Nuala Brangan*
As we commemorate World environmental tomorrow, here is a reflection on the theme Adopt a River or Forest from the Association of sisterhood of Kenya
The time to commemorate World Environment Day (Sat), June 5 is here once again. The United Nations (UN) has declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity and proposed the theme “Many Species, One Planet, One Future.” However considering Kenya’s environmental realities, we have chosen a sub-theme: “ADOPT a RIVER or FOREST”. This theme echoes the UN urgent call to preserve and conserve our environment upon which millions of people and millions of species depend.
When children are adopted, we understand that this means treating them as our very own. It means loving them, caring for them each day and becoming attentive to their needs, protecting them from harm and having dreams for their future even to the extent of sacrificing ourselves for them. This year, as we invite you to adopt a river or forest (or stream, mountain etc if none is close to you), we are asking you to lavish care and protection on it and the wonderful variety of life that it contains. It is an invitation therefore to be part of the countrywide efforts to protect and conserve the variety of life found within and around our rivers or forests. If we fail to act, it may soon be too late as scientists estimate that a species of life is being destroyed every day. This will, most likely, include working with others, and will entail the sacrifice of your time and energy to bring it back to its former glory.
The Passionist priest and famous environmentalist, Fr. Thomas Berry, calls us to look at spirituality (eco-spirituality) which engages not only our whole being but the whole universe itself. It is his belief, as well as a growing belief among theologians today, that as Religious we should be at the forefront of environment care because we are part of creation itself. This call is central to the teaching and example of Jesus; is echoed in the Old Testament, especially the psalms, and has also a central place in many of our own cultural beliefs.
We invite you to communicate news of World Environment Day to all the members of your community as well as to all your communities in Kenya, encouraging each other to celebrate WED through some activity. (The enclosed leaflet may give you some ideas but you may come up with better ways yourselves of celebrating.). We would be grateful for a brief report before July 30, 2010. However we encourage you to extend this activity to the whole year.
At this time when our politicians are in danger of dividing us along a Yes or No Referendum vote, may we be encouraged to gather together as Religious of all faiths to save our environment through peaceful environmental initiatives. We wish you God’s blessings on your daily effort of caring for our world.
*Nuala Brangan is a Loreto Sister and the AOSK-JP Commission, Coordinator in Kenya
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Scientists Have «Created» Life: Very Good News for the Believer
Dominic Nkoyoyo*
Dr. Craig Venter an American scientist on 20th May this year announced to the world the mind blowing news has changed the history of humanity, namely: that the scientists of the Craig Venter Institute, have created the first ever living cell in a laboratory.
I believe and I think many will agree with me that this is so far the greatest scientific breakthrough in human history! Scientists have finally, after many years of research created life! So we who are living today and the future generations, we are in a new era: The Age of Synthentic Biology.
So what is our reaction and response to this new historical invention? Are we pleased with it, fearful, or angry and cursing it? Is it a hard pill for you to swallow? Does it shake your faith to its foundations or does it strengthen it all the more?
When Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) came up with his theory of Natural Selection or Evolution, many Christians of his time were not happy with him! Even today, many believers, especially, Christian fundamentalists do not want to hear of the theory of evolution! They even insist that it should not be taught in schools! For they feel it contradicts their faith, “that God created man and therefore he could not have evolved from apes as the theory holds!”
The Catholic Church is very positive bout the Darwinian theory of evolution and other evolutionary theories. The late Pope John Paul II, in the name of the Catholic Church acknowledged its value and importance. Hence on 23rd October, 1996 in his message entitled Truth cannot contradict truth to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he said: “Today, more than a half a century after his encyclical Puis XII’s 1950 Encyclical Human Generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis.
So as Catholics we are well disposed and open to these scientific breakthroughs. And I find it very interesting that even the Bible itself has a special place of the Biological Sciences that deal with human life! For Sirach says: “Honour physicians for their services, for the Lord created them; for their gift of healing comes from the Most high…The skill of physicians makes them distinguished, and in the presence of the great they are admired. The Lord created medicines out of the earth and the sensible will not despise them.” (Sir.38:1-4). God gave us intelligence which we must use to unravel the truth underlying the material world and biological life.
And for me I am very pleased with this news of the creation of life by scientists. Because it confirms what I have believed all along: That behind all we see in this world there is a GREAT INTELLIGENCE at work! For behind the, synthetic cell, as the, living cell, created by the scientist is called, there is the natural intelligence of the scientists. For without the intelligence of these scientists, this, synthetic cell, could not have come into existence!
So we should all be happy, for the creation of life by scientists, proves the existence of the supernatural intelligence that created our own life. We did not come about by sheer chance! Even if it be true, that we evolved from apes, behind the whole process we ultimately have to arrive at: The Great Intelligence, Loving and Eternal, the Creator of all. So to the question, Is God the author of life? The answer remains: YES ultimately God is the Author of life.
That said, my congratulations to the great scientists: Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith, Clyde Hutchison and their colleagues whom God has use to advance our knowledge. Keep it up guys!
But does this new discovery pose any dangers? Of course the danger of misusing this knowledge and technology, for example, using it for biological weapons and also falling into the wrong hands is very real, but that is normal. We have the internet with its danger of exposing children to pornography and other dangers, but its advantages out weigh by far its disadvantages. So we shall handle the dangers of the new discovery as they come along, although we should start right away making provisions for that.
*Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo is a monk at Monastery Val Notre-Dame, Canada.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Dr. Craig Venter an American scientist on 20th May this year announced to the world the mind blowing news has changed the history of humanity, namely: that the scientists of the Craig Venter Institute, have created the first ever living cell in a laboratory.
I believe and I think many will agree with me that this is so far the greatest scientific breakthrough in human history! Scientists have finally, after many years of research created life! So we who are living today and the future generations, we are in a new era: The Age of Synthentic Biology.
So what is our reaction and response to this new historical invention? Are we pleased with it, fearful, or angry and cursing it? Is it a hard pill for you to swallow? Does it shake your faith to its foundations or does it strengthen it all the more?
When Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) came up with his theory of Natural Selection or Evolution, many Christians of his time were not happy with him! Even today, many believers, especially, Christian fundamentalists do not want to hear of the theory of evolution! They even insist that it should not be taught in schools! For they feel it contradicts their faith, “that God created man and therefore he could not have evolved from apes as the theory holds!”
