POLITICAL CORRECTNESS STIFFLING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, EXPRESSION AND INDIVIDUALISM

By JENNIFER SHAMALLA
Posted Thursday,
May 3 2012
Daily Nation

When a politically correct cabal selectively applies rules of natural justice and the rule of law when it suits them, the arena of society becomes a lynching place where justice can no longer be guaranteed.

The origin of political correctness lies in the Frankfurt School, which was associated with the Institute for Social Research, a think tank formed in 1923.

Control of ideas and individualism were the keystone to the foundation of political correctness.

It was recognised that the only way for communism to spread was to contain individual thinking and brainwash a nation into accepting that an idea could only be valid if it came from “the correct” social group.

Politically correct thinking is purposefully directed to stifle freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech and the right to individualism.

We should consider the fact that the so-called “like-minded” political set are scripting our destiny and that the politically correct but unelected cabal of so-called intelligentsia is creating a “background of acceptance” as it dictates the real politick of our new Constitution.

A series of events has provided the prelude for their script.

In the first event, a banned criminal gang well-known as extortionists and murderers has transformed itself into a “politically correct movement”, whose freedom of association is being championed by civil rights activists and foreign diplomats.

The obligation of the Kenya police to protect civilians from violence and the political and social entrenchment of “gang rule”, we are told, does not supersede the right of association. Is it fair to subject an entire nation to gang rule and violence?

Few question why the US has determined who its “enemy combatants” are and why it is unapologetic about its internationally proscribed handling of them.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said about his country’s October 1970’s crisis that it was important for his government to use every means possible to defend society from the emergence of a parallel power, which challenges the elected power of citizenry.

He was determined to, in his words, “get rid” of those who sought to establish their authority through blackmail and crime. He called on “bleeding hearts around the world to go on and bleed”. Protecting a country from the possibility of crimes being committed, he said, was not negotiable.

We must ask, as Trudeau did, if there is any logic in playing devil’s advocate and being weak-kneed because we cannot stomach the severity that the police use to disperse crowds.

The second event has been yet another purge in the Judiciary which sent one of the judges packing. He was not monetarily corrupt, but as explained, his decisions were a deviation of an ideal.

His verdict, although within the law and therefore legal at the time, does not sit well with our “politically correct” Kenyan collective conscience of 2012.

Senior Counsel John Khaminwa’s response to this insurgent purge termed the process flawed and warned against the practice of making judges “sacrificial lambs for past mistakes of Presidents Moi’s and Kenyatta’s administrations.”

For fear of being snowballed and defamed by Internet blogs and “activists”, few in Kenya dare today to question as Khaminwa does.

Kenya is at a crossroads. Selective, unforgiving and malevolent management birthed fascism in Europe. We have to be truly committed to stop corruption, which in its full meaning is not confined to monetary crime and is defined as “an impairment of integrity, virtue and or moral principles, a deviation from an ideal”.
As Kenyans, we must take charge of the trajectory we want. Will it be similar to the one that leading democracies like the United States and Canada took during their transitional years or do we want to take the direction that fascist and communist Europe took in the 1930s and 1940s?

Ms Shamalla is an advocate and founder of the National Conservative Forum (jshamalla@yahoo.com).

HOW UDF WAS PUT TOGETHER

By Mosoku Geoffrey
The Star, Nairobi
May 2 2012

The UDF party was formed in April 2011 by individuals who are close to President Kibaki and was initially linked to DPM Uhuru Kenyatta. Kibaki's PA Prof Nick Wanjohi was central in the formation of UDF which began through recruitment training exercises camouflaged as leadership training forums held in secret locations in Karen and Limuru.

Wanjohi and Francis Xavier Wangombe, who works at the Office of the President as a finance officer, were said to be facilitators of the training.

Former and current intelligence officials had been tasked to identify key people across Kenya to attend the "training". Those targeted included opinion leaders and youth and women representatives from all counties to be conscripted into the "leadership and governance" programme. Between April 2011 and August 2011, more than 20 sessions were held with at least 50 participants, each session costing about Sh1.2 million paid to trainers and participants.

Participants in the leadership forums were paid Sh10, 000 per diem for the three days they attended at the Corat Africa Conference Centre in Nairobi’s Karen area. “We were approached by some former intelligence officer who asked us to attend the trainings with transport and accommodation offered,” one participant from Nakuru told the Star then.

In one of the sessions, Wanjohi was listed as a facilitator and participants confirmed that he took them through various issues. USIU Political Science don Prof. Munene Macharia led a series of lectures on leadership skills, political mobilization and recruitment strategies.
Nairobi University's history don Dr. Amatsimbi Misigo and his sociology counterpart Prof Mbatia were part of the trainers who took the participants through Kenya's political history and recruitment approaches and networking receptively.

