---Us vs. Them. When looking inwards, i.e. all "Us", it is quite another matter.
Anyways ... I have lived in some of the countries I listed and still regularly spend time there. So I'm keen to see any "homogeneous" argument.
-
Some lines are clear; some lines are blurred; Tribal or ethnic identity is not easy to blur; People speaking the same language and having the same culture are much harder to divide. Of course you get a few exception to the rule like Somalia but generally division will follow clear lines of racial & ethnic divide. As for democracy or freedom...nobody can quite tell the outcome of letting people free...but we know what a dictatorship breed.
That won't work, for the very simple reason that it doesn't take into account fundamental aspects of human nature---that even if you have just "the same type" of people, they will find reasons to for "destructive differentiation". "Clans" within a "tribe", "sub-clans" within a "clan", etc. Even in the USA not all whites are "the same": people will note the differences between, say, "proper whites" and "white trash".
As far as I can tell, "homogeneity", regardless of the "level, helps only when looking outwards---Us vs. Them. When looking inwards, i.e. all "Us", it is quite another matter.
Anyways ... I have lived in some of the countries I listed and still regularly spend time there. So I'm keen to see any "homogeneous" argument.
-
Judiciary seem to be waking up from slumber and have locked up the serial hate speechers for 4 days