Kenya and the Abortion debate

Yesterday in one of our Dailies there was an "exposé" on abortion. The writer appeared amazed that this operation takes only a few minutes and it was "shocking" that in one case a woman had had six abortions and in one case she actually had it done over lunchtime and was back to class in the afternoon with nary a problem. There was also a claim that there are 29 abortions for every 100 live births. Abortion in Kenya is illegal, and many organizations are opting to educate Kenyan women, and men, on various family planning methods. Our religious organizations are pushing for the ineffective abstinence method, many corporations and NGOs are pushing for condom use while a small number (mainly religious) are pushing for faithfulness to a single partner. All of them are trying to put emphasis on prevention while, as usual in this country, they are ignoring the elephant in the room. The problem, I think, is not abortion but what leads one to abortion.

It is said that the replacement rate for a stable population is about 2.3 children per woman while in Kenya the rate is 4.38 children per woman (estimates as per 2011). This would imply that the population is growing at almost twice the replacement rate. As per 2011 estimate, Kenya is having 31.93 births per 1,000 persons and a 7.26 deaths per 1,000 persons an average increase of 24.67 per 1,000 persons. Our infant mortality rate is 43.61 per 1,000 live births, the maternal mortality rate of 5.3 per 1,000 and our HIV prevalence rate is about 6.3% with estimated deaths of about 80,000 per year.

Kenya also has a high religiosity index with over 98% of Kenyans professing some kind of deity. The three major religions (Christian Protestants, Roman Catholic and Islam) are estimated to be about 88% (though the figures for the Muslim population are disputed) while indigenous religions are about 10%. Some of these indigenous religions are an offshoot of Christianity. As of 2012 it is estimated that about 50% of Kenyans live below the poverty line. This figure has risen from 42% in 1992. The poverty rate is defined as living below 107 Kes (USD 1.25) per day. This is a country that has a health expenditure of 12% of GDP, 0.14 physicians per 1,000 persons and 1.4 hospital beds per 1,000 persons. The government spends about 20% of its budget on recurrent expenditure and only about 10% on development (2010. Sources KIPPRA).

Sex is a basic need, and all attempts to regulate and/or limit sexual activity only drives these activities underground. Kenya's highly religious and hypocritical society frowns upon sex outside of the "sacred" institution of marriage. Men are frequently frogmarched to police stations for "soiling" the marriage bed, women are stripped and beaten for straying, prostitution, casual sex and same sex liaisons are frowned upon, nay, forbidden. Women who give birth outside of marriage are frequently ostracised and considered loose. Society will shun the unmarried mother and women bear the brunt, and responsibilities, of single motherhood. For a strange reason the men who impregnated these women will frequently get off scot free or get an equivalent of a slap on the wrists. There are no social networks in place for taking care of extra children and there is a cultural folk tale that claims God provides for all children which absolves the general society the responsibility to taken care of them. Given the poverty levels it is also understandable that extra children might become an unbearable burden on the parents and society at large.

Given that the girl child will most likely drop out of school if she gets pregnant, with rapidly vanishing chances of continuing education after delivery, as well as the high chances of being thrown out of her parents home, it is actually more surprising that we do not have more abortion cases than are reported. In most cases the cost of maintenance and upkeep of the child will be borne by the woman, and even where the partner helps the income levels may severely limit the options available to the couple. With no safety net a couple facing the prospects of a child has to work out if they can realistically afford this child, not only in monetary terms, but also the social and health costs of maintaining this child.

Since women bear the brunt of this, and women also are the ones who carry this child I think it really should be in their interests to be given a choice whether, or not, to carry the child to term. A woman's choice should not be curtailed for religious and/or social reasons and since these same religious and social enforcers do not bear any of the costs of maintaining this child after delivery they should not be part of the decision whether, or not, a woman should carry a child to term. The choice ultimately is the woman's. She is the one who carries the child, she is the one who delivers the child and she is the one who will be required to take care of many aspects of that child. She thus should also be the one who decides whether, or not, the child is to be carried to term.

