New administration under Samia Suluhu gives hope after 5 years of hopelessness

A DEBATE THAT NEVER CHILLS OUT: RIGHTS TO ABUSE SEXUALLY ONE'S BODY.



The problem is, it is their bodies they are sexually abusing, not ours, so why criminalize what they do with their bodies? It may be evil, but it is discriminatory when infidelity is not penalized. Is it because we can relate with adultery more than sodomy? No law on sexual offences which are consensual are punished with life sentences but sodomy suggesting we are more amenable to adultery than to sodomy justifying to its intolerance! Weirdly, adultery misapprehends the rights of others while sodomy may not necessarily violate them. So, in many cases of sodomy there are no complainants but the Republic whose locus standi is at best remote and at worst is intrusive!

This discourse is diametrically opposite to abortion rights despite the proponents erroneously claiming " my body, my business"! Getting rid of fetus is not by any stretch of imagination is dumping your body. An abortion is murdering a fetus, and the fetus is not a mother's body.

Euthanasia, limb chopping or suicide may be immoral and problematic but embraces better the chorus of "my body, my right or my business..." We will not elaborate.

Sexual orientation shouldn't be a criminal offence, but it is a sin. So longer it is not rape but consensual whiplash we need to overlook it, and let God not our own sinful inclinations judge them.


Let God judge them, not us.

Most people who are eager to judge others are sinners knowing the righteous know who is the ultimate judge: God. Paradoxically, adulterers and adulteresses have exhibited a penchant to criminalize sodomy perhaps in a forlorn hope of covering their own demonic tracks in the process. Well, the good news is we are not blind, mute, or dumb to differentiate the two evils.

From the scripture, we learn the following:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Matthew 1:18‭-‬19 KJV


 
STARLINK OPPOSITION IN TANZANIA LINKED TO POLITICAL SUPPRESSION.

The Minister in charge of communication, Nape Nnauye, has raised issues that are irrelevant to justify why Starlink go-slow is in the conveyor belt.

He says starlink is reticent on having an office in TZ and that what they are doing with data they collect remain arcane and henceforth stumbling blocks!

All of the social media platforms now in play in TZ do not satisfactorily address the reservations the minister is guilefully grappling with: local office and data security amounting to existential threats to national security. Laugh not please this is not satire but realpolitik in application.

Look at Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, websites, tik tok etc etc have no offices in TZ, and data security is neither here nor there.

THE REAL REASON CCM GOVERNMENT ABHOR STARLINK SERVICES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1) Lack of control. Remember, 2020 elections CCM government slowed down Internet speed, culminating into most social interactive platforms inaccessible unless the victim deploys an app called VPN.. The motive was to starve local users to share their experiences and views over a bangled election. With STARLINK services handled by satellites, CCM fears it has no say and may not be able to determine how voters will react once the nuts and bolts of massively rigged elections come to surface.

After 2015 elections, censorship was imposed upon parliamentary proceedings, of all places, after the few opposition MPs were pummelling CCM MPs despite brandishing almost an almost ironclad majority. Losing policy debates at the glare of cameras prompted the CCM government to do the impossible: Ban Live parliamentary debates. Interestingly, the minister who deprived citizens of the right to be informed by their national TV was no other but Nape Nnauye, of all people, and he is at it once again!

In the running of 2010 elections, TBC1 engineered live coverage of election campaigns, and CCM aspirants were faring poorly. In a twinkling of an eye, such vital debates were shelved, and the TBC1 boss was shown the door after CCM MPs complained in parliament.

In a criminal indictment of the whistleblower online site JamiiForums founders, the CCM regime alleged that JamiiForums had violated digital laws that require them to use ip addresses of .tz but were using that of .com. Abundantly clear, CCM was nervous about the use of .com instead of .tz had locked them out from imposing temporary bans or permanent closure against JamiiForums for recalcitrance to curb dissent. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed for lack of merits.

All these instances elaborate CCM intense dislike of transparency and accountability, the very virtues Starlink espouse. Henceforth, the CCM regime and Starlink are not seeing eye to eye, and delays are obviously CCM last line of defence without antagonising the general public....

CCM falsely suspects Starlink could provide dissidents with a launchpad that could be repurposed into a rallying avenue for the opposition to challenge CCM sway on power.

2) Shareholding of some of local Internet companies has a whiff of political connections, such companies will be potentially major losers once starlink in full swing in TZ. But the apprehension may be highly overblown knowing the cost of owning and maintaining starlink services are out of reach of many TZ. So, the majority of Internet surfers will cling to local services despite choked speed, erratic coverage and exorbitant user rates.

Fibre optic has faced intentional neglect, and nobody these days yap about it anymore. It is not a natural death but a man-made imposed death. Optic fibre was a spanner thrown in the path of domestic Internet services, of which some politicians are making a killing without investing anything tangible except showboating a veneer of influence peddlers.

3) How do you squeeze taxes? Many potential users of starlink may opt to pay for such services using overseas bank accounts or related payment systems punching a huge hole in Exchequer tax collection. Policymakers may want assurances from starlink how such loopholes to cashcows are gonna be plugged. Tax evasion is a worry to this regime.

4) Of significant importance is why we are not investing to launch our own communication satellite that will provide Internet services at a pittance ushering in a new dawn in digital revolution. Such a policy move will resolve all the issues our cunning minister is embroiled in. We will cease being cash cows of foreign multinationals, boosting employment opportunities, tax collections and technological advances in alien countries, stamping cyber data insecurities, and taking charge of our own digital destiny. Angola is a leader in this, a gratitude of Russian philanthropy. We need to rummage our own psyche what is stopping us from reclaiming our lost hopes once quested of a nation striving to be self reliant.