The Catholic Church is very positive bout the Darwinian theory of evolution and other evolutionary theories. The late Pope John Paul II, in the name of the Catholic Church acknowledged its value and importance. Hence on 23rd October, 1996 in his message entitled Truth cannot contradict truth to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he said: “Today, more than a half a century after his encyclical Puis XII’s 1950 Encyclical Human Generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis.
So as Catholics we are well disposed and open to these scientific breakthroughs. And I find it very interesting that even the Bible itself has a special place of the Biological Sciences that deal with human life! For Sirach says: “Honour physicians for their services, for the Lord created them; for their gift of healing comes from the Most high…The skill of physicians makes them distinguished, and in the presence of the great they are admired. The Lord created medicines out of the earth and the sensible will not despise them.” (Sir.38:1-4). God gave us intelligence which we must use to unravel the truth underlying the material world and biological life.
And for me I am very pleased with this news of the creation of life by scientists. Because it confirms what I have believed all along: That behind all we see in this world there is a GREAT INTELLIGENCE at work! For behind the, synthetic cell, as the, living cell, created by the scientist is called, there is the natural intelligence of the scientists. For without the intelligence of these scientists, this, synthetic cell, could not have come into existence!
So we should all be happy, for the creation of life by scientists, proves the existence of the supernatural intelligence that created our own life. We did not come about by sheer chance! Even if it be true, that we evolved from apes, behind the whole process we ultimately have to arrive at: The Great Intelligence, Loving and Eternal, the Creator of all. So to the question, Is God the author of life? The answer remains: YES ultimately God is the Author of life.
That said, my congratulations to the great scientists: Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith, Clyde Hutchison and their colleagues whom God has use to advance our knowledge. Keep it up guys!
But does this new discovery pose any dangers? Of course the danger of misusing this knowledge and technology, for example, using it for biological weapons and also falling into the wrong hands is very real, but that is normal. We have the internet with its danger of exposing children to pornography and other dangers, but its advantages out weigh by far its disadvantages. So we shall handle the dangers of the new discovery as they come along, although we should start right away making provisions for that.
*Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo is a monk at Monastery Val Notre-Dame, Canada.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Build One Nation, One Country Kenya
Bishop Cornelius Kipng’eno Arap Korir*
In the background the ongoing campaigns on the Draft Constitution and the acrimony that has been churned up in the campaigns for and against the draft, Bishop Cornelius Korir reflect with the politicians on the need to build one nation, one country.
The following is the text of his address at the Annual National prayer breakfast meeting of Kenyan MPs.
To belong to a tribe is a gift from God. Tribes serve to build the family of God into different Nations in all the earth. This gift of tribe is for enriching with its cultures, customs and religion the gifts of all other tribes. Out of all together God’s desire is to make all into a unity, into one united family, God’s family. Jn 17:21 – “May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.”
In this case, each member of a group or tribe is called upon to look at the others as sons and daughters of one Father who is the creator of Heaven and Earth and the founder of every Nation.
The words of our National Anthem invite us to acknowledge this fact, God bless our Nation, Kenya. That is: Bless us to be united.
The people’s response to this invitation is by way of LOVE. Love of God and neighbour.
God created us in His image (Gen 2:27). We are His image. Listen to what the Lord says to Cain after killing his brother Abel. (Gen 4:10) – “Why have you done this terrible thing? Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground, like a voice calling for revenge.” But in fact God discouraged revenge; God forbade revenge as the way forward, as the way to deal with Cain. He warned people not to kill Cain, not to revenge Abel’s death by further killing.
For the Christians you are familiar with the words of Jesus – First in the Book of Mat 25: 35-39 - For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me. Then the upright will say to him in reply, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you? When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you? And the King will answer, in truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.”
When the dignity of any human being is demeaned by neglect, by involuntary nakedness, by serious hunger, by sickness or disease, by imprisonment, God Himself ‘feels’ the pain and the disgrace of it. Whatever you do to your brother you do to me.
And on the other hand, whatever good we do, whatever help we give to another human being of whatever family or tribe or nation or race, God takes it as good done to Himself, as help given to Himself. God sees a mysterious identity between Himself and ALL human beings, and He sees a mysterious identity between human beings themselves without distinction. God our creator sees us all as His children, as His sons and daughters.
Secondly, in the Book of Acts 9:4-5: Jesus asks Paul, “Why are you persecuting me?” Paul was in charge of killing the followers of Jesus.
The above description invites us to reflect on our relationship in this one Nation, Kenya. As leaders, plan policies that can give food, treat the sick and provide other needs of the people. And the more we respect the true dignity and worth of every human being in the eyes of God, the more surely will we reduce divisive, antagonistic tribalism, which I now want to speak of:
Going back – primitive tribe
All things measured by what belong to our people, enhanced by customs and cultures.
The security is part of life – the unity of the tribe can give security but it can also be an abuse setting tribe against tribe.
Building one tribe through many ways and activities known to them.
After independence, there was the struggle to break the tribal barriers through Education, Development, Religion and Politics and the struggle is not over. It needs to be reviewed and renewed and intensified.
The way we have practiced politics has allowed the negative aspects of ethnicity to develop by reviving the old aspirations of the tribe.
I am not a politician. I am looking at it as a citizen of Kenya and having been involved in the peace building work.
a) The tribal grouping of political parties has contributed to the tension in the country.
b) The issues of injustices before and after independence have not been addressed and still affect relationships seriously.
c) The clashes we have faced in this country over issues of politics and power and tribe and land and wealth 1992 to 1997 and 2007/2008 have left a legacy of distrust and bitterness and difficulty of reconciliation.
d) Year 2002 was different in that the politics had changed and a kind of popular movement emerged for the first time.
e) The clashes have developed in another direction which is not good for the country. It is a direction of violence breaking the unity of the country. This has to be changed in a peaceful way.
f) The destruction of property and losses of life increases every year of election. The highest number of loss of life was in 2008. The enmity among the peoples went so deep into their hearts that forgiveness and reconciliation was very difficult. If we are talking of one nation, one people, the political style of this country has to change. That our political parties have to serve the Nation, not the tribe or the party.
g) I call upon the parties to put the country Kenya first – the whole Kenya not part of it. All religions have also to work together to build one Nation.