This, however, does not absolve the men of any responsibility towards the child. Inasmuch as a man has contributed to the conception he should also contribute to the discussion, advice, upkeep and maintenance of this child. Whereas the woman should, and must, have the ultimate choice whether to carry the child to term or not, the man, too, can state his preferences on the issue. He is an interested party, and while he may not, and should not be, the ultimate decision maker his opinion does count. He has, as our learned friends put it, locus standi.

Leaving abortion as illegal only drives the practice underground. Women, and men, will opt for an abortion for many reasons and they will procure one regardless as to its illegality. The only purpose making it illegal serves is to condemn many poor and uninformed women to premature deaths from botched or incompetently done abortions, or condemn many children, and mothers, to a lifetime of poverty and suffering with not much chance of escaping the poverty trap.

At this stage in my life I probably would not advise any woman who may have been impregnated by me to abort however if I had over my regulation 2.3 children the scenario would probably change. It is easy for one who is living in relative comfort with most of the basic necessities assured to say women should, and must, not abort, however one should have a level of empathy for other people. What do you expect a woman in school who knows her parents will disown her to do? What do you expect that woman in the slums who is already feeding 12 children to do? What do you expect that woman whose career and further prospects would be shattered by a pregnancy to do?

Religious groups cite the absolute sanctity of life in their opposition to abortion. This argument however falls flat when you consider the number of goats, cows, bacteria, chicken, viruses or even humans that are killed through human action, and inaction. It is hypocritical to claim sanctity of life when thousands of children are dying every say from preventable deceases, when thousands more are starving to death and when thousands of mothers are dying from childbirth and childbirth related complications. We seem to be more bothered about the rights of the unborn than we are about the rights of those living. We are moved more by the plight of an aborted foetus than we are by the face of a hungry child.

Perhaps let us first ban poverty, let us declare poverty a crime against the state and punish those who keep people in poverty with the same terms we punish those who procure an abortion. Let us ban social hypocrisy, let us ban hunger, let us ban ignorance and those practices that prevent us from enjoying our sex without guilt or shame. Let us make it easier and cheaper for us to control conception, let us educate our children on sex, let us ban our prejudiced views and make it easier for everyone to access information, services and satisfaction from our sexual activities. Then we can go on to ban abortion. I can assure you, though, you'll be banning an obsolete practice.

Rape and Sex in the Kenyan context

Of late there have been various stories in the media of rape committed on children and persons who are not only known, but are relatives of the victim. Rape is one subject that fascinates me. Firstly because it one of the few subjects that I am incapable of being fully rational about, and secondly it’s also one of the few crimes that I intimately know quite a number of victims.

In Kenyan law rape is dealt under Cap 3 of 2006 and is defined as:

3. (1) A person commits the offence termed rape if -
(a) he or she intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs;
(b) the other person does not consent to the penetration; or
(c) the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind.

Section 3 puts the minimum penalty as ten years and the maximum as life. Personally I’d prefer the maximum being death (but as I said earlier I am not exactly rational about this)

Section 4 on the other hand puts an interesting twist to the tale:

4. Any person who attempts to unlawfully and intentionally commit an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs is guilty of the offence of attempted rape and is liable upon conviction for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

Thus by law while attempted rape starts off with a lower sentence it can escalate into the maximum that is allowable as the case is when charged of rape.

Rape is such an unnecessary crime. Our society has glorified and mystified sex to an extent that some people get the impression that not only is sex a mysterious act but it confers mysterious powers on the person who carried out that act (usually male). There have been cases where people think that having sex with a virgin is a cure of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and gonorrhoea, or even that it will grant you success in certain ventures, and even that if you proceed on a journey, or engage in a sport, sex might bring bad luck on your endeavour. There are people who will not have sex on religious days, who will only have sex on religious day and even those who will only have sex when the star signs are potent. Some people even believe that having sex will impair your thinking and sap your strength. There is also the feeling that sex gives you power over others and many rapists consider that having forceful sex will enhance their power over their victims. Unfortunately many victims also have the same belief. On the other hand society restricts, in the name of morality, other ways of reliving sexual pressure and will frown upon a person who either goes to prostitutes or masturbates oneself. Society puts unrealistic limits on what is allowable in sex, and expects that all will adhere to this even where there is no victim.

