The Following is from The Citizen Newspaper that I thought you would be interested in knowing
Yesterday we published a hair-raising report detailing a horrendous mix-up in which Muhimbili doctors have performed wrong surgical operations on two patients. In the bizarre mix-up,a 21-year old patient who had been admitted with a swollen knee,took head surgery meant for a student who underwent a simple knee operation instead.
After the wrong surgery,the youth fell into a coma and is now fighting for his life in the intensive care unit. Latest reports indicate that an inquiry has been instituted to carry out investigations in an administrative move to try to establish how the doctors or nurses might have swapped the patients and had them face the knife for ailments they were not suffering from.
What is shocking is that the hospital administration is treating the incident as normal and some doctors would frown when somebody dare ask them about the two young men. Indeed,there are a good number of unreported cases where patients after being operated on,were thereafter to be found with cotton swabs or other foreign objects forgotten in their abdomens.
The recent mix-up at our leading hospital is an incident to be treated with the utmost urgency it deserves and whoever was involved should be held responsible. If their explanation is insufficient let them bear the full brunt of the law. We should not at any stage,or for unknown reasons,condone such inefficiency in our hospitals.
We make this appeal not because we doubt the integrity of the health facility's leadership,but as a wake-up call to the powers that be,to remind them that something nasty has occurred or some medical personnel,for reasons known to themselves,may tarnish the image of the lead health facility in the country.
No one should be prepared to witness such an ugly event happen in the full view of wananchi.
Showing posts with label UJAMAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UJAMAA. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Slaa's Bombshell
Firstly let me once agaoin apologize to all my readers for the long delay between posts. Hopefully from this point on the frequency of posts will become more regular.
Getting straight into the story, on the 15th September, 2007 the Group-of-Four opposition in Tanzania released a public report highlighting the most corrupt officials in the country. This list was intended to show how the misuse of public funds is the reason why millions of Tanzanians today still live in abject poverty.
Obviously, one can put into question the real motives behind these political heavyweights, especially former Catholic Priest, Dr. Wilbrod Slaa (Secretary-General of CHADEMA)however, what is more important and relevant is the reaction to these claims.
On this list was The President, Mr. JK himself, as well as prominent lawyer Nimrod Mkono, and other high-ranking public officials. These claims are supposedly corroborated by from reports of the Government Controller & Auditor-General, and the Business Registration & Licensing Agency.
For the first few days after these allegations were made there was complete silence, and then suddenly, rather then remedying this negative attention, the government and its cronies exacerbated the problem through public mud-slinging and political expressions of brawn.
Minister of Good Governance in the President's office Phillip Marmo said that there were some leaders that had amassed wealth through dubious methods and a "list of malefactors will be submitted to the President soon". Yes another ominous list. It seems like our current phase government is always making lists- we must have a lot of dirty laundry to air out.
Mkono's reaction to the accusations was less subtle, and he made a public press conference refuting the claims and ridiculing the opposition. A note to mention, for a high-ranking, influentual lawayer he didn't speak to confidently or eloquently. Nerves I presume?
So, that is the break-down of Slaa's bombshell, and its immediate repurcussions. I would love to hear your views on the matter and what you think about the state of graft in the country. Feel free to leave a list.
Getting straight into the story, on the 15th September, 2007 the Group-of-Four opposition in Tanzania released a public report highlighting the most corrupt officials in the country. This list was intended to show how the misuse of public funds is the reason why millions of Tanzanians today still live in abject poverty.
Obviously, one can put into question the real motives behind these political heavyweights, especially former Catholic Priest, Dr. Wilbrod Slaa (Secretary-General of CHADEMA)however, what is more important and relevant is the reaction to these claims.
On this list was The President, Mr. JK himself, as well as prominent lawyer Nimrod Mkono, and other high-ranking public officials. These claims are supposedly corroborated by from reports of the Government Controller & Auditor-General, and the Business Registration & Licensing Agency.
For the first few days after these allegations were made there was complete silence, and then suddenly, rather then remedying this negative attention, the government and its cronies exacerbated the problem through public mud-slinging and political expressions of brawn.
Minister of Good Governance in the President's office Phillip Marmo said that there were some leaders that had amassed wealth through dubious methods and a "list of malefactors will be submitted to the President soon". Yes another ominous list. It seems like our current phase government is always making lists- we must have a lot of dirty laundry to air out.
Mkono's reaction to the accusations was less subtle, and he made a public press conference refuting the claims and ridiculing the opposition. A note to mention, for a high-ranking, influentual lawayer he didn't speak to confidently or eloquently. Nerves I presume?
So, that is the break-down of Slaa's bombshell, and its immediate repurcussions. I would love to hear your views on the matter and what you think about the state of graft in the country. Feel free to leave a list.
Monday, July 23, 2007
A place we call home
There is a lot about Tanzania people do not understand. There is a lot that people choose to disregard. And even more devastating, there are a lot of people that are being disregarded in recent times. Whether it is the Begging Somali, the Grieving Burundian, The enterprising Kenyan or the shameless Muhindi, Tanzania has slowly but surely evolved into xenophobic society. If there is one aspect of our social development and growth that I could influence, I would choose this one; for it is my firm belief that a nation is built on humans and not nationals.