When the Star broke the story and revealed Corat Africa Conference Centre in Karen as the venue of the 'trainings', the party changed tact and sought an alternative venue. The organizers then moved to little known Demisse Sisters Centre in Karen to avoid attracting journalists. They later again moved to Limuru for another round of sessions.

Delegates were picked up from the City Centre in unmarked vans and booked into the venue. Unlike at Corat, they were not provided with a programme nor did they sign for their Sh10, 000 per diem.
All the activities of the party were being done in a clandestine way to conceal any evidence of UDF spending as our source then said the money for running 'the training, leadership and governance symposium' programmes was being sponsored by state officers, and some powerful individuals working for the Office of the President.

THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE HAS NO CAPACITY TO TRY KENYAN ICC CASES

By Jerry Okungu
Nairobi, Kenya
May 3, 2012

I watched the EALA parliamentary debate in Nairobi on the ICC cases. I thought the debate was pathetic, ill-informed and downright pedestrian. I could as well have watched that kind of debate in a beer hall or in an assembly called Bunge la Wananchi somewhere in Jeevanjee Gardens of Nairobi.

First of all there are a few basic facts of the ICC Kenya cases and the state of Arusha Court that the MPs completely ignored in their attempt to appease their appointing authorities. They forgot to realize that trying to get the cases back to Kenya or Arusha was an exercise in futility. The horse had bolted a long time ago.

If they really cared for Kenya and wanted cases tried in Arusha, they should have suggested that in 2008 when Kenya was fumbling with a tribunal in Kenya. If they had moved with speed and informed Kofi Annan and the UN that the structures of the Rwanda Court- which was winding up could be converted to a Kenyan court, the whole world would have listened. They never did.

These EALA MPs live in Arusha. They should be aware that just changing the mandate of the EACJ does not make it a criminal court of international standards. To convert the court from its current status- that of merely interpreting EAC Treaty and its protocols to an international criminal court cannot be accomplished in a year or even two years. It will need new buildings, maximum prison cells for holding the accused and tons of money to hire and recruit lawyers and judges of international repute. More critically, well trained and credible criminal investigators and prosecutors will have to be in place to conduct thorough investigations. Or will the EACJ simply borrow the now maligned Ocampo investigation files from the ICC?

All these preparations take time and are very costly. Does the EAC have ready cash to do this or will it still go to the usual foreign masters that they now accuse of running a colonial court for Africans at The Hague? If the EAC’s own institutions are currently partly funded by donor funds, will the same donors fund a court in Arusha when there is a ready court in The Hague just for four Kenyans?

Even if we were to assume that the trials would be heard by the current judges who are all political appointees of the summit members, will there be any credibility in these hearings? Will there be justice in these courts? What will stop them from pandering to the whims of the regional heads of state? What will stop our regional judges from being partisan and biased in favour of the accused in Kenya just as the EALA members appeared to be during their debate?

During the EALA debate in Nairobi, it was evident that the real motivation for EALA legislators to get cases to Arusha was a mere political PR to please a section of the Kenya government and had nothing to do with genuine search for justice for post-election victims and their villains.

During their debate, the legislators demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they had no clue about the political dynamics of Kenya, hence their emotional contributions about baseless conspiracy theories. It was the kind of argument we would have expected from primary school kids in their school debates.

The one MP that seemed to make sense was Hon Lododo from Kenya but his voice of reason was drowned in a din of hecklers that seemed to have been coached and choreographed to win the debate at any cost.

For the benefit of our honourable members at EALA, Kenyans are tired of this ICC debate. We want it concluded so that we can move on with our lives. Four Kenyans cannot hold our country at random for years. They have a chance to prove their innocence at The Hague just as two of their colleagues did during the pretrial. If need be, they need to change lawyers if they are serious about winning their cases in the next round.

However, EALA and the EAC Heads of State are at liberty to set up a regional tribunal to try 5000 other suspects of post-election violence which the Kenya government has refused to prosecute.

Trying the four suspects in Kenya is fraught with a myriad logistical problem. Kenyans have no capacity to contain riots that may affect the trials. Examples abound when during the pretrial at The Hague, close to 100 MPs travelled to The Hague to show solidarity with the accused. And how did they show that? They went singing and making fools of themselves on the streets of Amsterdam after they had been locked out of the courtrooms. Imagine what they would do at Arusha next door! There would be lorry loads of rented crowds waiving banana leaves every morning travelling to Arusha. There would be no peace in Arusha during the trials.

Just last week, Kenya got the taste of rowdy supporters when leaders of the Mombasa Republican Council were arrested and taken to court. The police spent the whole day battling supporters that were bent on invading the courts! The same rowdiness greeted the police when they arrested and charged the Mungiki leader with robbery with violence in Nairobi the same week.

Kenya is too volatile for the trial of the four suspects locally. It is better to even consider a country like Ghana, Senegal or Morocco as possible trial venues if all we are against are trials on a European soil.

jerryokungu@gmail.com