European Court of Human Rights says that homosexual marriage is not a human right

keithevans2685

keithevans2685

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
110
Points
225
keithevans2685

keithevans2685

Senior Member
Joined Dec 17, 2014
110 225
Maswali hayo yote aliwahi kuulizwa Yesu Kristo:
Yohana 9:1-3 "Hata alipokuwa akipita alimwona mtu, kipofu tangu kuzaliwa. Wanafunzi wake wakamwuliza wakisema, Rabi, ni yupi aliyetenda dhambi, mtu huyu au wazazi wake, hata azaliwe kipofu? Yesu akajibu, Huyu hakutenda dhambi, wala wazazi wake; bali kazi za Mungu zidhihirishwe ndani yake."
Hayo yote unayoona kuwa ni udhaifu (ulemavu), Mungu ameyaweka yatokee ili utukufu wa Mungu udhihirishwe.
Sasa basi turudi kwenye hoja ya Ushoga: Dhambi ya shoga ni kuruhusu kuingiliwa kinyume na maumbile, na siyo kuzaliwa na homoni za kike (By the way, wengi wao wanahomoni za kiume, ila hujifunza kwa kuiga). Ndio, anaweza akawa amezaliwa na homoni za kike nyingi zilizo zidi homoni za kiume, lakini hii haimaanishi kuwa aliumbwa afanye ngono kinyume na maumbile, la hasha!! Maana yake ni hii, kwa kuwa amezaliwa na jinsi ya kiume lakini hana homoni za kiume, basi hakupewa uwezo wa kufanya tendo la Ngono, hivyo basi yamfaa atulie, asifanye ngono. Maana Mungu alipomuumba Adam,alimuumba na Hawa, kwa hiyo ngono ni kati ya Mtu Mume na Mtu Mke tu. Kwa maelezo hayo, nitakuwa nimejibu na maswali yako mengine, endapo mwanamke amezaliwa bila kizazi, basi si makosa ya Mungu, la hasha!! Lakini Mungu ameruhusu hivyo ili utukufu wake udhirishwe. Tena basi, mwanamke aliyezaliwa na udhaifu huo, haimpi ruhusa kwenda kuiba mtoto wa mwenzake, eti kisa yeye alizaliwa bila kizazi. Pointi ni kwamba, kuumbwa na udhaifu fulani, haikupi ruhusa ya kufanya dhambi!!
Barikiwa Mtumimishi!!
"Ushoga ni kutamani kuingilia mtu kinyume na maumbile"

Nope Ushoga ni matamanio ya mtu wa jinsia yako,wapo mashoga kibao ambao wako kwenye mahusiano na hawaingiliana kinyume cha maumbile,kama walivyo wanaume wengi wanaopenda kuingilia wanawake kinyume na maumbile na wapo kibao wasiopenda kufanya mchezo huo,hao sio mashoga bali wanapenda aina hiyo ya ngono.

Wasagaji ni watu wanapenda au wenye matamanio ya mtu wa jinsia yao,sio watu wanapenda kunyonya maziwa au uchi wa mwanamke,ukisema hivyo basi wanaume wote wanaopenda kunyonya uchi wa wanawake pia ni mashoga.

Ushoga na Usagaji ni matamanio ya jinsia fulani sio ya ngono fulani.

Kusema "Mungu anatengeneza mapungufu" kwenye uumbaji wake ili aonyeshe uwezo wake ni swala la ku'justify ujinga kwasababu,Mungu huyohuyo ambaye ni so perfect, omnipotent,omniscient anatengeneza binadamu ambaye ana matatizo,anakuja kuhangaika duniani for what!!?ili adhihirishe "utukufu" wake!!?

Mungu wako wenye nguvu zote na uwezo wote, alikuwa na njia ngapi kubwa na nzuri zaidi za kudhihirisha hayo makuu yake mpaka aweke mapungufu katika mwili wa binadamu ili aje ahangaike hapa duniani!!?eti kukuonyesha ukuu wake!!?

Btw hiyo inaharibu kila msingi wa Msemo mnaopenda wakristo "Mungu ni mtu wa upendo sana"Benevolent God,ambaye ana uwezo wa kupenda creation yake sana mpaka kuiwekea cancer ya ubongo kwa mtoto wa chini ya miaka 5,huo ni ujinga wala si utukufu wa uumbaji.

Lastly kwasababu A,B,C vimesemwa kwenye Bible haimaanishi A,B na C ndio ushaidi(Facts, Evidence)wa kitu fulani,biblia ni kitabu tu cha collection ya maelezo mostly hadithi zilizoandikwa miaka 2000 iliyopita,sio ushaidi wa kuwa kuna Mungu wala huyo Mungu anataka nini.

Ukitaka ku'argue rational,jaribu sana kutotumia biblia bali tafuta Evidence na Fatcs.
 
