Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Been away
It's been many months since I last wrote a word in here. A lot has been going on that kept me away. The good thing is, in about two months I'll be back. After taking the first part of 2011 to travel across Kenya and now heading to Ecuador, look out for more stories; focusing on my greater passions of Travel, HIV/AIDS and Development. Watch this space!
Monday, August 2, 2010
“Yes” or “No”, decision time for Kenya
One of the best advices anyone ever gave me was that it was likely that in immigrating I’d lose my sense of “belonging”. He said that while in my new country, I’d long for the country of my birth and vice versa. This is why after some struggle I have quit trying to either be fully Kenyan or wholly Canadian; recognizing it will never happen. For the rest of my life, I unashamedly expect to be satisfied with the hybrid third personality, sometimes 50:50 and other times 70:30, the ratio often depending on the day and the news headlines.
I can therefore confess that in recent days and up until Wednesday this week, I have been and expect to be more Kenyan than Canadian. Instead of joining in the jingle “to bring back the long-form census”, I have turned to constantly scouring news channels regarding the proposed Kenyan constitution which will be subjected to a referendum on August 4, 2010.
You cannot blame Kenyans in the diaspora for selfishly wanting this draft constitution to pass. The main reason is that one of the clauses guarantees that Kenyan citizens who acquire foreign citizenship will not lose their Kenyan citizenship. Considering that most of our families remain in Kenya and that Kenyans abroad contribute significantly to nation-building through direct financial remittances, a dual citizenship seems like a fair deal.
But looking at the bigger picture, we out here support by all means a constitution that will help Kenya improve its poor democracy as well as avoid a repeat of the 2007-08 violence which rocked the country following disputed national elections. With only two years till the next polls, Kenyans cannot afford any more senseless politicking.
It appears though that majority of Kenyans are in support of the new constitution.
Although campaigns for both the “Yes” and “No” camps have been intense, Kenyan groups and political leaders have been keen to avoid violence. But, there have been a few glitches. For instance; at a rally against the constitution in downtown Nairobi in June, grenade attacks killed six people, while a number of politicians have been charged with hate speech for inciting crowds. There have also been reports of distributed leaflets threatening violence.
Another reason the draft constitution seems to garner wide support among Kenyans is that it cuts down the president's enormous powers by setting up a presidential system with checks and balances. This is important because, 47 years after independence, one of the country’s main sources of tension remains the unequal distribution of resources; with consequent presidents being accused of favouring their tribesmen.
There is of course some opposition to the new constitution, particularly from church groups who fear it opens up the issue of abortion. They argue the abortion clause — which says abortion is not permitted unless the life or health of the mother is in danger according to the opinion of a trained health professional — could be interpreted broadly. [This is despite the proposed constitution not changing the current legality of abortion only for maternal health]. Another clause considered contentious is the inclusion of Kadhis Courts - publicly funded family courts for Muslims.
In 2005, Kenya held a referendum on a draft constitution, but it was shot down. This time around, rewriting the constitution was part of the peace deal signed in February 2008 between President Mwai Kibaki and PM Raila Odinga, who are both in support of this proposed constitution.
The way I see it albeit from outside, a yes vote will push Kenya into the future, where the country can finally embark into other issues of nation-building. Since we seem unable to correct the past, let us at least pursue a better future for all Kenyans.
Thus on this day, with only a virtual vote, I back the “Yes” campaign.
I can therefore confess that in recent days and up until Wednesday this week, I have been and expect to be more Kenyan than Canadian. Instead of joining in the jingle “to bring back the long-form census”, I have turned to constantly scouring news channels regarding the proposed Kenyan constitution which will be subjected to a referendum on August 4, 2010.
You cannot blame Kenyans in the diaspora for selfishly wanting this draft constitution to pass. The main reason is that one of the clauses guarantees that Kenyan citizens who acquire foreign citizenship will not lose their Kenyan citizenship. Considering that most of our families remain in Kenya and that Kenyans abroad contribute significantly to nation-building through direct financial remittances, a dual citizenship seems like a fair deal.
But looking at the bigger picture, we out here support by all means a constitution that will help Kenya improve its poor democracy as well as avoid a repeat of the 2007-08 violence which rocked the country following disputed national elections. With only two years till the next polls, Kenyans cannot afford any more senseless politicking.
It appears though that majority of Kenyans are in support of the new constitution.
Although campaigns for both the “Yes” and “No” camps have been intense, Kenyan groups and political leaders have been keen to avoid violence. But, there have been a few glitches. For instance; at a rally against the constitution in downtown Nairobi in June, grenade attacks killed six people, while a number of politicians have been charged with hate speech for inciting crowds. There have also been reports of distributed leaflets threatening violence.
Another reason the draft constitution seems to garner wide support among Kenyans is that it cuts down the president's enormous powers by setting up a presidential system with checks and balances. This is important because, 47 years after independence, one of the country’s main sources of tension remains the unequal distribution of resources; with consequent presidents being accused of favouring their tribesmen.
There is of course some opposition to the new constitution, particularly from church groups who fear it opens up the issue of abortion. They argue the abortion clause — which says abortion is not permitted unless the life or health of the mother is in danger according to the opinion of a trained health professional — could be interpreted broadly. [This is despite the proposed constitution not changing the current legality of abortion only for maternal health]. Another clause considered contentious is the inclusion of Kadhis Courts - publicly funded family courts for Muslims.