For the purpose of clarity, it is important to firstly define the term. What is the meaning behind the cryptic term of being a ‘national’ or a ‘citizen’? Where do these arbitrary labels and designations stem from, especially in a country and continent so rich in diversity as ours?
To take our contemporary model of society and our ‘nation-state’ into full perspective one must look back at how this model came into existence. In 1884, leaders of the Imperialist European powers called a conference; this conference was to epitomize the colonization and the ‘scramble for Africa’. At the 1884 Berlin Conference, the European powers sat in front of a blown up map of the African continent, and quite literally started dividing it up amongst themselves. The divisions and borders established in this forum were not based upon the natural boundaries which already existed in the continent, nor the rational categorization based upon tribal affiliations, but rather was based upon the individual powers these European countries had at this time. The continent was divided according to personal whims and declarations of authority on a sycophantic scale. The powers-that-be were basing their accruing of these large portions of African land under the façade of being saviors for the savage natives that populate them. I do not wish to dwell to deep in to the historical interpretations of the act, this can be done on personal desire for further inquiry, I would just like to lay the context of how our current African countries came into existence.
Fast-forward 78 years and you will be at the height of Tanzania’s and much of the continent’s plight for independence. Led by the intelligent and progressive leader, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere we gained our independence and developed our personal trajectory for the future. Nyerere, took it upon himself to ensure that our country would not be thrown into chaotic disaccord due to the irrational borders established at the Berlin Conference of 1884. He tried to diffuse as much as possible the affiliation of the individual to his community and tribe and replaced it with affiliation to the nation and continent. Again I am not going to establish a detailed historical discourse, but rather set the tone of my primary point. Nyerere ensured that Tanzania wouldn’t suffer from tribal irritations by making all tribal leaders major parts of the national government, as well as by his Pan-Africanist policies and adopting Kiswahili as the national language of the country. In turn Tanzania has been safe from the violent tribal outbursts seen and still going on in many in fact most African countries.
Technically if one looks at the Ancestral origins of ‘Tanzanians’ you see a hodgepodge of different cultures, tribal backgrounds and heritage. Many of our leaders can in fact trace their lineage to Northern Mozambique, Zulu South Africa as well as landlocked countries Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. In essence the relevance of the populace’s ethnic origins is none and that is the view of which I wish to propose and establish in this piece.
Maintaining Nyerere’s strong Pan-Africanist views is essential to the long-term development of the nation. Historians, Politicians and those involved with public policy will all recognize the immense influence Nyerere’s approaches to the nation-state contribute to the abolition of the said state. He in essence believed that arbitrary borders and national divisions were a detriment to the overall development and well being of people, and took the view that to build on the common humanity shared between all would create a positive outlook for all. The clearest example of Nyerere’s views put into practice is the 1978 humanitarian intervention that he led in Uganda. Obviously there are critics and those who will choose to disregard the reality of the intervention, and I myself will in no way pretend that I have any scholarly qualification in the matter, however in my view and in the view of the collective majority, the reason behind the 1978 invasion into Uganda was solely to depose the despotic regime of Idi Amin Dada and his gross human rights violations in the country. Tanzania’s invasion into Uganda was not pre-emptive and was initiated only after Amin called for the mass exodus of all Ugandans of Asian descent and the Ugandan army breaching state lines and entering into Tanzania’s national territory. Regardless, Nyerere’s reasons for intervening in the Ugandan crisis were solely of a humanitarian motive and based on the ideal of helping your fellow man. Nyerere was also an advocate for African intervention in conflict zones such as Rwanda and Burundi, Sudan and other areas around the continent. This view is best illustrated in a statement Nyerere once made, this is not an exact quote but only what I can recall “How anyone can expel a certain group of people and say you are no longer part of this country baffles me. Tomorrow someone can say I must go because I don’t belong, and then you must go and eventually we will all go”.
So I believe it is quite safe to assume that at least part of the reason for the Ugandan invasion was humanitarian and to embrace and help our fellow humans. Nyerere was also instrumental in establishing the commissions for peace in Arusha; he also welcomed refugees from other African nations with open arms. Once again I do not intend to delve into specifics and engage a debate into the reasons behind his actions, rather I believe his action themselves are adequate enough to emphasize my overall point.
So with all this contextual information I have highlighted, what does this really have to do with my initial question of “what is a national?” Well everything in fact, our history is laden with persecution and oppression, but it is also filled with hope and love for our common humanity, no better expressed than through the actions of the Father of our Nation. Yet if one was to look at Tanzania today it would be very difficult to find traces of this fraternal bond with the continent and the globe as a whole, rather we are instead becoming more exclusive and un-accommodating. If you ask many Tanzanians today they will tell you, ‘The Kenyans must go (highlighted in Tanzania’s lack of education and opposition to the East African Federation), The refugees must go, The Congolese must go, The Somalis must go, The Indians must go, The Burundian must go, The Rwandese must go, The South Africans must go, The Ugandans must go, with all these people that must go, who in essence will be left?