Given the stigma associated with sex, many rape cases in this country go unreported, or if reported are only reported to councils of elders or family patriarchs and the “shame” is cleansed with arcane and superstitious rituals to prevent further curse on families. Rape, especially when it’s a man raping a female, is considered more of a stain on the family than a crime. This is especially so when the perpetrator is a member of the same family as the victim. Many African societies do not even recognise rape in the context of marriage, and they even claim that the victim has a role to play in exciting the assault and in some cases instead of giving justice to the victim they require the victim to make some sort of amends, for a consideration to the family, to appease her “sin”. The various claims of short skirts or exposed skin being a justification for heated passions are a case in point.

Prevention is haphazard and usually involves asking the potential victims to dress in a “non provocative” manner, avoid going near men or even live in seclusion so that male passions are not inflamed by the sight of a woman. For some rather strange reason men are considered unable to control themselves when faces with a sight of a woman, regardless as to the state of dress. A lot of cultures treat this as an excusable misdemeanour as they believe that the victim must have done something to excite the man and the man is understandably unable to control his reactions. This just goes to further victimise women as responsible for the crimes that are perpetuated on them.

In my rather limited personal circle I know of five women who have been raped. One was raped in the process of a robbery while the other four have been raped by close relatives. In one sad case she was repeatedly raped by her male cousins and uncles over a period of several years from the relatively young age of nine. The only action that was carried out when this was discovered was to call pastors and village elders to cleanse the bad spirits that she brought to the family. Because she developed at a rather young age it was taken that she tempted these relatives to rape her and only God, and the elders, can suitably solve this situation. Much as she seems to have recovered from the ordeal you still see glimmers of this experience from her actions and relationships with persons of the male persuasion.

The strange thing is that the law is rather strict with persons of this sort and it provides for a maximum sentence of life for these acts,

Cap 3 of 2006 of the laws of Kenya in Section 20:

20. (1) Any male person who commits an indecent act or an act which causes penetration with a female person who is to his knowledge his daughter, granddaughter, sister, mother, niece, aunt or grandmother is guilty of an offence termed incest and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years:
Provided that, if it is alleged in the information or charge and proved that the female person is under the age of eighteen years, the accused person shall be liable to imprisonment for life and it shall be immaterial that the act which causes penetration or the indecent act was obtained with the consent of the female person.

Notice that whether consent is given or not one is liable to life imprisonment if the girl is under the statutory age of eighteen. Thus a father having sex with his daughter, or an uncle having sex with his niece, or a grandfather having sex with his granddaughter would serve a lifetime sentence as long as the girl is below eighteen years and it will not matter that the girl consented to the said act. Thus the various cases we have been seeing in the news are pretty simple. All one needs to prove is that an act of penetration occurred and the perpetrator is liable to life imprisonment. What surprises me is that this does not seem to be done. Give the severity of the punishment it is even more surprising that chiefs, elders and the police let the perpetrators to get off with the legal equivalent of a slap on the hand.

The law, on the other hand, is lenient when it comes to “committing an indecent act” with a child and only provides for a maximum sentence of ten years if that child does not pass the test of relationship.

Cap 3 of 2006 Section 11. (1) Any person who commits an indecent act with a child is guilty of the offence of committing an indecent act with a child and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.

This seems to imply that if you rape a child of four years, as happened recently in Kenya, and the child is not related to you then you will be able to get out when that child is fourteen and continue molesting her. This punishment, I think, is inadequate. In a strange twist under the penal code Cap 63 section 162. Any person who:

(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or

(b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or

(c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature,

is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years:

So thus while you will get ten years for defiling a child of four years who is not related to you, you can get fourteen years for having anal consensual sex with an adult woman who does not pass the test of relationship, and you only get twenty one years if you coerced or lied to that person into having “unnatural” sex with you.