Nkuruvi

Nkuruvi

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
447
Points
500
Nkuruvi

Nkuruvi

JF-Expert Member
Joined Dec 1, 2014
447 500
"Ushoga ni kutamani kuingilia mtu kinyume na maumbile"

Nope Ushoga ni matamanio ya mtu wa jinsia yako,wapo mashoga kibao ambao wako kwenye mahusiano na hawaingiliana kinyume cha maumbile,kama walivyo wanaume wengi wanaopenda kuingilia wanawake kinyume na maumbile na wapo kibao wasiopenda kufanya mchezo huo,hao sio mashoga bali wanapenda aina hiyo ya ngono.

Wasagaji ni watu wanapenda au wenye matamanio ya mtu wa jinsia yao,sio watu wanapenda kunyonya maziwa au uchi wa mwanamke,ukisema hivyo basi wanaume wote wanaopenda kunyonya uchi wa wanawake pia ni mashoga.

Ushoga na Usagaji ni matamanio ya jinsia fulani sio ya ngono fulani.

Kusema "Mungu anatengeneza mapungufu" kwenye uumbaji wake ili aonyeshe uwezo wake ni swala la ku'justify ujinga kwasababu,Mungu huyohuyo ambaye ni so perfect, omnipotent,omniscient anatengeneza binadamu ambaye ana matatizo,anakuja kuhangaika duniani for what!!?ili adhihirishe "utukufu" wake!!?

Mungu wako wenye nguvu zote na uwezo wote, alikuwa na njia ngapi kubwa na nzuri zaidi za kudhihirisha hayo makuu yake mpaka aweke mapungufu katika mwili wa binadamu ili aje ahangaike hapa duniani!!?eti kukuonyesha ukuu wake!!?

Btw hiyo inaharibu kila msingi wa Msemo mnaopenda wakristo "Mungu ni mtu wa upendo sana"Benevolent God,ambaye ana uwezo wa kupenda creation yake sana mpaka kuiwekea cancer ya ubongo kwa mtoto wa chini ya miaka 5,huo ni ujinga wala si utukufu wa uumbaji.

Lastly kwasababu A,B,C vimesemwa kwenye Bible haimaanishi A,B na C ndio ushaidi(Facts, Evidence)wa kitu fulani,biblia ni kitabu tu cha collection ya maelezo mostly hadithi zilizoandikwa miaka 2000 iliyopita,sio ushaidi wa kuwa kuna Mungu wala huyo Mungu anataka nini.

Ukitaka ku'argue rational,jaribu sana kutotumia biblia bali tafuta Evidence na Fatcs.
Rafiki, huwezi kumzungumzia Mwanadamu na maamuzi anayofanya bila kumhusisha Mungu muumba wa mbingu na nchi. Leo hii humtambui, nakuombea umtambue sasa kabla hujachelewa.
Ok, lets go back to the topic: Kila kitu kilichoumbwa kimewekewa utaratibu wake. Mathalani, Gari lina tundu la kuweka mafuta na tundu la kutoa moshi. Huwezi kutumia tundu la kutoa moshi kuweka mafuta ya petroli au dizeli halafu utegemee gari hilo liwe na mafuta kwa ajili ya safari. Ni wazi sehemu ambazo Mashoga wanazitumia kwa ngono hazikuumbwa kwa ajili ya ngono. Ndo maana ngono hizo huwaweka kwenye risk ya magonjwa yatokanayo na kufanya ngono kinyume na maumbile.
 
keithevans2685

keithevans2685

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
110
Points
225
keithevans2685

keithevans2685

Senior Member
Joined Dec 17, 2014
110 225
Rafiki, huwezi kumzungumzia Mwanadamu na maamuzi anayofanya bila kumhusisha Mungu muumba wa mbingu na nchi. Leo hii humtambui, nakuombea umtambue sasa kabla hujachelewa.
Ok, lets go back to the topic: Kila kitu kilichoumbwa kimewekewa utaratibu wake. Mathalani, Gari lina tundu la kuweka mafuta na tundu la kutoa moshi. Huwezi kutumia tundu la kutoa moshi kuweka mafuta ya petroli au dizeli halafu utegemee gari hilo liwe na mafuta kwa ajili ya safari. Ni wazi sehemu ambazo Mashoga wanazitumia kwa ngono hazikuumbwa kwa ajili ya ngono. Ndo maana ngono hizo huwaweka kwenye risk ya magonjwa yatokanayo na kufanya ngono kinyume na maumbile.
Sorry Rafiki yangu but kila mtu akianza kuleta Mungu wake na stories zake,hakutakuwa na discussion yoyote ya maana......kumhusisha Mungu wako na yale unayoamini kwenye discussion na mtu mwingine asiyeamini kwenye huyo Mungu au Miungu wako haipeleka discuss mahala popote.