We are a country built on the bonds of brotherhood; we are irrefutably a country of immense beauty and lovely people. Please, don’t ostracize and discriminate; please do not send Tanzanians away. Where will we go?
I believe it is possible and in fact essential for one to not limit where there national allegiances lie because of their race, religion, country of origin or even where they were born! A national is someone who has laid there heart on the land, and is willing to leave it there long after he or she leaves.
Fellow countrymen, fell continent-men, fellow humans I ask you, I plead for you to stop your xenophobic actions, for in the end, my land is our land.
To answer the initial question of what is a National, or what is a citizen I respond with the simple word: Us.
The enchanted dream, the true dream, the real dream is the collective dream.
For the purpose of clarity, it is important to firstly define the term. What is the meaning behind the cryptic term of being a ‘national’ or a ‘citizen’? Where do these arbitrary labels and designations stem from, especially in a country and continent so rich in diversity as ours?
To take our contemporary model of society and our ‘nation-state’ into full perspective one must look back at how this model came into existence. In 1884, leaders of the Imperialist European powers called a conference; this conference was to epitomize the colonization and the ‘scramble for Africa’. At the 1884 Berlin Conference, the European powers sat in front of a blown up map of the African continent, and quite literally started dividing it up amongst themselves. The divisions and borders established in this forum were not based upon the natural boundaries which already existed in the continent, nor the rational categorization based upon tribal affiliations, but rather was based upon the individual powers these European countries had at this time. The continent was divided according to personal whims and declarations of authority on a sycophantic scale. The powers-that-be were basing their accruing of these large portions of African land under the façade of being saviors for the savage natives that populate them. I do not wish to dwell to deep in to the historical interpretations of the act, this can be done on personal desire for further inquiry, I would just like to lay the context of how our current African countries came into existence.
Fast-forward 78 years and you will be at the height of Tanzania’s and much of the continent’s plight for independence. Led by the intelligent and progressive leader, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere we gained our independence and developed our personal trajectory for the future. Nyerere, took it upon himself to ensure that our country would not be thrown into chaotic disaccord due to the irrational borders established at the Berlin Conference of 1884. He tried to diffuse as much as possible the affiliation of the individual to his community and tribe and replaced it with affiliation to the nation and continent. Again I am not going to establish a detailed historical discourse, but rather set the tone of my primary point. Nyerere ensured that Tanzania wouldn’t suffer from tribal irritations by making all tribal leaders major parts of the national government, as well as by his Pan-Africanist policies and adopting Kiswahili as the national language of the country. In turn Tanzania has been safe from the violent tribal outbursts seen and still going on in many in fact most African countries.
Technically if one looks at the Ancestral origins of ‘Tanzanians’ you see a hodgepodge of different cultures, tribal backgrounds and heritage. Many of our leaders can in fact trace their lineage to Northern Mozambique, Zulu South Africa as well as landlocked countries Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. In essence the relevance of the populace’s ethnic origins is none and that is the view of which I wish to propose and establish in this piece.
Maintaining Nyerere’s strong Pan-Africanist views is essential to the long-term development of the nation. Historians, Politicians and those involved with public policy will all recognize the immense influence Nyerere’s approaches to the nation-state contribute to the abolition of the said state. He in essence believed that arbitrary borders and national divisions were a detriment to the overall development and well being of people, and took the view that to build on the common humanity shared between all would create a positive outlook for all. The clearest example of Nyerere’s views put into practice is the 1978 humanitarian intervention that he led in Uganda. Obviously there are critics and those who will choose to disregard the reality of the intervention, and I myself will in no way pretend that I have any scholarly qualification in the matter, however in my view and in the view of the collective majority, the reason behind the 1978 invasion into Uganda was solely to depose the despotic regime of Idi Amin Dada and his gross human rights violations in the country. Tanzania’s invasion into Uganda was not pre-emptive and was initiated only after Amin called for the mass exodus of all Ugandans of Asian descent and the Ugandan army breaching state lines and entering into Tanzania’s national territory. Regardless, Nyerere’s reasons for intervening in the Ugandan crisis were solely of a humanitarian motive and based on the ideal of helping your fellow man. Nyerere was also an advocate for African intervention in conflict zones such as Rwanda and Burundi, Sudan and other areas around the continent. This view is best illustrated in a statement Nyerere once made, this is not an exact quote but only what I can recall “How anyone can expel a certain group of people and say you are no longer part of this country baffles me. Tomorrow someone can say I must go because I don’t belong, and then you must go and eventually we will all go”.
So I believe it is quite safe to assume that at least part of the reason for the Ugandan invasion was humanitarian and to embrace and help our fellow humans. Nyerere was also instrumental in establishing the commissions for peace in Arusha; he also welcomed refugees from other African nations with open arms. Once again I do not intend to delve into specifics and engage a debate into the reasons behind his actions, rather I believe his action themselves are adequate enough to emphasize my overall point.