In the violence of 1992, 1997 and 2008, I witnessed the sufferings of our people, loss of life, destruction of property e.t.c.
• I have walked with the people several kilometers away struggling to save their lives.
• I have hosted thousands of people in the church compound, Seminary and schools.
• When the clash victims arrived, I provided them with shelter and food before the donors came to assist them.
• Lastly, I have risked my life many times.
My motto is always, All peoples are brothers and sisters. My belief is that when I see a person, I see an image of God. Don’t kill.
Negativity
• Negativity is not from God, it is from the people themselves - from the heart of the people.
• Religion has to play a major role in the society.
• The fear among the tribes.
• Displacement dates back before independence - Correct anomalies
• Equal distribution of justice for all peoples.
• Peace building from all levels such as village communities, youth, students in schools (primary, secondary, universities) e.t.c.
• And a very important priority at this time: Do not let us have bitter, untruthful, violent Referendum or General Election campaigns. That would be to go against God and to do further serious damage to all our peoples and to the nation.
I will end with a few quotes from our first President, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta. I don’t have the exact date of the quotes.
“Where there has been racial hatred, it must be ended. Where there has been tribal animosity, it will be finished. Let us not dwell upon the bitterness of the past. I would rather look to the future, to the good new Kenya, not to the bad old days. If we can create this sense of national direction and identity, we shall have gone a long way to solving our economic problems.”
“You and I must work together to develop our country, to get education for our children, to have doctors, to build roads, to improve or provide all day-to-day essentials.” Jomo Kenyatta, first President of Kenya, from an Independence Day message to the people.
God bless our Land and Nation.
*Cornelius Kipng’eno Arap Korir is the current Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Eldoret, in Kenya.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
In the background the ongoing campaigns on the Draft Constitution and the acrimony that has been churned up in the campaigns for and against the draft, Bishop Cornelius Korir reflect with the politicians on the need to build one nation, one country.
The following is the text of his address at the Annual National prayer breakfast meeting of Kenyan MPs.
To belong to a tribe is a gift from God. Tribes serve to build the family of God into different Nations in all the earth. This gift of tribe is for enriching with its cultures, customs and religion the gifts of all other tribes. Out of all together God’s desire is to make all into a unity, into one united family, God’s family. Jn 17:21 – “May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.”
In this case, each member of a group or tribe is called upon to look at the others as sons and daughters of one Father who is the creator of Heaven and Earth and the founder of every Nation.
The words of our National Anthem invite us to acknowledge this fact, God bless our Nation, Kenya. That is: Bless us to be united.
The people’s response to this invitation is by way of LOVE. Love of God and neighbour.
God created us in His image (Gen 2:27). We are His image. Listen to what the Lord says to Cain after killing his brother Abel. (Gen 4:10) – “Why have you done this terrible thing? Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground, like a voice calling for revenge.” But in fact God discouraged revenge; God forbade revenge as the way forward, as the way to deal with Cain. He warned people not to kill Cain, not to revenge Abel’s death by further killing.
For the Christians you are familiar with the words of Jesus – First in the Book of Mat 25: 35-39 - For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me. Then the upright will say to him in reply, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you? When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you? And the King will answer, in truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.”
When the dignity of any human being is demeaned by neglect, by involuntary nakedness, by serious hunger, by sickness or disease, by imprisonment, God Himself ‘feels’ the pain and the disgrace of it. Whatever you do to your brother you do to me.
And on the other hand, whatever good we do, whatever help we give to another human being of whatever family or tribe or nation or race, God takes it as good done to Himself, as help given to Himself. God sees a mysterious identity between Himself and ALL human beings, and He sees a mysterious identity between human beings themselves without distinction. God our creator sees us all as His children, as His sons and daughters.
Secondly, in the Book of Acts 9:4-5: Jesus asks Paul, “Why are you persecuting me?” Paul was in charge of killing the followers of Jesus.
The above description invites us to reflect on our relationship in this one Nation, Kenya. As leaders, plan policies that can give food, treat the sick and provide other needs of the people. And the more we respect the true dignity and worth of every human being in the eyes of God, the more surely will we reduce divisive, antagonistic tribalism, which I now want to speak of:
Going back – primitive tribe
All things measured by what belong to our people, enhanced by customs and cultures.
The security is part of life – the unity of the tribe can give security but it can also be an abuse setting tribe against tribe.
Building one tribe through many ways and activities known to them.
After independence, there was the struggle to break the tribal barriers through Education, Development, Religion and Politics and the struggle is not over. It needs to be reviewed and renewed and intensified.
The way we have practiced politics has allowed the negative aspects of ethnicity to develop by reviving the old aspirations of the tribe.
I am not a politician. I am looking at it as a citizen of Kenya and having been involved in the peace building work.
a) The tribal grouping of political parties has contributed to the tension in the country.
b) The issues of injustices before and after independence have not been addressed and still affect relationships seriously.
c) The clashes we have faced in this country over issues of politics and power and tribe and land and wealth 1992 to 1997 and 2007/2008 have left a legacy of distrust and bitterness and difficulty of reconciliation.
d) Year 2002 was different in that the politics had changed and a kind of popular movement emerged for the first time.
e) The clashes have developed in another direction which is not good for the country. It is a direction of violence breaking the unity of the country. This has to be changed in a peaceful way.
f) The destruction of property and losses of life increases every year of election. The highest number of loss of life was in 2008. The enmity among the peoples went so deep into their hearts that forgiveness and reconciliation was very difficult. If we are talking of one nation, one people, the political style of this country has to change. That our political parties have to serve the Nation, not the tribe or the party.
g) I call upon the parties to put the country Kenya first – the whole Kenya not part of it. All religions have also to work together to build one Nation.
In the violence of 1992, 1997 and 2008, I witnessed the sufferings of our people, loss of life, destruction of property e.t.c.
• I have walked with the people several kilometers away struggling to save their lives.
• I have hosted thousands of people in the church compound, Seminary and schools.
• When the clash victims arrived, I provided them with shelter and food before the donors came to assist them.
• Lastly, I have risked my life many times.
My motto is always, All peoples are brothers and sisters. My belief is that when I see a person, I see an image of God. Don’t kill.