I rest my case.

Christianity and Freethought

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".

Now there are quite a number of people who believe that if one is a Christian then one cannot be a freethinker. First let’s get a few things said right at the beginning. If one forms an opinion that God exists on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism without basing it on authority, tradition or dogma then one can be said to have used the process of freethought in order to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god. Freethought does not imply that the opinions you get will be truthful, or even that they will stand all the tests of future evidence. However a freethinker should be able to change their opinions and conclusions when new evidence does appear.

Christianity is usually taken as a dogmatic religion that relies on tradition and authority to come to conclusions and opinions. However this is a narrow definition of Christianity. In my opinion anybody who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian. A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah. On the other hand Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. People who adhere to any of these ideologies are Christian, even though the latter will certainly not be called Christian by many sects of this religion. However one must admit that these self-same sects consider all other similar sects as not Christian either.

Regardless as to which definition of Christianity you use being a freethinker would not necessarily mean that one cannot be a Christian. Traditional Christianity demanded that one relied entirely on dogma and tradition to have an opinion. People who follow this ideology were required to wait for interpretation of every even and portent from authority. Thus everything, including observable fact, had to be interpreted in light of dogma. This kind of Christian can certainly never be a freethinker. However it was this oppressive ideology that gave rise to freethought as we know it. Modern Christianity is not that oppressive and there are variants that do not take logic and reason as an anathema to faith.

For most of us our first glimmer to understanding the world came from persons who had experienced it before us. They gave us their observations and opinions and we grasped them as essentials to life. We get an education in a similar manner and since the world is too large for us to experiment on everything we get most of our “facts” in a similar manner. This is a practical way to gain knowledge. A freethinker, however, is willing to question each and every “fact” of learned experience and using logic reason and empiricism should be able to validate these “facts”. If the premises are faulty, or the methods of perception are inaccurate, the results may not be factual however they would be results that are reached using the process of freethought and the person, regardless as to the accuracy of his opinions, would be a freethinker.

This process of query does not necessarily lead to abandonment, or rejection, of all previously held opinions, neither does it guarantee that previous information will be proven invalid. Thus it is entirely possible that a freethinker will end up with the conclusion that not only does God exist, but that the Christian thought is the way to approach that god. Logic is based on certain “certainties” and empirical observation is limited by perception. There are axioms that are the basis of any logic train and there is perception that underlays any empirical observation. If these axioms are changed or perception changes the same “facts” would lead to different opinions. And these changes are the reasons you have schisms of thought and religion.

As the keen of eye would have noticed, not all Christians are theists. Isn’t that, in itself, a paradigm shift, isn't it?

A new year and old resolutions

New year's day has come and gone, resolutions have been made and broken, and I am yet to give my start of year statement. I've seen many statements vilifying the year, or even the way it ended. I've heard horror stories of the way people were finally glad the year ended and hoped for better things in the year to come. I cannot claim the same. This year, for me, was an interesting year. I have gone through the gamut of rationality and emotion. I have failed a few things, and succeeded in others. I have lost and I have found. But most of all I have lived.

First let me write about someone I rarely talk about. My girlfriend. Like every other man I think she's the most beautiful person I have ever met, online and offline, and I hope that she thinks I am the partner she has always wanted to be with. She's miles away from me and I'm not even sure she knows this is about her. Yet she is one person who inspires me. She has her achievements, and failures, she has opportunities I have lost and has lost opportunities I've found, and she is one of the few people I can honestly say I'd like even if she was not my girlfriend. I cannot say she really knows what I feel about her, nor can I say that she looks at me as the infamous knight in shining amour. On third thoughts I cannot even really say that she thinks I am the person she wants to spend her life, or even those few minutes, with. There is quite a lot I do not know about her, and there is a lot she does not know about me, and yet even in that ignorance there is a lot I do know, and what I know I want to be with. You see, it's not about her, her looks, her character, her habits or even what she has done, it's about me. Even she she had not noticed me, or even talked to me I would still think she is beautiful. Even if she had stuck to the parameters which we had first met I'd still think her somebody worth knowing. My life is enriched by having her in my life whichever way she gets into it.