So with all this contextual information I have highlighted, what does this really have to do with my initial question of “what is a national?” Well everything in fact, our history is laden with persecution and oppression, but it is also filled with hope and love for our common humanity, no better expressed than through the actions of the Father of our Nation. Yet if one was to look at Tanzania today it would be very difficult to find traces of this fraternal bond with the continent and the globe as a whole, rather we are instead becoming more exclusive and un-accommodating. If you ask many Tanzanians today they will tell you, ‘The Kenyans must go (highlighted in Tanzania’s lack of education and opposition to the East African Federation), The refugees must go, The Congolese must go, The Somalis must go, The Indians must go, The Burundian must go, The Rwandese must go, The South Africans must go, The Ugandans must go, with all these people that must go, who in essence will be left?
We are a country built on the bonds of brotherhood; we are irrefutably a country of immense beauty and lovely people. Please, don’t ostracize and discriminate; please do not send Tanzanians away. Where will we go?
I believe it is possible and in fact essential for one to not limit where there national allegiances lie because of their race, religion, country of origin or even where they were born! A national is someone who has laid there heart on the land, and is willing to leave it there long after he or she leaves.
Fellow countrymen, fell continent-men, fellow humans I ask you, I plead for you to stop your xenophobic actions, for in the end, my land is our land.
To answer the initial question of what is a National, or what is a citizen I respond with the simple word: Us.
The enchanted dream, the true dream, the real dream is the collective dream.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Who do you believe in?
Although Tanzania is officially a secular nation, religion still guides an enormous amount of political and governmental policy. Tanzania’s population has an approximately equal number of Christians versus Muslims, thus the religious motivation used by the government is not necessarily sectarian or partisan, but rather a motivation of a higher power; God. I believe this is the most detrimental factor in our country’s development. Religious respect usually involves the disregard and disrespect of human rights and choices. No matter what religious convictions the leadership of the country has, this does not give it the right to limit citizens’ freedom just to appease their God. My, and every other Tanzanian’s rights should come before those of the lord, after all, the President is the servant of the nation.
A huge debate in the country is on the issue of abortion. There are supporters of the legalization as well as opposers within the populous; however government officials seem to take only their personal views into account. I believe the government’s views are based largely on fear of controversy; therefore should we leave every controversial issue untouched?
Presently, Tanzanian standpoint on abortion is based on the English Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act of 1929. This states:
“Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is pregnant or not, unlawfully uses any means upon her is subject to 14 years’ imprisonment. A pregnant woman who undertakes the same act with respect to her own pregnancy or permits it to be undertaken is subject to seven years’ imprisonment. Any person who supplies anything whatsoever knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used to procure the miscarriage of a woman is subject to three years’ imprisonment.”
As a developing nation, it is fascinating that the abortion law has not been ‘developed’ for close to 100 years. This is a clear indicator of how social issues are very often neglected by the government. There are some exceptions to this law however, the English case of 1938 (which Tanzania follows as common law) of Rex vs. Bourne set precedent when the physician in the Bourne ruling was “acquitted of the offence of performing an abortion on a woman who had been raped”. This ruling was made on the grounds that the abortion was done to preserve the woman’s mental and physical health. Thus Tanzania still abides by this rule today allowing abortion in cases of mental and physical health preservation and if the woman’s life is at risk. Contrary to this allowance however, Tanzanian law still does not grant abortions in cases of rape and incest unless there is a clinical prognosis, which is rarely given. Practitioners saying that to predict the likelihood of mental or physical illness if the child is born is subjective, thus unscientific. Once again, a law full of contradictions, purposely done I’m sure.
The Tanzanian government admits that there is a crisis in levels of fertility being too high. The government admits that population huge population increases are damaging to the country. The government admits that the mortality rate of ‘backyard’ abortions is out of control. The government still refuses to legalize abortion.
If the argument is from a religious point of view, I fail to understand how legalizing abortion conflicts with religious convictions. According to both Christianity and Islam (the two largest religions in the country), free will is the greatest gift god has endowed on humanity. Why is it then that religious practitioners try and limit this god-given freedom as much as they can? Being pro-choice satisfies both factions of the country, those who are for abortion and those who are against it. Pro-choice emphasizes on giving choice to the individual. If your personal convictions do not allow you to have an abortion then you have the choice to not have one, just as if you have no conflict with the act then you have the choice to have one. It is not a very complex concept to grasp, choice works in everybody’s favor, why are so many against it?
The biggest reasons why people oppose freedom of choice are: restriction is a method of control, and control is a method of power. I ask those who are pro-life where does your overwhelming love for man go when women are dying in the thousands by unsafe methods of abortion? Where does your love for man go when children are abandoned daily, when the streets are full of homeless youth begging for scraps, when HIV is being passed on to future generations (this is also due to the limited access to ARV’s)? Where does your love go when you turn away from the repercussions of your views?
I more than agree that focus should be put upon family planning and contraception, that sexual education should become a larger part of schools curricula, access to medicine should be a priority, that microfinance initiatives should be in the forefront of our economic development, however, abortion should be a safe and legal option for our women.
Much of the stigma that goes along with abortion has to do with misconceptions and prejudice. Some argue that legalized abortion leads to an increase in sexual promiscuity; this claim is entirely unfounded. Sexual promiscuity is a figment of our prejudicial, patriarchal society. The term for some reason mostly used in reference towards women and rarely men. Why? Is it because our women have been cursed with the responsibility to bear children? When did that choice to bear, become an obligation? If this is what many Tanzanians think, then it is education that is the problem, not abortion.