Negativity
• Negativity is not from God, it is from the people themselves - from the heart of the people.
• Religion has to play a major role in the society.
• The fear among the tribes.
• Displacement dates back before independence - Correct anomalies
• Equal distribution of justice for all peoples.
• Peace building from all levels such as village communities, youth, students in schools (primary, secondary, universities) e.t.c.
• And a very important priority at this time: Do not let us have bitter, untruthful, violent Referendum or General Election campaigns. That would be to go against God and to do further serious damage to all our peoples and to the nation.
I will end with a few quotes from our first President, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta. I don’t have the exact date of the quotes.
“Where there has been racial hatred, it must be ended. Where there has been tribal animosity, it will be finished. Let us not dwell upon the bitterness of the past. I would rather look to the future, to the good new Kenya, not to the bad old days. If we can create this sense of national direction and identity, we shall have gone a long way to solving our economic problems.”
“You and I must work together to develop our country, to get education for our children, to have doctors, to build roads, to improve or provide all day-to-day essentials.” Jomo Kenyatta, first President of Kenya, from an Independence Day message to the people.
God bless our Land and Nation.
*Cornelius Kipng’eno Arap Korir is the current Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Eldoret, in Kenya.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
“Time has Run Out”
Dominic Nkoyoyo*
I admire the courage of Fr. Gabriel Dolan. And I believe that his references to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching at this point in time are very important and helpful to God's people in Kenya who find themselves in a difficult position relative to the Proposed Constitution. For the time has run out to make any amendments to the proposed constitution and very soon it must be voted in or out.
Fr. Gabriel Dolan and Retired Anglican Archbishop David Gitari (see CISA Issue N° 038, Tuesday, April 2010) are of the same mind. And so hold similar position on the Proposed Constitution, namely: that it is wise to vote «YES» for the Proposed Constitution come the referendum on 4th August this year. Both are pro-life, and so am I. Fr Dolan warns that we should not throw the baby out with bath water. And Archbishop Gitari advises that we are faced with two evils and therefore we should go for a lesser one.
In the Proposed Constitution there is a healthy baby weighing 5Kg! That is, all the good things in it. But there is also very dirty water, namely: the possibility it opens for enacting in the future laws legalising abortion implied in Article 26(4).
So what should God's people in Kenya do in such a complicated situation?
I do agree that if the Proposed Constitution sails through the referendum and becomes the Supreme Law of the land, it will be very difficult to make amendments. But we can at least be consoled that, being very difficult, does not mean being impossible. So a fierce battle could be launched afterwards to amend the problematic Article 26(4).
Now that the time has run out to make any amendments, I think the practical thing to do is to take the advice of Archbishop Gitari and Fr. Gabriel and go for the lesser evil.It is indeed a very sad situation to have to choose between two evils but this is where we find ourselves.
Leaving Article 26(4) in the Proposed Constitution and voting YES is in my opinion the lesser evil. The greater evil is to go to the 2012 polls without a new and better Constitution. And practically, this is what it means if the Proposed Constitution is rejected. For the process will be pushed back to square one by opposing forces! And then more time and more money will be needed to restart the process! But as many people have remarked that the Proposed Constitution is much better than the existing Constitution, I think we should go for it. The dangers of voting in 2012 with the existing Constitution are beyond count and will be regrettable.
Although a new Constitution too, does not guarantee that the 2012 general election will be peaceful, the people of Kenya will be consoled to know that at least they tried to do something to avoid a repeat of the 2007-2008 post election violence that nearly destroyed the country.
So while the struggle for getting a new Constitution goes on, I request all the people in Kenya, citizens and foreigners, to keep praying for peace and reconciliation in this country.
*Fr. Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo is a Cistercian Monk at the Monastery Val Notre-Dame in Canada.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
I admire the courage of Fr. Gabriel Dolan. And I believe that his references to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching at this point in time are very important and helpful to God's people in Kenya who find themselves in a difficult position relative to the Proposed Constitution. For the time has run out to make any amendments to the proposed constitution and very soon it must be voted in or out.
Fr. Gabriel Dolan and Retired Anglican Archbishop David Gitari (see CISA Issue N° 038, Tuesday, April 2010) are of the same mind. And so hold similar position on the Proposed Constitution, namely: that it is wise to vote «YES» for the Proposed Constitution come the referendum on 4th August this year. Both are pro-life, and so am I. Fr Dolan warns that we should not throw the baby out with bath water. And Archbishop Gitari advises that we are faced with two evils and therefore we should go for a lesser one.
In the Proposed Constitution there is a healthy baby weighing 5Kg! That is, all the good things in it. But there is also very dirty water, namely: the possibility it opens for enacting in the future laws legalising abortion implied in Article 26(4).
So what should God's people in Kenya do in such a complicated situation?
I do agree that if the Proposed Constitution sails through the referendum and becomes the Supreme Law of the land, it will be very difficult to make amendments. But we can at least be consoled that, being very difficult, does not mean being impossible. So a fierce battle could be launched afterwards to amend the problematic Article 26(4).
Now that the time has run out to make any amendments, I think the practical thing to do is to take the advice of Archbishop Gitari and Fr. Gabriel and go for the lesser evil.It is indeed a very sad situation to have to choose between two evils but this is where we find ourselves.
Leaving Article 26(4) in the Proposed Constitution and voting YES is in my opinion the lesser evil. The greater evil is to go to the 2012 polls without a new and better Constitution. And practically, this is what it means if the Proposed Constitution is rejected. For the process will be pushed back to square one by opposing forces! And then more time and more money will be needed to restart the process! But as many people have remarked that the Proposed Constitution is much better than the existing Constitution, I think we should go for it. The dangers of voting in 2012 with the existing Constitution are beyond count and will be regrettable.
Although a new Constitution too, does not guarantee that the 2012 general election will be peaceful, the people of Kenya will be consoled to know that at least they tried to do something to avoid a repeat of the 2007-2008 post election violence that nearly destroyed the country.
So while the struggle for getting a new Constitution goes on, I request all the people in Kenya, citizens and foreigners, to keep praying for peace and reconciliation in this country.
