Kenya Talks

VERDICT: UHURUTO to RAN.


Reason.
- One cannot LEGISLATE ETHICS.
- Ethics is personal and cannot be societal.

Corruption can be Defined, but ETHICS ... my foot. .. think GOLDMAN SACHS.

1.Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
2.The moral correctness of specified conduct.

Here is a distinction without a difference; one that illustrates the difficulty of legislating ethics.
If it is proper for parents to select a genetic makeup for their child that screens out the breast cancer gene, why is it improper for those parents to screen in genes that can make their child a great shortstop or an acclaimed concert pianist?

...
if one is charged in court and not yet proved guilty. Why then can you bar them ...... the key verdict

THE 3 JUDGES VERDICT: YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY.
Uhuruto can ran.

VERY GOOD NEWS

Ati you cannot legislate ethics. What kind of nonesense is that. No learned judge will make such a stupid stament because it would be an oxymoron. Ethics is the discipline dealing with what is Good and Bad and with the moral duties and obligations. Or moral systmes and a theory of values. If you read chapter six, it is is riddled with a system of values and moral principles about the kind of people who should take leadership in Kenya. It then directs the legislatures to make the appropriate rules consistent with the clearly enunciated moral principles laid down. Chapter Six is like a doctors prescription and the parliament is like the pharmacist. The pharmiscist has a very little leeway to dispense the medication. They may give you the liguid, or the powder or the tablet or the brand name or other geneneric versions of the drug but they cannot give you anything they want. And if they do, the patient can go back to the doctor and the doctor will direct the pharmacist to comply strictly with his directives.

Most of you are very slow to understand why we are very confident that Uhuruto will be barred but I think it is not because you cannot understand these simple principles since most of you are clearly of avarage intelligence. The problem is that you are toooooo obssessed with your tribalism you cannot even shake if off for a second to deal with reality.

Now you bring in tribalism. lets put that aside and just talk ethics.
Okay.

You can't legislate ethics. Sorry, it would be nice if you could, but you can't. Why? Well, it's pretty simple. Ethical behavior is how a person acts when they think no one is looking and they believe there is no chance of them getting caught.
Somethings can be legislated, some can't. Ethics is one of those things that can't. Sure, you can pass new laws that make you feel better, but they won't make people behave ethically. Which leaves us with the question of whether or not we need ethics laws?
Stop and think for a minute and you'll realize that we don't. Several elected officials have been indicted in the last couple of years under current laws, so we know there are laws on the books to punish those whose unethical behavior is illegal.

Some body once said
"The issue here is ethical conduct, You're never going to be able to legislate morals. You have those rules in and look at what is happening there."

So, where does that leave us? If we really want ethical politicians, then we as voters need to take the time to care enough to vote out those who do not act ethically. That's the solution, plain and simple.

TWENDE KWA DEBE>

Ethical issues are like fire and water, the two sides can never be satisfied. Every government in the world must face the issue of legislating the ethical issues. On a larger scale, the government provides legislation that regulates the activities carried within the society. Those regulations are essential in providing order and ensuring the smooth function of activities. Most importantly, the legislation sets a standard, based on the judgment of the society, as to what is acceptable and what is not. However, the government legislators reaches a dilemma when faced with ethical issues where right and wrong are separated by a rather faint line in the morals of each individual. Common consensus is rarely, if ever, reached

The problem with you is that you listen to slogans and conclusory statements from people and you regurgitate them without thinking.

You assert that you cannot legislate ethics. let us break it down. Legislation is law which has been enacted by a legislative body. Ethics is the discipline dealing with the good or the bad. Most of the laws are about good/and bad. When the legislatures make a law against stealing, corruption, murder, rape, arson, etc. What the FCCKKK do you think they are doing?? They are legislationg morality or ethics-kumbafffffffffff

Yess, the government regulates all the activities in a society including ethical and moral issues-dimwit!! and that includes things that you do when nobody is watching you, Think, Thinkk!!!!

The penal law describes the unaaccepted moral or ethical behviour then prescribes a penalty. For example, "stealing is 1)intentional taking away 2)of another persons property, 3)without permission, bla blaa blaaa". Then, the penalty. "Anybody who is found guilty of stealing will be jailed for 2 months and pay a fine of ksh. 500". If that is not legislating morality or ethics then you and I leave in different planets and there is nothing to talk about.