I believe that in the specific case of abortion that choice is the most important factor, choice to abort an unborn, non-living (life starts when you are born not before that) fetus should be granted. By doing that, the government is valuing life much more then it is by restricting this choice. After all it is the government’s obligation to protect its citizens and their lives; it is the government’s obligation to value life. In theory government does respect these obligations; the constitution of Tanzania states that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure its citizens and those within the confines of its borders are protected. However, as with abortion, and with various other government principles, this one to is racked with contradictions.
Tanzania is one of many countries that have still not abolished capital punishment. Although we have not exercised the death penalty as often as many, the fact remains that the law still exists. It perplexes that one of the most influential women in the world Ms. Asha-Rose Magiro, a Tanzanian minister just until last week, first statement as the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations was that capital punishment should be abolished in all UN member states, yet while being part of the Tanzanian leadership she never once publicly questioned the country’s death penalty policy. Maybe it was going to come but she was called away before it could happen, or maybe she is just jumping on the bandwagon of outrage after the high-profile execution of former Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein. Personally I hope the latter is false.
While the government still has the right to execute, it seems friends of the government also now have that right. I am talking about the infamous best man/murderer Ditopile Mzuzuri. It is nice to know that next time a dala dala driver cuts me off and I go into a bout of road rage I will be protected by the best and most powerful in the country if I decide that Mr. Dala Dala needs to be killed. Ditopile has been excused by many with the popular Swahili expression bahati mbaya!
So while the government adopts principles and policies and makes statements that completely contradict each other, and while citizens of this ‘peaceful’ nation sit back and watch in silence as injustices are being carried out in their names, and while God or the belief in him is destroying us, I say NO! Not in my name will you depreciate the value of truth and justice. Yet I know my no is powerless without yours. Speak up! Let them know that you know!
I urge you to break your vows of silence, knowing that many of you completely disagree with my point of view. Then make sure your point of view is listened to. I don’t want what I want; I want what the people want.
So I ask you to think about this, while our country of people is being ruled by person, and our president is strolling down the red carpet in London, who do you believe in? What do you believe in? Say it.
A huge debate in the country is on the issue of abortion. There are supporters of the legalization as well as opposers within the populous; however government officials seem to take only their personal views into account. I believe the government’s views are based largely on fear of controversy; therefore should we leave every controversial issue untouched?
Presently, Tanzanian standpoint on abortion is based on the English Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act of 1929. This states:
“Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is pregnant or not, unlawfully uses any means upon her is subject to 14 years’ imprisonment. A pregnant woman who undertakes the same act with respect to her own pregnancy or permits it to be undertaken is subject to seven years’ imprisonment. Any person who supplies anything whatsoever knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used to procure the miscarriage of a woman is subject to three years’ imprisonment.”
As a developing nation, it is fascinating that the abortion law has not been ‘developed’ for close to 100 years. This is a clear indicator of how social issues are very often neglected by the government. There are some exceptions to this law however, the English case of 1938 (which Tanzania follows as common law) of Rex vs. Bourne set precedent when the physician in the Bourne ruling was “acquitted of the offence of performing an abortion on a woman who had been raped”. This ruling was made on the grounds that the abortion was done to preserve the woman’s mental and physical health. Thus Tanzania still abides by this rule today allowing abortion in cases of mental and physical health preservation and if the woman’s life is at risk. Contrary to this allowance however, Tanzanian law still does not grant abortions in cases of rape and incest unless there is a clinical prognosis, which is rarely given. Practitioners saying that to predict the likelihood of mental or physical illness if the child is born is subjective, thus unscientific. Once again, a law full of contradictions, purposely done I’m sure.
The Tanzanian government admits that there is a crisis in levels of fertility being too high. The government admits that population huge population increases are damaging to the country. The government admits that the mortality rate of ‘backyard’ abortions is out of control. The government still refuses to legalize abortion.
If the argument is from a religious point of view, I fail to understand how legalizing abortion conflicts with religious convictions. According to both Christianity and Islam (the two largest religions in the country), free will is the greatest gift god has endowed on humanity. Why is it then that religious practitioners try and limit this god-given freedom as much as they can? Being pro-choice satisfies both factions of the country, those who are for abortion and those who are against it. Pro-choice emphasizes on giving choice to the individual. If your personal convictions do not allow you to have an abortion then you have the choice to not have one, just as if you have no conflict with the act then you have the choice to have one. It is not a very complex concept to grasp, choice works in everybody’s favor, why are so many against it?
The biggest reasons why people oppose freedom of choice are: restriction is a method of control, and control is a method of power. I ask those who are pro-life where does your overwhelming love for man go when women are dying in the thousands by unsafe methods of abortion? Where does your love for man go when children are abandoned daily, when the streets are full of homeless youth begging for scraps, when HIV is being passed on to future generations (this is also due to the limited access to ARV’s)? Where does your love go when you turn away from the repercussions of your views?