*Fr. Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo is a Cistercian Monk at the Monastery Val Notre-Dame in Canada.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Draft is Pro-life, Pro-poor and can Bring Social Justice
Gabriel Dolan*
Church leaders have both a right and duty to share with their flock their concerns over issues of national importance. We may not always agree with their sentiments but we must defend their right to be heard and also respect the sincerity of their views.
However, what was disturbing about the recent statement from the Catholic Bishops was their request to the President to delete Article 26(4) from the Proposed Constitution by way of an ‘executive order.’ Put another way, they were asking the two principals to break the law, disregarding parliament and the Kenyan public.
Such contempt for the rule of law was what prompted demands for a constitutional overhaul in the first place. Kenya is not a theocracy but a democracy and church leaders are not legislators but teachers and messengers of the Gospel.
Indeed, the faithful feel let down by their religious leaders who appear to be completely out of touch with the deep yearnings of the Kenyan public for a more humane and dignified existence. I am not being dismissive of their views, but I fail to see the wisdom of calling on Kenyans to reject the draft if sections on Kadhi’s courts and abortion are not removed.
Would this not be a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you pardon the crude analogy in these circumstances! Worse still the ‘bath water’ will find its way back home by way of the Penal Code and the current constitution.
Giving guidance on the proposed constitution requires that we see the big picture and are familiar with the complete document. For Christians, the ultimate question is whether this draft is good news for the poor; whether it has the potential to set the downtrodden free; give liberation to the captives and proclaim a new era for the Kenyan nation. That is what the man from Nazareth identified as his mission. It remains the foundation of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) up until today. The Bishops made no reference to this tradition in their instructions.
As I stated in the March 27th column, I am pro-life myself, but my concern goes beyond the womb and continues right up to the tomb. I am not just concerned with the welfare of the unborn, but about the quality of life after birth. Jesus himself after all said ‘I came that you may have life and have in its fullness’ (John 10:10).
Catholic teaching states that ‘opposition to abortion does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice’. If compassion is the basis of our faith, then people of God must be moved by the poverty, deprivation and inequality that have characterised this country since independence.
The principles of CST that should form the basis of our social conscience are: the dignity of the person, option for the poor, solidarity, social justice and the common good. When we make an option for the poor we are stating that the needs of the poor take priority over the desires and interests of the rich and ‘the poor have the single most urgent economic claim of the conscience of the nation’.
The Chapters on the Bill of Rights and Land offer great hope that the economic claims of the poor may be addressed. Indeed the Land Chapter is practically a replica of the Land Policy that was approved in Parliament on December 3rd last year.
A rejection of the proposed constitution is a vote for the interests of the rich in this country. The proposed constitution is a pro-poor and pro-life document. Is it any wonder then that those who benefited most from the plunder of our country have branded it ‘socialist,’ in the same way that those who opposed Barrack Obama’s pro-poor health care plan dismissed him as a ‘socialist’?
This draft is not a panacea for all our ills, but it has the potential to promote the common good of the nation as opposed to serving the good of rulers or any economic, religious or social class. It provides us with an opportunity to correct past injustices, redistribute the wealth of the nation and promote the dignity and value of each Kenyan.
The document has been published, let us read it carefully and judge for ourselves whether it offers hope to the poor, a future for the marginalised and could be the springboard for a new era for all. In other words let us vote with an informed conscience.
*Fr Gabriel Dolan, St. Patrick’s Missionary, Archdiocese of Mombasa
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Church leaders have both a right and duty to share with their flock their concerns over issues of national importance. We may not always agree with their sentiments but we must defend their right to be heard and also respect the sincerity of their views.
However, what was disturbing about the recent statement from the Catholic Bishops was their request to the President to delete Article 26(4) from the Proposed Constitution by way of an ‘executive order.’ Put another way, they were asking the two principals to break the law, disregarding parliament and the Kenyan public.
Such contempt for the rule of law was what prompted demands for a constitutional overhaul in the first place. Kenya is not a theocracy but a democracy and church leaders are not legislators but teachers and messengers of the Gospel.
Indeed, the faithful feel let down by their religious leaders who appear to be completely out of touch with the deep yearnings of the Kenyan public for a more humane and dignified existence. I am not being dismissive of their views, but I fail to see the wisdom of calling on Kenyans to reject the draft if sections on Kadhi’s courts and abortion are not removed.
Would this not be a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you pardon the crude analogy in these circumstances! Worse still the ‘bath water’ will find its way back home by way of the Penal Code and the current constitution.
Giving guidance on the proposed constitution requires that we see the big picture and are familiar with the complete document. For Christians, the ultimate question is whether this draft is good news for the poor; whether it has the potential to set the downtrodden free; give liberation to the captives and proclaim a new era for the Kenyan nation. That is what the man from Nazareth identified as his mission. It remains the foundation of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) up until today. The Bishops made no reference to this tradition in their instructions.
As I stated in the March 27th column, I am pro-life myself, but my concern goes beyond the womb and continues right up to the tomb. I am not just concerned with the welfare of the unborn, but about the quality of life after birth. Jesus himself after all said ‘I came that you may have life and have in its fullness’ (John 10:10).
Catholic teaching states that ‘opposition to abortion does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice’. If compassion is the basis of our faith, then people of God must be moved by the poverty, deprivation and inequality that have characterised this country since independence.
The principles of CST that should form the basis of our social conscience are: the dignity of the person, option for the poor, solidarity, social justice and the common good. When we make an option for the poor we are stating that the needs of the poor take priority over the desires and interests of the rich and ‘the poor have the single most urgent economic claim of the conscience of the nation’.
The Chapters on the Bill of Rights and Land offer great hope that the economic claims of the poor may be addressed. Indeed the Land Chapter is practically a replica of the Land Policy that was approved in Parliament on December 3rd last year.
A rejection of the proposed constitution is a vote for the interests of the rich in this country. The proposed constitution is a pro-poor and pro-life document. Is it any wonder then that those who benefited most from the plunder of our country have branded it ‘socialist,’ in the same way that those who opposed Barrack Obama’s pro-poor health care plan dismissed him as a ‘socialist’?
This draft is not a panacea for all our ills, but it has the potential to promote the common good of the nation as opposed to serving the good of rulers or any economic, religious or social class. It provides us with an opportunity to correct past injustices, redistribute the wealth of the nation and promote the dignity and value of each Kenyan.
