The problem with Kenya's polygamy law

Rights and freedoms of women are rarely taken into consideration in many societies across Africa. Many cultures and laws are designed to put men on a pedestal by blatantly discriminating against women and portraying them as unequal to men. Kenya's polygamy law reflects inequality and discrimination against women in many parts of the African continent.

In April 2014 president Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya signed into law a marriage bill legalizing polygamy, and allowing men to marry as many wives as possible without consulting their existing wives. Traditionally, according to the BBC, first wives were supposed to give consent before men could take more wives but the new polygamy law allows men to take more wives without consulting existing spouses.

Male MPs in Kenya supported the amendment. Female MPs on the other hand, together with Christian leaders, opposed the bill and understandably so.

In my view, the polygamy law is repugnant to equity and good conscience. It is blatantly discriminatory against women and promotes male privilege -- since it allows men to take up multiple wives without consulting existing wives but does not give women the same liberty to marry multiple men without consulting their husbands. In addition, the law demeans women by treating them like persons incapable of giving informed consent on matters that affect them.

Tremendous African male support for the controversial amendment is, in my opinion, shameful -- but not surprising. The disturbing truth is that many African men erroneously believe that women -- like children -- should be seen not heard, which is a twisted belief.

Personally, I advocate monogamy, and believe women, like men, should have a say in all matters that affect them. Polygamy laws and customs are mostly discriminatory against women and promote inequality.

Imagine a world where women were allowed to marry multiple men without consulting existing husbands. All hell would break loose.

I'm positive that men would not tolerate a culture or law that subjugates them and benefits women. Men should therefore equally oppose the subjugation of women. That's what good conscience requires. The world will be a better place if everyone respected the Golden Rule: "What thou avoidest suffering theyself seek not to impose on others." [Epictetus]

Kenya is a state party to the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) by virtue of the country's accession to the treaty on 9 March 1984. Kenya's polygamy law promotes discrimination against women, and is a clear violation of the country's obligation under CEDAW. The controversial law should be amended or scrapped completely -- if the country is not ready to give women the same liberties ceded to men by the polygamy law. After all "polygamy" includes both polyandry and polygyny.

Share

Tweet

Racist vandalism is costly for Helsinki city

Perpetrators of racism (racists) give all sorts of reasons in an attempt to justify or explain their twisted perception or treatment of fellow human beings who happen to look different. Sometimes economic reasons are evoked. Some in Finland argue, for instance, that migrants from Africa and elsewhere are "welfare shoppers" who move to the country to tap welfare benefits and deplete state funds. Despite their concerns, many racists go around vandalizing public spaces with racist writings and graffiti -- forgetting that cleaning up the mess will be financially costly for the state and the city they seek to "protect" from "invaders".

The City of Helsinki has cleaned up a bus stop (see pictures) that was vandalized with racist writings and drawings.

In a 2011 blog post, I wrote about the ugly face of racism at a bus stop in east Helsinki. The bus stop, which is next to Edupoli -- an adult education centre in Hertoniemi, was vandalized with a scary, racist text and drawing of the swastika.

Driving past the bus stop in the spring of 2014 - about three years since the vandalism was first spotted - I noted that the bus stop had been condoned off and work was going on there. A few days later I stopped at the bus stop to see what was happening, and realized that the bus stop had been given a makeover. The vandalized glass at the back had been replaced and everything was looking nice, clean and welcoming to all.

In my mind, I wondered when driving off the bus stop how much the City of Helsinki spent cleaning up the mess left behind by a racist. Although unable to confirm how much was spent renewing the bus stop, I am confident the renovation was not free of charge. The city council must have allocated some money that could have been used for something else - if some disturbed individual hadn't vandalized that bus stop.

Mindful of the fact that racist vandalism is not uncommon around Helsinki, it is plausible to conclude that the authorities spend lots of money cleaning up and making the city welcoming to all persons, irrespective of race, color, religion or gender.

Personally, I think the actions of racist vandals cost the city money and gives it a bad name. I welcome Helsinki city's decision to do away with manifestations of racism at the bus stop in Hertoniemi. Although costly, cleaning up makes the city more welcoming and goes a long way to protect the image of Helsinki - World Design Capital 2012. The authorities should get rid of manifestations of racism in other parts of the city. Vandals on their part should do their city (our city) a favor -- stop messing up public spaces and forcing the city to use resources that could be put to better use.

If racists, who describe themselves these days as "patriots", truly love their country and care about its economic situation they won't vandalize public spaces and force city authorities to spend resources cleaning up racist writings and drawings in bus stops and other public spaces.

Share

Tweet

Finland shouldn't discriminate in quota refugee selection

Roughly defined, quota refugees are persons recognized as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and submitted for resettlement. Most of them live in squalid refugee camps around the world, and the UNHCR seeks to resettle them in third countries where they can start a new life. Finland annually accepts and resettles quota refugees, irrespective of race, color, religion or other grounds. But there are those who think that Christian refugees should be given preference.

Finland's Minister of Interior, Päivi Räsänen - who doubles are leader of the Christian Democrats party - stated that Finland should give preference to persecuted Christians (presumably over persecuted Muslims) in the selection of quota refugees. She claimed that it is "sensible" that refugees be admitted to countries where they can integrate -- thereby suggesting that Christians integrate into Finnish society better than other religious groups.

According to Finnish Immigration Service, Finland accepts and resettles persons whom the UNHCR has designated as refugees, or other foreigners in need of international protection. Parliament decides annually the number quota refugees to be resettled in Finland. The country has accepted 750 quota refugees per year since 2011.

In my view, the suggestion by minister Päivi Räsänen that preference should be given to Christians is plainly discriminatory on grounds of religion, and could jeopardize chances of selecting Muslims - who are equally in need of protection - as quota refugees. Finland should accept quota refugees based on how many refugees are in need of resettlement and the amount of resources allocated by parliament, not based on religion. In its policy on quota refugees, Finland considers the need for international protection as the most important criteria for selection of quota refugees. It should stay that way. Religion or integration shouldn't be primordial.

It is wrong to suggest that Christians integrate better than other religious groups. The ability and/or willingness integration is an individual issue. Some Christian refugees don't integrate into broader Finnish society while some Muslims integrate, and vice versa. A generalization that Christians adapt better than Muslims or any other religious group is misguided and prejudicial. I have met Muslims who have integrated pretty well into Finnish society.

The way I see it, having a Minister of Interior who makes no secret of prejudice against certain groups - in favor of Christians - could negatively impact Finland's policy on quota refugees to the detriment of non-Christians, mindful of the fact that the ministry of interior is a major actor in Finland's refugee policy.

Worthy to mention that besides negative perception of non-Christian refugees (and perhaps non-Christian immigrants in general), minister Räsänen opposes gay marriage and adoption of children by homosexual couples. Under her leadership in the Ministry of Interior children are detained in prison-like conditions for immigration purposes in Finland -- despite condemnation, petitions and calls by human rights groups like Amnesty International to stop the detention of children.

Share

Tweet