I more than agree that focus should be put upon family planning and contraception, that sexual education should become a larger part of schools curricula, access to medicine should be a priority, that microfinance initiatives should be in the forefront of our economic development, however, abortion should be a safe and legal option for our women.
Much of the stigma that goes along with abortion has to do with misconceptions and prejudice. Some argue that legalized abortion leads to an increase in sexual promiscuity; this claim is entirely unfounded. Sexual promiscuity is a figment of our prejudicial, patriarchal society. The term for some reason mostly used in reference towards women and rarely men. Why? Is it because our women have been cursed with the responsibility to bear children? When did that choice to bear, become an obligation? If this is what many Tanzanians think, then it is education that is the problem, not abortion.
I believe that in the specific case of abortion that choice is the most important factor, choice to abort an unborn, non-living (life starts when you are born not before that) fetus should be granted. By doing that, the government is valuing life much more then it is by restricting this choice. After all it is the government’s obligation to protect its citizens and their lives; it is the government’s obligation to value life. In theory government does respect these obligations; the constitution of Tanzania states that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure its citizens and those within the confines of its borders are protected. However, as with abortion, and with various other government principles, this one to is racked with contradictions.
Tanzania is one of many countries that have still not abolished capital punishment. Although we have not exercised the death penalty as often as many, the fact remains that the law still exists. It perplexes that one of the most influential women in the world Ms. Asha-Rose Magiro, a Tanzanian minister just until last week, first statement as the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations was that capital punishment should be abolished in all UN member states, yet while being part of the Tanzanian leadership she never once publicly questioned the country’s death penalty policy. Maybe it was going to come but she was called away before it could happen, or maybe she is just jumping on the bandwagon of outrage after the high-profile execution of former Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein. Personally I hope the latter is false.
While the government still has the right to execute, it seems friends of the government also now have that right. I am talking about the infamous best man/murderer Ditopile Mzuzuri. It is nice to know that next time a dala dala driver cuts me off and I go into a bout of road rage I will be protected by the best and most powerful in the country if I decide that Mr. Dala Dala needs to be killed. Ditopile has been excused by many with the popular Swahili expression bahati mbaya!
So while the government adopts principles and policies and makes statements that completely contradict each other, and while citizens of this ‘peaceful’ nation sit back and watch in silence as injustices are being carried out in their names, and while God or the belief in him is destroying us, I say NO! Not in my name will you depreciate the value of truth and justice. Yet I know my no is powerless without yours. Speak up! Let them know that you know!
I urge you to break your vows of silence, knowing that many of you completely disagree with my point of view. Then make sure your point of view is listened to. I don’t want what I want; I want what the people want.
So I ask you to think about this, while our country of people is being ruled by person, and our president is strolling down the red carpet in London, who do you believe in? What do you believe in? Say it.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The New Mandela
DISCLAIMER: The following post was sparked by my frustration with the recent AU Summit. It is a rant of my disappointment. My personal views are pro African-Unity, however in light of the recent summit, I was feeling a bit cynical and wrote this. My hope is to spark some form of discussion on the issue.
I have great admiration for our Former President Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. He laid the foundation for the relative peace we have in the country today. Nyerere was also, instrumental in advocating a united
One Party State?
According to a poll recently conducted by the Research for Education and Democracy (Redet) in Dar-es-salaam, 41% of Tanzanians favor reverting back to a single party system. According to Dr Ndumbaro, the Researcher involved, the reason for these results is the lack of people in the country who have secondary or post-secondary education, as 90% of university graduates favored a multi-party system.
For personal clarification, I have decided to hold the same poll on this blog. I urge you all to vote, and feel free too make a comment relating to the issue.
Make your choice.
For personal clarification, I have decided to hold the same poll on this blog. I urge you all to vote, and feel free too make a comment relating to the issue.
Make your choice.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Mungiki hit Kibera
Our brothers in Kenya are suffering from a barrage of inhumane violence allowed to exist because of the political forces within. The suppression of the media is in full force and it is only through citizens and brothers who feel the word of the horrid atrocities happening there must be revealed. The Mungiki have widened their reign of terror and Kibera has fallen victim to a murderous rampage. Please my brothers and sisters, inform yourselves about the situation, and do whatever is in your power to let the word get out and force the hungry politicians to forge the way to peace. For more detailed analysis on the situation and the Mungiki read the work of my fellow bloggers at kumekucha
Below is an example of the atrocities that have taken place at the hands of the Mungiki and the Government police
Khalil Senosi/Associated Press
One officer clubbed a woman in the throat as she clutched a baby, a reporter said. Many people were bleeding from head wounds.
Below is an example of the atrocities that have taken place at the hands of the Mungiki and the Government police
One officer clubbed a woman in the throat as she clutched a baby, a reporter said. Many people were bleeding from head wounds.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Rights Granted?-Update
I’d like to thank kifimbocheza for his words of encouragement and his updated information on the HakiElimu controversy. He has highlighted a press release that was issued on the 7, February, 2007. It outlines the agreements made after a meeting of HakiElimu and the Prime Minister of Tanzania Edward Lowassa.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Right to Write.