The document has been published, let us read it carefully and judge for ourselves whether it offers hope to the poor, a future for the marginalised and could be the springboard for a new era for all. In other words let us vote with an informed conscience.
*Fr Gabriel Dolan, St. Patrick’s Missionary, Archdiocese of Mombasa
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Right to Life
Professional Mother,
Given the heat it has drawn, the abortion debate has erroneously been depicted as a battle drawn between the “conservative patriarchal” Church and “progressive feminist” thinkers.
And so as not to be swayed by any of these two schools of thought, let us, for once, put our passions, emotions and prejudices aside and discuss this contentious issue from an angle devoid of religious connotations.
There is no contradiction on the universally accepted fact that a human being is the subject of inalienable rights; and that no right is more fundamental than the right to life itself. This right to life is inviolable from the beginning of the process of conception to its natural death.
As it were, human existence does not belong to society nor does it belong to public authority so that the right to life for some people will be recognised and not for others. Rather, as citizens of this country, we have the sole duty to guard with utmost care and promote all human life.
And because the right to life demands recognition, the Constitution of this country has to provide clearly and definitively a base for the protection and sustenance of the right to life without inserting clauses that would antagonise the most fundamental rights.
In this light, the short range result of an undefined Clause on The Right to Life or the inclusion of clauses that contradict life in the Constitution would, as sure as night follows day, be legislation of abortion and its associated vices. Once people subordinate life in the early stages of its development to any other values; they thereby forfeit any future appeal to a legal system that can logically protect human life at any other point.
This means that the acceptance of abortion will open, in principle, the right to terminate human life at the end as well as at any point in between when that life is perceived to be burdensome or unwanted. Thus before long, we will have to grapple with demands for legalised euthanasia. The vices of abortion and euthanasia are directly linked to other heinous abuses to life which include infanticide, paedophilia and necrophilia.
Those who hold the reigns of government therefore, should not forget that it is the duty of public authority, by appropriate laws and sanctions, to defend the lives of the innocent. And this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves.
Now, to accept the fact that after fertilisation has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of tests or of opinion. This is because the human nature of the human being from conception to old age is no more a metaphysical contention but rather plain experimented scientific evidence.
Modern molecular biology teaches us that all living organisms begin with living and not dead cells. That a new human life, which is a much later outcome, is the result of the culmination of two living and healthy cells – the ovum and the sperm.
Further, science elaborates that from the moment that the ovum is fertilised, a new and unique human life is begun. Contained in each cell are the distinct blueprints for the genetic heritage as well as future essential characteristics of the new human being, which include sex, intellectual potentials, facts of character and temperament.
Logically, this new life would never be made human if it were not human already. Differently put: can a dead cell form a live zygote or foetus?
Science has also shown univocally that there does not exist any pre-human stage of the embryo in the mother’s body. From the moment of fertilisation on, only one and the same individual develops. It is not as if at a certain point in time a change is effected as to make the organism pass from animality to humanity.
In the case of test tube babies, after the sperm and the egg have been harvested and fused on a Petri dish, there is nothing else added to give the baby life, except to transfer him to the uterine walls of its foster mother. This gives the best technical answer, with no theoretical consideration, that the life of that baby began at the moment of the fusion of the sperm and ovum and not with the implantation inside its surrogate mother.
The afore-mentioned affirmations do not stem from theological or ideological pre-conceptions. It is a question of realities that cannot be explained in any way other than science.
With these very elementary scientific facts, would we still want to wish-think that the fertilised ovum is a non-entity until after nine months? Or that it is a mere excrescence of the body of the mother? Or until someone proclaims that it is a living being? Or simply accept that the humanness of a person is less human because some people are unable to recognise the humanness at the very first nuance?
It is true that some circumstances which may face a pregnant woman sometimes explain why people resort to abortion. But even then another fact remains that abortion never puts an end to social distress. It only adds to the tragedy.
As regards cases where abortion is the only way of saving the mothers health, let it be known that today medical opinion is virtually unanimous that cases where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life are fortunately so rare that their existence is becoming merely theoretical. In any case, as practitioners called to serve and save life, they would be expected to work towards saving the lives of both the mother and the child.
So when we see men and women who, by their very training and oath are supposed to protect human life, rooting for abortion, we should be wary; very wary.
The author is a professional mother
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Given the heat it has drawn, the abortion debate has erroneously been depicted as a battle drawn between the “conservative patriarchal” Church and “progressive feminist” thinkers.
And so as not to be swayed by any of these two schools of thought, let us, for once, put our passions, emotions and prejudices aside and discuss this contentious issue from an angle devoid of religious connotations.
There is no contradiction on the universally accepted fact that a human being is the subject of inalienable rights; and that no right is more fundamental than the right to life itself. This right to life is inviolable from the beginning of the process of conception to its natural death.
As it were, human existence does not belong to society nor does it belong to public authority so that the right to life for some people will be recognised and not for others. Rather, as citizens of this country, we have the sole duty to guard with utmost care and promote all human life.
And because the right to life demands recognition, the Constitution of this country has to provide clearly and definitively a base for the protection and sustenance of the right to life without inserting clauses that would antagonise the most fundamental rights.
In this light, the short range result of an undefined Clause on The Right to Life or the inclusion of clauses that contradict life in the Constitution would, as sure as night follows day, be legislation of abortion and its associated vices. Once people subordinate life in the early stages of its development to any other values; they thereby forfeit any future appeal to a legal system that can logically protect human life at any other point.
This means that the acceptance of abortion will open, in principle, the right to terminate human life at the end as well as at any point in between when that life is perceived to be burdensome or unwanted. Thus before long, we will have to grapple with demands for legalised euthanasia. The vices of abortion and euthanasia are directly linked to other heinous abuses to life which include infanticide, paedophilia and necrophilia.
Those who hold the reigns of government therefore, should not forget that it is the duty of public authority, by appropriate laws and sanctions, to defend the lives of the innocent. And this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves.
Now, to accept the fact that after fertilisation has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of tests or of opinion. This is because the human nature of the human being from conception to old age is no more a metaphysical contention but rather plain experimented scientific evidence.
Modern molecular biology teaches us that all living organisms begin with living and not dead cells. That a new human life, which is a much later outcome, is the result of the culmination of two living and healthy cells – the ovum and the sperm.
