Pre GE2025 CHADEMA: Tutafungua kesi dhidi ya Sisty Nyahoza na Awadh Haji juu ya kukamatwa na kupigwa kwa viongozi na wanachama wa CHADEMA

Mijadala ya Uchaguzi Mkuu wa Tanzania 2025 (Kabla, wakati na baada)
SIASA ZIMEWAISHIA,SERA HAMNA KILICHOBAKIA NI KUTAFUTA DRAMA NA SACCOSS YENU WACHAGA,HAKUNA FALA ANAWEZA KUWAPA NCHI WACHAGA,TAMBUENI HILO MBOWE NA VIJAKAZI WAKO.
Mafala walikuwa ndio Wenye nchi ya Palestine ambayo baadae wakawauzia kama mashamba Wana wa Yakobo πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
 
SAWA MSEMAJI WA CHADEMA JF
 
Dah uksikiliza kwa umakini hakika jeshi letu linahitaji reform. Sababu ya kuwapiga kiasi hicho haipo kabisa. Nimesikitika sana. Mungu atusaidie tuvuke vizuri 2025. Maana Mh. Mnyika au Sugu mbona watu poa sana.
Siku hizi umekuwa mtu mwenye busara sana. Wala sitauliza kwa sababu zipi hasa. Nina akili za kutambua sababu zenyewe. Hii Tanzania wengi wetu tukitazama kwa mlengo huu huu, sina shaka yoyote juu ya usalama wake.
 
SIASA ZIMEWAISHIA,SERA HAMNA KILICHOBAKIA NI KUTAFUTA DRAMA NA SACCOSS YENU WACHAGA,HAKUNA FALA ANAWEZA KUWAPA NCHI WACHAGA,TAMBUENI HILO MBOWE NA VIJAKAZI WAKO.
Nchi hii siyo makalio yako kiasi cha kuamua umpe nani? She.nzi kabisa.
 
Hata kwenye mahakama za kimataifa twende
 
Huyo mzanzibar awadhi ni anaelekea Kibra Mungu atampa majukumu muda si mrefu Mungu atatenda, Chadema siwapendi ila sio kwa uchoko wa huyo Awadhi
 
Nchi hii siyo makalio yako kiasi cha kuamua umpe nani? She.nzi kabisa.
Shenz babako alie pata hasara,kukulisha koote huko hadi unapata akili Leo hii mtoto wa kiume umeaga mashindano na kupoteza marinda Kwa Tamaa zako za kupenda vya Bure na kuwashobokea hao matapeli wa kichaga, hovyo kabisa.
 
Mpaka mjifunze Kutumia mawe kama Kenya ndio watajua mko serious,vinginevyo hizo porojo,kushtaki havisaidii
 
Walitenda kama Taasisi katika kutimiza majukumu yao ya kisheria
Majukumu yao ni kupiga??, Au unadhani ukivaa gwanda na kufanya ujinga huwezi shtakiwa?

Usipofata miongozo yako ya kazi basi unashtakiwa ww binafsi kwa jina lako. Sasa miongozo yao pale ilitakiwa kuwapiga watu ambao walikubali kukamatwa kwa amani??

Mkuu una knowledge ya sheria??
 
Samia umewalea sana hao mafala wa CHADEMA,yule Jamaa Yao ndiyo maana alikuwa anapiga Shaba tuh wajinga hawa,Leo wanajifanya wajaaanja eti,SI walifyata mkia na kukimbilia Kwa mabwana zao huko ulaya...
 
Mlitaka kufanya maandamano ya gen z,mmetulizwa mapema,kafanyieni kilimanjaro hayo maandamano
Yessir,hawa wapuuzi sana,kama Wana uchungu sana na Hilo why wasianzie kwao Kilimanjaro??

Siasa zao za kifala zimeshapitwa na wakati, after all nani mwehu ampe nchi Mchaga??
 
Walitenda kama Taasisi katika kutimiza majukumu yao ya kisheria
wewe hujui kitu , nyamaza kafue nguo kizimkazi. Unajua ingredients za sedition? It is difficult to prove sedition

It is crucial to understand the meaning of "incitement to violence." Properly, that concept refers to somebody actively urging violence against particular individuals. For example, it should be against the law for Joe to distribute pamphlets that state, "Murder my neighbor Jim because..." It should also be against the law for Joe to advertise for the services of a hitman.

The question is, does the speech in question purposely and clearly attempt to get others to commit an act of violence against innocent parties? (As I acknowledged, some cases can be ambiguous, but most are clear-cut.)

The Danish cartoons do not incite anyone to violence in the relevant sense. The cartoons don't encourage anyone to commit violence against any Muslim or any other party. Instead, (some of) the cartoons criticize Islam for its tendencies to violence and oppression of women. (As I argued, such criticisms are totally warranted by the facts.) In response, many Muslims have committed acts of violence and threatened violence.

To say that the cartoons incited Muslims to violence would be to blame the cartoonists for the irrational and immoral behavior of the Muslims. Such an approach would blame the victims of crimes for the crimes. Consider also the following examples:

* If somebody wrote an article claiming that Marxism is false, and then a Marxist murdered the author, to claim that the article incited the Marxist to violence would be to claim that the author is to blame for his or her own murder and that the Marxist is excused.

* If somebody said, "Jesus is not the son of God," and then a Christian beat the person to a bloody pulp, the misapplication of the notion of "incitement to violence" would blame the "blasphemer" and excuse the Christian.

* If a person wrote, "Black people should be treated equally under the law," and then the person was attacked by a member of the Ku Klux Klan, to accuse the speaker of "incitement to violence" would be to empower the violent racism of the Ku Klux Klan.

"Incitement to violence" can legitimately apply only to actual encouragement of violence against specific innocent parties by a speaker or writer. It cannot apply to a statement or image that prompts irrational reactions by others who hear or see it. If the author of some message can be blamed for the irrational reaction to the message by some other party, then there is no such thing as free speech, for the subjective whims of anyone can trump free speech on any occasion.

Several of the Danish cartoons are critiques of irrational violence. The fact that some Muslims reacted with violence only proves that the cartoonists are correct in their critiques.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…