ICC is aside the much waited ruling is aside. I feel sorry for demented folks like Kichwa and Raila supporters in general. Uhuru and Ruto will run and one of them will win hands down! Find something better to do guys.

Mwalimu and Kichwa in a bout of conjectural fisticuffs. Hehe. Each one trying to collapse the wave function in his favor. I Dont know what the verdict will be but one of you will munch his words tomorrow

My2cents. The matter will not end tommorow. If the appeal court rules in favor of Uhuruto then the matter will definately go to the supreme court where I believe chapter six will be upheld. If the court bars Uhuruto from running, they may see the writing on the wall, refuse to appeal and milk the sympathy, and avoid the humuliation when the supreme court finally brings down the gauntlet and ends this nonsense where people who are defends at the ICC are allowed to run for office. I can just see the newspaper headlines in New York, Washington, London, Paris, and the free wolrd. DEFENDANTS AT THE ICC CHARGED WITH MURDER AND RAPE CLEARED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT BY THE APPEAL COURT OF KENYAN. That would be the most humuliating thing and chapter six clearly cautions against any action by any state office holders which includes judges, demeaning the state office that they hold and also that they should act in a way to bring honour to the office. Allowing people charged with murder and rape is definately not bringing honor to the office of an appelllate judge but definately demeans the entire nation by making it a laughingstock. This is why I am confident that the no judge in their right mind will rule that Uhuruto should ran.

Kichwa Mbaya wrote:My2cents. The matter will not end tommorow. If the appeal court rules in favor of Uhuruto then the matter will definately go to the supreme court where I believe chapter six will be upheld. If the court bars Uhuruto from running, they may see the writing on the wall, refuse to appeal and milk the sympathy, and avoid the humuliation when the supreme court finally brings down the gauntlet and ends this nonsense where people who are defends at the ICC are allowed to run for office. I can just see the newspaper headlines in New York, Washington, London, Paris, and the free wolrd. DEFENDANTS AT THE ICC CHARGED WITH MURDER AND RAPE CLEARED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT BY THE APPEAL COURT OF KENYAN. That would be the most humuliating thing and chapter six clearly cautions against any action by any state office holders which includes judges, demeaning the state office that they hold and also that they should act in a way to bring honour to the office. Allowing people charged with murder and rape is definately not bringing honor to the office of an appelllate judge but definately demeans the entire nation by making it a laughingstock. This is why I am confident that the no judge in their right mind will rule that Uhuruto should ran.

......and what do you think will happen after that verdict? will it be good for kenya and her people? Will it instil a sense of belonging to the larger populace? will it have a negative or positive aura around it? i know you will argue that the Law is the Law but the well being of the drafters of the constitution (Kenyans) comes first more than anything else.

Individual's Constitutional Rights are not exercised subject to a grouping of Citizenry, even an entire Nation, not being embarrassed or humiliated in the exercise of that Individual's Constitutional Rights. These Rights are not d38252762d3d4fd229faae637fd13f4eted to an Individual by the Nation, nor can they be exercised at the convenience of that Nation, Period. Individual Constitutional Rights are inherent to the Individual. Like the Orignial Sin, hehe! To suggest that any world authority nullifies the Rights to fair trial with requirement for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubts, to all freedoms until right of appeal is fully discharged, on the mere perception that such exercise would bring shame to Kenya is the most audacious nonsense ever expressed. Indeed the Kenya Nation collectively guarantees those individual Rights, the defense to which no price to this Nation is too great to pay. Because such safeguards to individual Rights aggregate to our Nationhood. Some people on this forum qualify to be placed under suicide watch right this instant, aiseee!!

Moronic assholes this is not Moi time when the law can be changed just like that, these days Kenyans are serious people. Huru and Roti are not going anywhere. The best thing supporters of Uhuru and Ruto can do is support the Hon. Mudavadi because that is also the only person who can save them from Hague and also develop this country.