Further, science elaborates that from the moment that the ovum is fertilised, a new and unique human life is begun. Contained in each cell are the distinct blueprints for the genetic heritage as well as future essential characteristics of the new human being, which include sex, intellectual potentials, facts of character and temperament.
Logically, this new life would never be made human if it were not human already. Differently put: can a dead cell form a live zygote or foetus?
Science has also shown univocally that there does not exist any pre-human stage of the embryo in the mother’s body. From the moment of fertilisation on, only one and the same individual develops. It is not as if at a certain point in time a change is effected as to make the organism pass from animality to humanity.
In the case of test tube babies, after the sperm and the egg have been harvested and fused on a Petri dish, there is nothing else added to give the baby life, except to transfer him to the uterine walls of its foster mother. This gives the best technical answer, with no theoretical consideration, that the life of that baby began at the moment of the fusion of the sperm and ovum and not with the implantation inside its surrogate mother.
The afore-mentioned affirmations do not stem from theological or ideological pre-conceptions. It is a question of realities that cannot be explained in any way other than science.
With these very elementary scientific facts, would we still want to wish-think that the fertilised ovum is a non-entity until after nine months? Or that it is a mere excrescence of the body of the mother? Or until someone proclaims that it is a living being? Or simply accept that the humanness of a person is less human because some people are unable to recognise the humanness at the very first nuance?
It is true that some circumstances which may face a pregnant woman sometimes explain why people resort to abortion. But even then another fact remains that abortion never puts an end to social distress. It only adds to the tragedy.
As regards cases where abortion is the only way of saving the mothers health, let it be known that today medical opinion is virtually unanimous that cases where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life are fortunately so rare that their existence is becoming merely theoretical. In any case, as practitioners called to serve and save life, they would be expected to work towards saving the lives of both the mother and the child.
So when we see men and women who, by their very training and oath are supposed to protect human life, rooting for abortion, we should be wary; very wary.
The author is a professional mother
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Constitution – Good Draft in Mortal Danger
William Maema*
The jury is out: most Kenyans are in agreement that the draft Constitution currently being debated in and outside Parliament is the best effort yet in finding an acceptable Constitution for the country after a twenty-year barren search and billions of shillings in the drain.
The draft Constitution has, against all odds, received an almost universal thumbs up from both eternal cynics and the usually antagonistic forces across the political divide.
Unfortunately, however, two vexing issues have emerged to pose a real mortal danger to the enactment of the new Constitution, namely, the perceived backdoor legalization of abortion and the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Whereas the charge against the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution has been led almost single-handedly by Christians based on what appears to be religious rather than legal reasons, the opposition to the legalization of abortion has received the undiluted support of practically all faiths, Christians and Muslims alike.
My own take is that unless an urgent deal is struck on these issues, the fate of the draft Constitution is as good as sealed, come the national referendum in a few months’ time.
The most potent missile aimed at the draft Constitution is the perceived legalization of abortion.
As any first year constitutional law student would confirm, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency. By the same analogy, a Christian would hold that the law of God is the supreme law of the universe and any human law, including any Constitution, which is inconsistent with God’s law is null and void in its entirety, irrespective of the extent of the inconsistency.
The right to life is God-given and, therefore, according to Christian thought, no human law can negate it. Granted that even the Bible recognizes the death penalty under certain circumstances, there is no known religion or civilized culture which permits the killing of innocent persons, leave alone defenseless children by their own mothers.
The drafters of the new Constitution, probably acting under pressure from the proponents of “safe motherhood” and “reproductive health” (euphemisms for abortion), seem to have misread the mood of the majority of Kenyans on this issue. Having conceded that life begins at conception and that it is entitled to protection under the Constitution, they should not have gone out on an appeasement mission to create ridiculous and untenable exceptions to the right to life. By creating such exceptions, they have literally taken away by the left hand that which they had given Kenyans by the right hand.
To allow any medical practitioner, irrespective of his qualifications, experience or moral standing to decide whether a pregnancy should be terminated amounts to handing a signed death sentence to innocent children at the hands of professional abortionists.
What constitutes “danger to life or health of the mother”? As any gynaecologist will confirm, any pregnancy, no matter how trouble-free, potentially presents danger to the life and health of the mother. For example, a pregnant woman might suffer acute loss of appetite due to pregnancy which might be construed as danger to her health or even life. Similarly, the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy by any woman poses some danger to her mental and physical health. According to the draft Constitution, pregnancy should be terminated under circumstances such as these.
Abortion is also to be allowed “if it is permitted by any other written law”. This is the most blatant step towards the legalization of abortion yet. While currently such a law does not exist, there is nothing to prevent Parliament from passing such a law in future since it is already contemplated in the draft Constitution.
Kenyans have, of course, not forgotten that there is a Bill in the current Parliament’s register – The Reproductive Health Rights Bill, 2007 – which aims at making abortion legal in Kenya. Is this provision meant to pave way for the passage of that Bill?
Will the religious groups relent and support the draft Constitution? This is highly doubtful for the following reasons:-
First, most religions do not accept that the life of a mother is more precious than that of her unborn child since they both are created in the image of God and each is entitled to life independent of the other. On this basis, any qualification imposed on the right to life based on the preservation of the mother’s life or health at the expense of the child is unlikely to find favour with the religious groups. To that extent, Article 26(4) is fatally flawed and incapable of remedy by way of amendment and must be deleted.
Second, ironically, the right to life is not even a religious issue as such. It is a human rights issue and the religious groups are merely acting as the defender of what in reality is a universal value in all cultures i.e. the preservation of human life in all its forms.
Third, the opposition to abortion is premised on the belief that its legalization will usher in what the religious groups call the “culture of death” from which the Kenyan society will never recover.
Lastly, apart from it being illegal, abortion is a deep moral issue with profound psychological and physiological consequences which can only be appreciated and dealt with by the person concerned, whether the abortion was procured legally or illegally.