In 2005, Kenya held a referendum on a draft constitution, but it was shot down. This time around, rewriting the constitution was part of the peace deal signed in February 2008 between President Mwai Kibaki and PM Raila Odinga, who are both in support of this proposed constitution.
The way I see it albeit from outside, a yes vote will push Kenya into the future, where the country can finally embark into other issues of nation-building. Since we seem unable to correct the past, let us at least pursue a better future for all Kenyans.
Thus on this day, with only a virtual vote, I back the “Yes” campaign.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Fighting child sex tourism, one baby step at a time
The sentencing of Kenneth Klassen of Burnaby, B.C., for committing sex tourism with children and importing child pornography is yet another little reason for children’s rights activists to celebrate. Earlier Wednesday, the 59-year-old Canadian man who admitted to having sex with young girls in Columbia and Cambodia was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
And it’s about time!
Klassen exemplifies an ever increasing number of travelers who take opportunistic advantage of the desperately poor and vulnerable children in foreign [mostly developing] countries. These tourists exercise classic predatory behaviour, exploiting weaknesses in the enforcement of laws surrounding “child sex tourism”.
Experts estimate that more than one million children around the world, some as young as five years old, are lured or sold into the sex trade each year, often as a result of extreme poverty. Many of these children are either sold into prostitution to support families, pay off family debts, or are forcibly recruited to work in brothels.
At some point during his trial, Klassen unsuccessfully challenged Canada's sex tourism law, arguing that the incidents happened in other countries where Canadian courts have no jurisdiction. He was wrong.
Canada’s Criminal Code specifically prohibits child sex tourism. In 1997, Canada passed legislation that extraterritorially extended the criminal code to enable prosecution of Canadians for a number of sexual crimes committed against children in foreign jurisdictions. Although Klassen’s sentencing is only the fourth such conviction under this law, it is nonetheless the toughest sentence handed down yet.
Around the world, many other countries have passed similar child sex tourism laws.
Similarly, in 1989, the United Nations adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC], the first legally binding international agreement that protects children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The CRC has been ratified by 191 countries including Canada.
With such seemingly protective measures in place, why then are so many children still being exploited?
Although, arresting and prosecuting such offenders should be lauded, it’s definitely not enough. While Klassen and other international “sex tourists” significantly contribute into these skewed sexual relations with children, local populations are also to blame for supplying the “industry”. Many local and national governments also remain lenient to such crimes, often turning a blind eye to this immoral act, particularly in places where sexual exploitation is deemed lucrative by family members and the tourism industry in general.
Unquestionably each country has a right to exercise their sovereignty but it’s not enough to simply ratify the CRC. There is need for workable measures to pressure national governments to enforce existing laws to further protect children. The tourism industry, local communities and child protection agencies should all work together for better results.
This way when time comes for that much-needed vacation, it will be to get warm, discover new locations and experience different cultures, as opposed to taking part in the morally reprehensible and illegal act of child sex tourism.
And it’s about time!
Klassen exemplifies an ever increasing number of travelers who take opportunistic advantage of the desperately poor and vulnerable children in foreign [mostly developing] countries. These tourists exercise classic predatory behaviour, exploiting weaknesses in the enforcement of laws surrounding “child sex tourism”.
Experts estimate that more than one million children around the world, some as young as five years old, are lured or sold into the sex trade each year, often as a result of extreme poverty. Many of these children are either sold into prostitution to support families, pay off family debts, or are forcibly recruited to work in brothels.
At some point during his trial, Klassen unsuccessfully challenged Canada's sex tourism law, arguing that the incidents happened in other countries where Canadian courts have no jurisdiction. He was wrong.
Canada’s Criminal Code specifically prohibits child sex tourism. In 1997, Canada passed legislation that extraterritorially extended the criminal code to enable prosecution of Canadians for a number of sexual crimes committed against children in foreign jurisdictions. Although Klassen’s sentencing is only the fourth such conviction under this law, it is nonetheless the toughest sentence handed down yet.
Around the world, many other countries have passed similar child sex tourism laws.
Similarly, in 1989, the United Nations adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC], the first legally binding international agreement that protects children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The CRC has been ratified by 191 countries including Canada.
With such seemingly protective measures in place, why then are so many children still being exploited?
Although, arresting and prosecuting such offenders should be lauded, it’s definitely not enough. While Klassen and other international “sex tourists” significantly contribute into these skewed sexual relations with children, local populations are also to blame for supplying the “industry”. Many local and national governments also remain lenient to such crimes, often turning a blind eye to this immoral act, particularly in places where sexual exploitation is deemed lucrative by family members and the tourism industry in general.
Unquestionably each country has a right to exercise their sovereignty but it’s not enough to simply ratify the CRC. There is need for workable measures to pressure national governments to enforce existing laws to further protect children. The tourism industry, local communities and child protection agencies should all work together for better results.
This way when time comes for that much-needed vacation, it will be to get warm, discover new locations and experience different cultures, as opposed to taking part in the morally reprehensible and illegal act of child sex tourism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)