Your browser is not able to display this video.
 

1) Misjoinder of the plaintiffs.

Hii mahakama kuu ijipime kabla jamii haijaipima kumnukuu mtu siyo kumtuhumu mtu. Tunashindwa kuelewa kwa nini Msechu hakumshtaki Rais aliyemtuhumu anawashtaki waliotekeleza majukumu yao kuwajuza wananchi mtazamo wa Rais kuhusiana na utendaji wa mteule wake. Tungependa ieleweke Rais kama taasis ya uteuzi inakuwa inatekeleza majukumu yake pale inapotathmini utendaji wa wateule wake na mteule anapoendelea na utumishi wa umma inapaswa kuchukuliwa ameafiki kipimo tajwa na hapaswi kwenda mahakamani kudai kachafuliwa jina huku bado anaendelea na utumishi wa umma. Huwezi kutafuna keki, ukaimeza, ukashiba, na mengineyo yakafuata baada ya hapo halafu unarudi kuwa ulipatwa na madhara. Kweli wajinga ndiyo waliwao...


2) Locus Standi trashed and misapprehended.


Pili, bila kumshtaki na kumhoji Rais aliyempima mteule wake Mahakama Kuu haikuwa na ushahidi wa kutosha kumhukumu mtu yeyote.

3) Remote claims.

Tatu, hivi kwanini Mahakama Kuu inakubali kumshughulikia asiyemdhuru mdai na kuacha kumshtaki anayedaiwa kutoa matamshi na hata kumburuta mjumbe wa maudhui ya Rais.

4) An attack on freedom of speech and the public rights to acces information


Nne, kama huu uamuzi huu hautatenguliwa na Mahakama ya Rufaa basi uhuru wa vyombo vya habari kuupasha umma juu ya utendaji wa serikali utakuwa umebinywa kinyume na katiba.


5) Obstruction of justice


Tano, haingii akilini mjumbe auawe na mjenga hoja aachwe sasa Mahakama Kuu kweli ina hoja zipi kumlinda mtoa hoja na kumwajibisha anayeisamabaza hiyo hoja kwa wananchi?


6) Public service accountability under assault.


Sita, uamuzi huu usipotenguliwa utalegeza uwajibikaji wa watumishi wa umma.


7) Arbitrariness in assessment of damages


Saba, kigezo cha kukadiria malipo kina utata mkubwa. Yawaje mtumishi wa umma aonekane na Mahakama Kuu anastahili kulipwa mabilioni yote hayo. Kwa lipi?

Hivi ni hasara ipi kapata na bado yu mtumishi wa umma? Hakufukuzwa au kushushwa cheo sasa alipata hasara zipi? Kuna mambo mengine kama haya yanatuacha na mashaka ya uaminifu wa huu uamuzi. Una kharafu kali ya mashinikizo au ni uamuzi unaokhoji uwezo wa waheshimiwa kutafakari
na kutenda haki.

Mbaya zaidi Mahakama Kuu ilitumia kigezo gani katika kukadiria hasara kama siyo hisia tu ambazo kamwe Mahakama Kuu haiwezi kutetea au kutumia kwa ukadiriaji wa madai ya namna hii.

8) High Court on the dock, not the defendant!

Nane, maamuzi ya aina hii yanashusha hadhi ya Mahakama Kuu machoni pa jamii juu ya uwezo wake wa kutoa haki.

Tunaomba kuwakilisha.....mada.

9) Alternative remedies.

Mlalamikaji alipaswa kuwasiliana na gazeti husika na kutafuta mwafaka kabla ya kwenda mahakamani ili kulinda haki za umma kupata habari za utendaji wa umma. Malinganisho ya haki ya umma kupata habari na haki za watumishi wa umma zilipaswa kulinganishwa na haki za umma zipewe kipaumbele dhidi ya warumishi wa umma ambao wanadai wanaonewa.


 
WHY WE FIND IN A SECULAR WORLD HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CRIMIMALIZED ALBEIT IT IS A SIN!




Beware of politicians. They are good in distorting facts.

First, the Supreme Court of Kenya has seven Justices. Two Justices were required by law not to take a second bite having presided on the same matter in lower courts before being promoted to the highest Court. The implications are huge to the extent the Supreme Court cannot entertain a review. So, as far as judicial remedies are concerned the matter is final and conclusive.

Second, all arguments against homosexuality are flowing from religious books, not from any other source. Here is a major problem: the world is under the noose of secularists, not theocrats. Sadly, secularism is a rebellion against religion. One cannot assume two diametrically opposite positions and prosper. Once sovereignty has been insubordinated to secularism, flashing out religious adherence is an aberration.

Three, under secularism, discrimination is outlawed. So, one can not assail upon homosexuality based on the teachings of religious books but on principles of equity.

A glimpse of religious teachings adultery is a sin but is not vilified as homosexuality. That is discriminatory, and court of laws will not foster discrimination. All secular constitutions proscribe discrimination, and this is why most secular courts will legalise homosexuality.

Fourth, contrary to what Kenya politicians argue, the Supreme Court of Kenya did not consider, deliberate, or decide on the rights of homosexuality but the right to advocacy. The said rights are fundamentally different, and merging them as the same is a gross misconception of the law.

Advocacy is not the legalisation of homosexuality but a right to claim that right through the legal process.

Lastly, comparisons of homosexuality with other vices such as terrorism are ill founded. Such comparisons are at best overreaching and, at worst, a confusion. Homosexuality is sexual orientation misnomer at par with adultery, conforming to the very theocratic teachings, the anti gay movement seek refuge.

Of significance importance is what Pope said: homosexuality is a sin but not a crime. We concur in all four corners!

Your browser is not able to display this video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…