Haki Elimu, a locally-based NGO, who’s mission is to realize equity and promote democracy in educational institutions by influencing policy and establishing a public dialogue has been silenced. This NGO, which has been instrumental in the recent revelations of government officials embezzling large sums of money out of education programs, and has since its inception gained an increasingly higher reputation amongst educational activists globally, was ordered to suspend all activities until certain conditions were met, the foremost being an apology and a plea of guilt for “upsetting the government and public at large”. This comes after the organization’s long wave of criticism of negative government policy. According to the Tanzania Association of NGO’s (TANGO), “Haki Elimu has become the theme slogan for education rights in Tanzania
The Haki Elimu suspension, rather then increasing public support for the government has rather caused it to plummet, triggering and confirming many earlier notions that the current government is restrictive and has no intention in allowing freedom of expression to be practiced in the country. In the education minister, Margaret Sitta’s own words “the government was ready to take positive and constructive criticism, but observed that when it was apparent that the state would not take anymore of it, punitive measures against Haki Elimu became inevitable.” “No government on earth would keep silent when the freedom of expression was being abused. Haki Elimu was mocking great achievements recorded through people’s participation,’’ added the minister. The sheer absurdity of the government’s action is so apparent; it has caused quite a rift within the ruling CCM party itself. Mgana Msindai (East Iramba- CCM), questioned; ad infinitum, the legality and rationale behind suspending Haki Elimu activities. The representative for Kibaha also demanded to know how accurate Haki Elimu’s claims of corruption actually were.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Goodbye Blue Skies.....
Just mentioning the Serengeti invokes images of natural beauty and untouched wilderness, yet once again the government and foreign investors have put money over everything and have announced the construction of an international airport in the national park. The American company; Grummet Reserves Ltd. funded by billionaire Paul Tudor Jones signed a memorandum of understanding with former Tanzanian Minister for Infrastructural Development Basil Mramba (now Minister for Industry, Trade and Marketing) to construct a international airport in the reserve and a highway connecting the Arusha and Mara regions to the park, which will involve a main road cutting through the Serengeti plains.
In spite of protests by local and International non-governmental organizations, and public outcry, it seems that once again the people’s voices will fall on deaf government ears. The Director General of the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) made a statement saying “that development of human activities in Serengeti would restrict the movement of animals to Maasai Mara in Kenya and reduce gene flow, thereby impacting negatively on their population and species.”
"To maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functions in both the short and long-term it is necessary to maintain habitat connectivity so that individual animals can move freely across the landscape," he said, adding that the international airport, the highway and other linear developments within the park would reduce and eliminate animal movements and habitat connectivity.
Mr Bigurube said the Serengeti ecosystem is facing the problems that much of the world has already experienced - habitat reduction and fragmentation at a variety of spatial scales that has been widely acknowledged as a primary cause of the decline of many species worldwide such as that in the Mikumi National Park in Morogoro region.
He said experts from Grumet Reserves had already made their feasibility studies for the two projects without involving Tanapa. The project is supposed to "lift Tanzania onto a new and much higher path of growth and job creation."
Foreign exploiters with money and hungry government officials sure have become good at bullshitting. It is surprising how even with independent research done; finding that the project is a bad idea the government can still allow the project to go through.
This is disgusting, and it is up to Tanzanians, Kenyans and anyone who believes in sustaining the few areas of the world that have been untouched by destructive human thumbs to speak out and condemn the project. I would call you all to protest and march to the state house, however a) Government wouldn’t let it happen and b) We are a passive people who can’t be bothered to go out of our ways and do something righteous. Instead I urge you all to post a comment, simply with your name, showing your view that the decision to construct an Airport is wrong and against public opinion. What we do with that list will then depend upon us.
Make the first step, speak out! Please also feel free to comment in the positive, if you feel the infrastructure project is justified.
NB: Some of the funding for the project is coming from the Millennium Challenges Fund.
In spite of protests by local and International non-governmental organizations, and public outcry, it seems that once again the people’s voices will fall on deaf government ears. The Director General of the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) made a statement saying “that development of human activities in Serengeti would restrict the movement of animals to Maasai Mara in Kenya and reduce gene flow, thereby impacting negatively on their population and species.”
"To maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functions in both the short and long-term it is necessary to maintain habitat connectivity so that individual animals can move freely across the landscape," he said, adding that the international airport, the highway and other linear developments within the park would reduce and eliminate animal movements and habitat connectivity.
Mr Bigurube said the Serengeti ecosystem is facing the problems that much of the world has already experienced - habitat reduction and fragmentation at a variety of spatial scales that has been widely acknowledged as a primary cause of the decline of many species worldwide such as that in the Mikumi National Park in Morogoro region.
He said experts from Grumet Reserves had already made their feasibility studies for the two projects without involving Tanapa. The project is supposed to "lift Tanzania onto a new and much higher path of growth and job creation."
Foreign exploiters with money and hungry government officials sure have become good at bullshitting. It is surprising how even with independent research done; finding that the project is a bad idea the government can still allow the project to go through.