OLe N. how many times will I tell you that being the president of a country is not a right. It is a privilege that is bestowed upon very few people who meet very stringent requirements. There are several requirements just to be on the ballot including age, citizenry, education and the newly added integrity. Then you have to jump another hoop, the voters. It's only when you clear all these hurdles do you become the president. Nobody is entitled to it by birth or other status. The rules apply across the board and that includes Uhuruto.

ole Nkarei wrote:Individual's Constitutional Rights are not exercised subject to a grouping of Citizenry, even an entire Nation, not being embarrassed or humiliated in the exercise of that Individual's Constitutional Rights. These Rights are not d38252762d3d4fd229faae637fd13f4eted to an Individual by the Nation, nor can they be exercised at the convenience of that Nation, Period. Individual Constitutional Rights are inherent to the Individual. Like the Orignial Sin, hehe! To suggest that any world authority nullifies the Rights to fair trial with requirement for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubts, to all freedoms until right of appeal is fully discharged, on the mere perception that such exercise would bring shame to Kenya is the most audacious nonsense ever expressed. Indeed the Kenya Nation collectively guarantees those individual Rights, the defense to which no price to this Nation is too great to pay. Because such safeguards to individual Rights aggregate to our Nationhood. Some people on this forum qualify to be plaQced under suicide watch right this instant, aiseee!!

Kichwa - we are diametrically on opposites due to our different points of departure. Your argument that no one is entitled to the Presidency is absolutely valid since that is not a entitlement at all, but a honor/onus hoisted by the People of Kenya upon someone. And the People of Kenya will choice the means and the times. My contention, and i suspect of several others here, is simple the Rights of every individual in Kenya as we defined for ourselves in our Constitution. whileas you argue that certain qualifications differentiate one Kenyan from another in the matter of the selection to public office, I contend humbly that the guiding principle in the means employed in making this selection are defined just as clearly in our Constitution specifically in the definitions of what are our uniform base rights of citizenry in that Bill of Rights. Protected and inviolable under whatever circumstance. No subsequent laws by any body can redact an iota from this Bill of Rights. And in this specific instance, it is the Right to Fair Trial with all its attendant encumbrances that make utter nonsense any notions that may be crafted of political definitions of probity of any citizen where the exercise of the right to offer themselves for public office is concerned - only the People can choose whether or not to bestow Office, and the People exercise this sovereign right in the manner that they have defined themselves without hindrances of considerations not provided for in their Constitution. Anyway let us wait for the determination tomorrow, and see it whether or not the matter will rest or be kicked up to the superior court.

Kichwa Mbaya wrote:OLe N. how many times will I tell you that being the president of a country is not a right. It is a privilege that is bestowed upon very few people who meet very stringent requirements. There are several requirements just to be on the ballot including age, citizenry, education and the newly added integrity. Then you have to jump another hoop, the voters. It's only when you clear all these hurdles do you become the president. Nobody is entitled to it by birth or other status. The rules apply across the board and that includes Uhuruto.

ole Nkarei wrote:Individual's Constitutional Rights are not exercised subject to a grouping of Citizenry, even an entire Nation, not being embarrassed or humiliated in the exercise of that Individual's Constitutional Rights. These Rights are not d38252762d3d4fd229faae637fd13f4eted to an Individual by the Nation, nor can they be exercised at the convenience of that Nation, Period. Individual Constitutional Rights are inherent to the Individual. Like the Orignial Sin, hehe! To suggest that any world authority nullifies the Rights to fair trial with requirement for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubts, to all freedoms until right of appeal is fully discharged, on the mere perception that such exercise would bring shame to Kenya is the most audacious nonsense ever expressed. Indeed the Kenya Nation collectively guarantees those individual Rights, the defense to which no price to this Nation is too great to pay. Because such safeguards to individual Rights aggregate to our Nationhood. Some people on this forum qualify to be plaQced under suicide watch right this instant, aiseee!!

ole Nakeri you need to read and understand some of those military heroes you quote, which means you must do some thinking but first pull your head out of your asshole. The only thing Huru and Roti will be doing is getting ready for prison at the ICC, and I will remind you of this when the trial starts and ask you about your bill of rights that even those criminals dont know about. How come a corporal who deserted the army is such an expert on things that their expensive lawyers dont know, when will they file this bill of rights case in Kenyans courts? WHEN IT ALL COMES DOWN I WILL HAVE A VERY GOOD LAUGH ON YOU FAKE SOLDIER BOY ASSHOLE.