Then we have my friends. Those I met through FIKA. Those we decided to THINK! together. Those we decided that the change begins with us. We have met, talked, discussed, drank and done stuff together. We have a long year ahead of us and a lot of our work is cut out for us. We have to change our villages, our towns, our countries and our world. We have to try, even when it appears hopeles. We have to reach out and clear the world of ignorance inasmuch as it is the desired state, and we have to stand up and say THINK! It is a journey we have started, and it would be sad if we do not continue. It's a journey without end, for even while we clear the mists of ignorance we raise the spectre of prejudice, elitism and intolerance. We have to constantly watch against ourselves even as we watch out against others. We have to remember that we may lead people to the promise land but like the Moses, of fable, we may not reach it ourselves, but that should not stop us from showing the way.

 A new year usually comes with the undeserved expectation of new things. We forget that the old us keeps on going even when the year changes. If we do not change over a new day we should not expect to change over a new year. We are the same people, we have the same prejudices, we have the same wants, needs, desires and dislikes. Changing the date does not change us, the only way that we will change is if we change ourselves. However even while I reach out the conciliatory hand towards others of unlike belief, I will not coddle injustice, or lie in a bed of intolerance. I will not stand irrationality or countenance bigotry. I will not stand by and see ignorance rule and neither will I give respect to ideas that oppress us and keep us in bondage. Our public conduct, or public rules and our public behaviour should be based on rationality and logic. While I'll respect your right to believe I expect you to know that your right ends where it infringes on the liberty of others, and respecting
your right does not prevent me from ridiculing, laughing at or even condemning your ideas. If your ideas, or mine, appear in public space they will be subject to criticism, ridicule and analysis in the measure that they deserve. You, and I, have no automatic right to a hearing. To my girlfriend I do hope we spend a large part of my life together.

To my FIKA compatriots we need to THINK! To my friends lets take ourselves out of the quagmire we found ourselves in and to my enemies, it did not really need to be this way.

Lets take a deep breath and look at what we are doing to the world, to our countries and to our fellow humans. Let's ask ourselves if that is what they'd want to be done to them, and let's consider that even while we may think we are right we are not the ultimate, or the only, source of goodness in this world. As the earth rotates and we appear to see a new sun let's dedicate this period to making the world a better place than we found it.

 As for my new year's resolution, it will be 1680 by 1050. It will have to suffice.

Holy Lot

There was this great man in ancient times. Lot his name was. Lot was the nephew of Abram, he who later took on the name Abraham. Abram was one rather crafty man. At one time, when Abram was faced with a famine, he saw a way he could get rich in Egypt. He went down to Egypt and since his wife was rather beautiful, he decided to pimp her to the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh's officials. The Pharaoh saw this rather beautiful available woman and decided to appropriate her for himself. In a fit of generosity the Pharaoh gave Abram sheep, cattle, donkeys, male and female servants and even camels. Abram even got silver and gold. Sarai, Abrams wife, had certainly pleased the Pharaoh rather much.

Now the Pharaoh did not know that Sarai was Abrams wife, and Abram had also neglected to tell the Pharaoh that Sarai had a venereal disease. After a period of Sarai gallivanting about the palace she had spread this disease about the household. Pharaoh's doctors soon identified the source and advised him to get rid of her. Being a rather superstitious fellow, the Pharaoh sent Sarai back to Abram, and made sure that everything Abram had touched was sent away with them so that no vestiges of that disease may remain in his household. Abram thus left with quite a lot of stuff that he did not come with. What is not so clear from the story is whether Sarai got cured or Abram was immune to her disease.