This is disgusting, and it is up to Tanzanians, Kenyans and anyone who believes in sustaining the few areas of the world that have been untouched by destructive human thumbs to speak out and condemn the project. I would call you all to protest and march to the state house, however a) Government wouldn’t let it happen and b) We are a passive people who can’t be bothered to go out of our ways and do something righteous. Instead I urge you all to post a comment, simply with your name, showing your view that the decision to construct an Airport is wrong and against public opinion. What we do with that list will then depend upon us.
Make the first step, speak out! Please also feel free to comment in the positive, if you feel the infrastructure project is justified.
NB: Some of the funding for the project is coming from the Millennium Challenges Fund.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
SPEAK OUT!
45 years. A technically independent country for 45 years. A free country. Yet in those 45 years, we have been deficient in the main tenet of an independent, autonomous country; freedom of expression. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Our society is nothing but a primitive social structure, a euphemism for a puppet democracy without these human freedoms. These freedoms which we all as individuals have a human right to act upon. So in expressing my personal freedoms I introduce UJAMAA. The voice.
We as thoughtful, conscious individuals need a platform to express our honest views and feelings about government policy, social structure, public opinion, culture, the arts; a medium in which we can confidently state anything we desire to say, without fear of censorship. UJAMAA is a forum for activists, writers, and citizens who feel that honest expression should be intertwined with and an essential part of the media. UJAMAA hopes to initiate a wave of expression that will spread throughout the country, allowing everyone to be listened to, not just heard (often we’re not even granted this privilege).
UJAMAA is born out of the frustration of having to filter thoughts and views just because there we have an obtuse government. It is born out of the need to recreate the social fabric of Tanzania, born out of a desire for better. It is born out of peace, not out of hatred, it is born out of a need for evolution, not revolution, it is born out of the suffocation we all feel when we have been subjected to be irrelevant voices.
As a writer, I have always thought of it as my duty to ensure truth is a key element of my work. However, I believe truth cannot be fully explored and projected without the allowance of alternative opinion. Tanzanian media has suffered the burden of one-dimensional dictators for far too long, it is time for the whole truth to be told. Many may see this as reactionary, yet this is not so, the mere fact of the matter is that one persons truth is not necessarily another’s. UJAMAA hopes to facilitate this in whatever minute way it can.
The determined production of this first issue was sparked by the rejection of one my recent feature articles for the mainstream print-media giant in the country: The Guardian. The article was a feature piece about a connection of events that led me to draw some provocative conclusions. It was to be my fourth article for the paper (the said article is printed in this issue). The reasons I was given for this blatant suppression of free expression was that “When going through final screening, the editor of the paper felt that the article would be problematic for many high-ranking members of The Guardian staff, as many are staunch government supporters, and others feared backlash from government officials”- an editor of The Guardian who for the sake of safety will remain anonymous. This reason, although disgusting, did not surprise me, yet half-jokingly I asked “What about freedom of press” to be dealt with hysterical laughter and the sad answer of “This is Africa”.
We cannot allow our self-image to be tarnished and degraded in such a fashion, we must make it clear, that as Africans, we will not remain silent and suppressed. We will Speak.
We as thoughtful, conscious individuals need a platform to express our honest views and feelings about government policy, social structure, public opinion, culture, the arts; a medium in which we can confidently state anything we desire to say, without fear of censorship. UJAMAA is a forum for activists, writers, and citizens who feel that honest expression should be intertwined with and an essential part of the media. UJAMAA hopes to initiate a wave of expression that will spread throughout the country, allowing everyone to be listened to, not just heard (often we’re not even granted this privilege).
UJAMAA is born out of the frustration of having to filter thoughts and views just because there we have an obtuse government. It is born out of the need to recreate the social fabric of Tanzania, born out of a desire for better. It is born out of peace, not out of hatred, it is born out of a need for evolution, not revolution, it is born out of the suffocation we all feel when we have been subjected to be irrelevant voices.
As a writer, I have always thought of it as my duty to ensure truth is a key element of my work. However, I believe truth cannot be fully explored and projected without the allowance of alternative opinion. Tanzanian media has suffered the burden of one-dimensional dictators for far too long, it is time for the whole truth to be told. Many may see this as reactionary, yet this is not so, the mere fact of the matter is that one persons truth is not necessarily another’s. UJAMAA hopes to facilitate this in whatever minute way it can.
The determined production of this first issue was sparked by the rejection of one my recent feature articles for the mainstream print-media giant in the country: The Guardian. The article was a feature piece about a connection of events that led me to draw some provocative conclusions. It was to be my fourth article for the paper (the said article is printed in this issue). The reasons I was given for this blatant suppression of free expression was that “When going through final screening, the editor of the paper felt that the article would be problematic for many high-ranking members of The Guardian staff, as many are staunch government supporters, and others feared backlash from government officials”- an editor of The Guardian who for the sake of safety will remain anonymous. This reason, although disgusting, did not surprise me, yet half-jokingly I asked “What about freedom of press” to be dealt with hysterical laughter and the sad answer of “This is Africa”.
We cannot allow our self-image to be tarnished and degraded in such a fashion, we must make it clear, that as Africans, we will not remain silent and suppressed. We will Speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