On the Kadhi’s courts, the opponents posit that the historical reasons that led to the Kadhi’s courts being enshrined in the current Constitution no longer exist. These courts were a political compromise between the Sultan of Zanzibar (who then ruled the 10 mile coastal strip) and the nascent independence Government to cajole that region to become part of Kenya. Being a minority faith, Muslims feared that the Government would later on renege on the promise and subject matters of Islamic personal law (marriage, divorce and succession) to the secular judicial system. The Government was forced to guarantee this promise by entrenching the Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Unlike in 1963, Muslims are today fully integrated into the Kenyan society and it would be unthinkable and foolhardy for any government (or Parliament) to ever contemplate antagonizing them needlessly by denying them the right to have Kadhi’s courts even if they were not enshrined in the Constitution.
The majority of Kenyans seem to be saying that Kadhi’s courts should continue to exist but they should be established by the same law under which other courts of similar level are established, that is, the Judicature Act and not the Constitution.
Parliament can salvage the draft Constitution by recommending the above amendments to the Attorney General within the thirty (30) day window of opportunity provided for by the Review law. If it fails to do so, we shall, unfortunately, be back to square one, which is a big pity considering the huge financial and intellectual capital that has gone into this process.
Will Parliament do it? Only time will tell.
*The writer is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, wmaema@ikm.co.ke
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
The jury is out: most Kenyans are in agreement that the draft Constitution currently being debated in and outside Parliament is the best effort yet in finding an acceptable Constitution for the country after a twenty-year barren search and billions of shillings in the drain.
The draft Constitution has, against all odds, received an almost universal thumbs up from both eternal cynics and the usually antagonistic forces across the political divide.
Unfortunately, however, two vexing issues have emerged to pose a real mortal danger to the enactment of the new Constitution, namely, the perceived backdoor legalization of abortion and the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Whereas the charge against the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution has been led almost single-handedly by Christians based on what appears to be religious rather than legal reasons, the opposition to the legalization of abortion has received the undiluted support of practically all faiths, Christians and Muslims alike.
My own take is that unless an urgent deal is struck on these issues, the fate of the draft Constitution is as good as sealed, come the national referendum in a few months’ time.
The most potent missile aimed at the draft Constitution is the perceived legalization of abortion.
As any first year constitutional law student would confirm, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency. By the same analogy, a Christian would hold that the law of God is the supreme law of the universe and any human law, including any Constitution, which is inconsistent with God’s law is null and void in its entirety, irrespective of the extent of the inconsistency.
The right to life is God-given and, therefore, according to Christian thought, no human law can negate it. Granted that even the Bible recognizes the death penalty under certain circumstances, there is no known religion or civilized culture which permits the killing of innocent persons, leave alone defenseless children by their own mothers.
The drafters of the new Constitution, probably acting under pressure from the proponents of “safe motherhood” and “reproductive health” (euphemisms for abortion), seem to have misread the mood of the majority of Kenyans on this issue. Having conceded that life begins at conception and that it is entitled to protection under the Constitution, they should not have gone out on an appeasement mission to create ridiculous and untenable exceptions to the right to life. By creating such exceptions, they have literally taken away by the left hand that which they had given Kenyans by the right hand.
To allow any medical practitioner, irrespective of his qualifications, experience or moral standing to decide whether a pregnancy should be terminated amounts to handing a signed death sentence to innocent children at the hands of professional abortionists.
What constitutes “danger to life or health of the mother”? As any gynaecologist will confirm, any pregnancy, no matter how trouble-free, potentially presents danger to the life and health of the mother. For example, a pregnant woman might suffer acute loss of appetite due to pregnancy which might be construed as danger to her health or even life. Similarly, the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy by any woman poses some danger to her mental and physical health. According to the draft Constitution, pregnancy should be terminated under circumstances such as these.
Abortion is also to be allowed “if it is permitted by any other written law”. This is the most blatant step towards the legalization of abortion yet. While currently such a law does not exist, there is nothing to prevent Parliament from passing such a law in future since it is already contemplated in the draft Constitution.
Kenyans have, of course, not forgotten that there is a Bill in the current Parliament’s register – The Reproductive Health Rights Bill, 2007 – which aims at making abortion legal in Kenya. Is this provision meant to pave way for the passage of that Bill?
Will the religious groups relent and support the draft Constitution? This is highly doubtful for the following reasons:-
First, most religions do not accept that the life of a mother is more precious than that of her unborn child since they both are created in the image of God and each is entitled to life independent of the other. On this basis, any qualification imposed on the right to life based on the preservation of the mother’s life or health at the expense of the child is unlikely to find favour with the religious groups. To that extent, Article 26(4) is fatally flawed and incapable of remedy by way of amendment and must be deleted.
Second, ironically, the right to life is not even a religious issue as such. It is a human rights issue and the religious groups are merely acting as the defender of what in reality is a universal value in all cultures i.e. the preservation of human life in all its forms.
Third, the opposition to abortion is premised on the belief that its legalization will usher in what the religious groups call the “culture of death” from which the Kenyan society will never recover.
Lastly, apart from it being illegal, abortion is a deep moral issue with profound psychological and physiological consequences which can only be appreciated and dealt with by the person concerned, whether the abortion was procured legally or illegally.
On the Kadhi’s courts, the opponents posit that the historical reasons that led to the Kadhi’s courts being enshrined in the current Constitution no longer exist. These courts were a political compromise between the Sultan of Zanzibar (who then ruled the 10 mile coastal strip) and the nascent independence Government to cajole that region to become part of Kenya. Being a minority faith, Muslims feared that the Government would later on renege on the promise and subject matters of Islamic personal law (marriage, divorce and succession) to the secular judicial system. The Government was forced to guarantee this promise by entrenching the Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Unlike in 1963, Muslims are today fully integrated into the Kenyan society and it would be unthinkable and foolhardy for any government (or Parliament) to ever contemplate antagonizing them needlessly by denying them the right to have Kadhi’s courts even if they were not enshrined in the Constitution.
The majority of Kenyans seem to be saying that Kadhi’s courts should continue to exist but they should be established by the same law under which other courts of similar level are established, that is, the Judicature Act and not the Constitution.
Parliament can salvage the draft Constitution by recommending the above amendments to the Attorney General within the thirty (30) day window of opportunity provided for by the Review law. If it fails to do so, we shall, unfortunately, be back to square one, which is a big pity considering the huge financial and intellectual capital that has gone into this process.
Will Parliament do it? Only time will tell.
*The writer is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, wmaema@ikm.co.ke
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)