Now Abram left Egypt and when along with his nephew Lot. Since Abram had quite a lot of stuff and Lot, too, had his own animals and tents, their servants began quarrelling over water and grazing rights. So Abram suggested that they part ways. Abram went to Canaan while Lot, who had acquired a taste for city life, camped near Sodom.

About that time war broke out and Lot and his goods were carried off as war booty when Sodom and Gomorra were defeated. Abram could not see how all that stuff could be taken so he got 318 men together and waited until night to attack. He managed to completely rout the enemy gaining back Lot, Lot's goods as well as women and a few other people. The kings were happy and Abram to keep Melchizedek (one of those kings) happy gave him a whole tenth of his stuff. However he refuses to give the king of Sodom anything.

Lot went back to Sodom as he still loved city life. He loved sitting by the gateway watching the city life flow by him. One of those days he sees two strangers approach. Knowing that the city can be rather dangerous especially for rural fellow he insisted that they come and spend the night in his house. He gave them unleavened bread and prepared for them a place to sleep. Rumours soon run around the city that there were two strangers in Lot's house and the men of the city decided it would be a nice time to have an orgy. They came and surrounded Lot's house and demanded that these new men come over for a bit of hanky panky with the city crowd.

Lot thinks "Oh! Abomination".

Lot looks around his household and sees that he only has his wife and two daughters therein and no men he can offer to the mob. He thinks "These my daughter oh. They are about to be married anyway. Perhaps if I give them to the mob they'll gain enough experience to please their future husbands. After all they are virgins and not very useful to anyone"

So Lot goes out to the crowd and offers them his daughters. The crowd, however, does not want the women. They left theirs in the houses to have fresh meat and they've been seeing these ones around ever. The crowd wants fresh ass. They even promise Lot that if they get his ass, his lot will be a lot worse. The strangers seeing this happen pull Lot back inside and throw some sort of tear gas that manages to disperse the crowd.

So now these strangers tell Lot that their boss has sent them to organize a tactical strike against that city. They urge him to get his people and run. Lot immediately goes to his future sons in law who had already paid dowry for his daughters and tries to get them to flee with him. The boys thought Lot was some sort of joker and laughed him off. Early in the morning the strangers tell him to get out. Lot still hesitates so they take his hand and that of his wife and daughters and lead him to the gate. They tell Lot to flee to the mountains and not to look back.

Lot being a city man begs to be let to flee to a small town nearby as he cannot fathom how he'll survive in the mountains. The two Angels (yes that's what they were) tell him they will spare this small city, Zoar (meaning small), from the strike but he'd better hurry. By the time Lot got to Zoar, the sun had risen and the tactical strike had started. Lot's wife finds it hard to believe all that property is lost and turns to look back. The Angels' boss, however, does not want anybody to report on the weapons used so he turns one of the weapons towards her and turns her into a block of sodium chloride.

After seeing all this destruction Lot got mighty afraid to live in towns so he got his daughters and settled in a cave upon the mountains. Now Lot had lost all his men and female servants as well as most of his goods when he fled from Sodom, however his daughters did not see the point of them not getting some even though they were alone in the mountain cave. The daughters hatched a plot and decided that they'll be getting their father drunk then they will take turns. As these things happen they eventually got pregnant and they both had sons. Through all this hanky panky Lot apparently did not know who he'd been spending exhaustive nights with.

And that is the authenticated story of a holy and righteous man called Lot.

To the Women of my life

I've had quite a lot of women in my life. Mothers, sisters, teachers, aunts, cousins, friends and even lovers. Each of these women have left a mark on me. Some have died, some are still alive. I have made them happy, disappointed them, annoyed them, amused them, flattered them, ashamed them and I still suffer the consequences of all my actions good and bad. One thing however all of them had in common was a personal network of female friends and relatives who they could rely on to support them in times of crisis and joy.

You can never have a relationship with a woman on her own. You'll have a relationship with her and her network, albeit at a distance. This network will monitor you, criticize you, suggest changes to be made in you and generally see to the wellbeing and downfall of your relationship. They will directly and indirectly influence the way you are perceived and will also provide diverse views on the suitability of this relationship. Whatever kind of relationship you will have with the women in your life you will share with the network in hers. This network also serves a very important purpose to women. When relationships get grim they serve a support network to grieve with, laugh with, vilify and rebuild the self esteem of the woman. When the relationships are going well they will serve as a mirror to show how well you have it. Sometimes this network will destroy a relationship indadvertedly or deliberately. They still will, however, lend their support when this happens.

We men, on the other hand, tend not to have this personal relationship with our networks. Most of our networks only touch on the surface of what we are. We have business networks, social networks and family networks. While elements in these networks may overlap, we do not have personal networks. We do not have the emotional crutch we can rely on when we need it. We maintain a distance around us, with our male friends, and limit interaction to those areas that a network is meant for. A man's emotional crutch is the women in his life. These are the only people we ever seem to touch with on a deep emotional level and rely on as our emotional crutches, and very erratic crutches these are. Mothers die, sisters get married, friends move into other relationships and even lovers sometimes give up on you. This is probably why it is a devastating experience for a man to love and lose. When we lose our lovers we do not just lose a relationship, we lose our only emotional crutch. We lose the only outlet we have for release. The loss, for us men, is greater then the face we put on it.

I am proud of the women in my life, past and present. I know there are probably a few things that I'd wish had not happened but in sharing their lives with mine they have made me what I am today. I wouldn't be me without them. To the women in my life I thank you for having been there. Happy belated Women's Day.

Kenya and the Bashir Fiasco

There has been a lot of hullabaloo about Kenya inviting Bashir to our promulgation ceremonies. My bone of contention here is whether indeed Kenya invited Bashir to the ceremonies. I can hear choruses of "Yes". However I still disagree. Lets look at the circumstances surrounding the invite and, indeed, the country Kenya.

Kenya has just undergone a major transformation in the way it is governed. Naturally we had to celebrate, and in the celebration we had to invite our neigbours and friends to celebrate with us. Kenya is bordered by Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. In addition we do have a common market agreement with Rwanda and Burundi, as well as a different agreement with the Comesa countries. To cap that we have historical ties with the United Kingdom. The United States of America, the European Union and China have been generous donors and the US of A in particular has been a rather severe critic and taskmaster. All these countries are considered our friends and neighbours, and as such in the event of a major celebration they certainly should be invited to attend.

Kenya, unlike some superpowers I will not mention, has ratified the ICC and as such is is required to arrest Bashir if he does set foot on Kenya jurisdiction. Given American behaviour in Afghanistan and Iraq I suspect that the Americans will probably see justification in Kenya raiding sudan to capture Bashir. This latter behaviour is illegal, unless the US of A does it, in which case the international media consider it a justified regime change.

Kenya invited representatives of the countries it considers our friends and neighbours. Sudan sent the president to represent it. Kenya did not invite Bashir for the ceremonies, it invited the President of the Republic of the Sudan. Bashir, as such, was not here as Bashir. He was here as the president of the Republic of the Sudan. Last time I checked the ICC had not issued an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan and Kenya, thus, is not obliged to arrest the president. Arresting Bashir would have been arresting the President of Sudan and would be not only bad manners but a major breach of protocol.

If, say, between the time the invite was issued and the promulgation date the person occupying the office of the President of Sudan had changed, that person would have come instead. If we insist that Bashir and the President of Sudan are one and the same then the ICC would have exceeded it mandate by insisting that a country be arrested. Bashir can, and should, be arrested if he travels in his capacity as Bashir, however the President of Sudan should not be arrested. During his time here Bashir was the country, and Kenya would be in breach of multiple agreements as well as protocol to arrest the President of Sudan. As a matter of fact it probably would be considered a declaration of war against the Sudan.