Ukisema binadamu ana viungo maalamu kwa kazi maalamu then unakosea sana,hakuna binadamu alizaliwa na instructional Manual,kwamba mwili wako unafanya kazi namna hii,ni issue ya kuvumbua na kutafuta vile vinavyofanya kazi nzuri katika mwili wako

Btw nina maswali mafupi naomba nikuulize

1.Mdomo according to wewe, umetengenezwa kula chakula,je ku'kiss mtu ni unnatural!!?

2.Maziwa ya mwanaume yana kazi gani katika mwili wa mwanaume!!?Maziwa ya mwanamke yana kazi pekee ya kunyonyesha!!?akitumia katika mapenzi kufikisha kileleni,amekuwa amekosea!!?

3.Uume na Uke kazi zao ni kutoa uchafu wa mwili,kwanini vinatumika kwenye kazi ya kujaamiana na kutoa Raha!!!?kama vinatumika kwanini huo mkundu,usitumike!!!?

4.Mwili wako umetengenezwa na immunity tayari ya kuzuia magonjwa,kwanini unahangaika na dawa,wakati una kinga tayari za kuzuia magonjwa.....huoni unaenda against hiyo nature!!?kupata cancer ni very natural while kutumia dawa kuondoa cancer ni very unnatural.

5.Mwili wako umetengenezwa kutembea na huyo Mungu wako sio kutumia gari but nina uhakika mara kibao ume'opt kutumia gari kuliko kutembea,kwanini!??

Argument nzima ya natural vs unnatural,it's a lazy argument.......viungo vyetu vimejengwa kukabliana na nature sio kutimiza malengo ya nature.

Tusipende ku'CHERRY PICK vitu tu kwasababu vinaendana na vile vitu tunavyoamini.

Lastly magonjwa ya zinaa yanapatikana hata kwa njia ngozi pia e.g syphillis na hepatitis...mapenzi pia ya jinsia tofauti yanaleta magonjwa ya zinaa,na njia zinazotumika na wapenzi wa jinsia tofauti kuepuka hayo magonjwa,ndizo ambazo zinatumika na wapenzi wa njisia moja kuepuka hayo magonjwa,so issue si magonjwa,issue sio mkundu.....issue ni imani yako,inakufanya uone kama mapenzi ya jinsia moja ni tatizo.
 
kichakaa man

kichakaa man

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
3,047
Points
2,000
kichakaa man

kichakaa man

JF-Expert Member
Joined Oct 20, 2011
3,047 2,000
Wazungu si ndiyo wamekuwa wanalazimisha hak za hao mashoga
 
C

comte

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,793
Points
2,000
C

comte

JF-Expert Member
Joined Dec 11, 2011
1,793 2,000
of Human Rights.Shutterstock.com
Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
NEWSHOMOSEXUALITY, MARRIAGEFri Jul 25, 2014 - 12:29 pm EST
European court: Gay marriage is not a human right
Europe, Homosexuality, Same-Sex 'Marriage'
The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.
European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.
The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive.
Heli Hämäläinen of Finland had a sex change operation in 2009 to appear anatomically as a woman, despite having fathered a child with his wife of over 10 years in 2002. Before the operation, he tried to change his legal identity from male to female without success.
He sued before the European court when he was told that it would not be possible so long as he remained married, because Finland does not allow persons of the same sex to marry each other. Hämäläinen and his spouse insist that their religious beliefs prevent them from seeking a divorce and that civil unions do not give them the same benefits as marriage in Finnish law.
The European court was unequivocal. It not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.
The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations.
The ruling is a particularly hard blow to gay rights in Finland, where a parliamentary committee rejected same-sex marriage before it could be brought to a vote last month for the second time since 2012. Finland is the only Scandinavian country that does not allow same-sex marriage.
Around the world gay activists have been told that same-sex marriage is not a human right.
The Italian Constitutional Court was faced with almost identical facts only last month. That court also said that civil unions would be adequate to protect the interests of the same-sex couple in that case.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to say that marriage between persons of the same sex is a right under the U.S. Constitution or international law last year. In a case involving a law that prohibited the U.S. federal government from recognizing marriages between persons of the same sex, the Court ruled that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other.
Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.
 
C

comte

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,793
Points
2,000
C

comte

JF-Expert Member
Joined Dec 11, 2011
1,793 2,000
THE ECHR UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS THE NON-EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE
BY GRÉGOR PUPPINCK2 YEARS AGO

On June 9, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its decision on the case of Chapin and Charpentier v. France (n°40183/07). It questioned the French courts' decision to annul the “marriage of Bègles” contracted in 2004 between two men, in violation of French law.
By this decision, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously recalled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not include the right to marriage for homosexual couples, neither under the right to respect for private and family life (art. 8) nor the right to marry and to found a family (art. 12).
More precisely, this new decision confirms a series of judgements and particularly recalls that:
  • The question of same-sex marriage is “subject to the national laws of the Contracting States” (§ 36, making reference to the Schalk and Kopf v. Austria judgement (n°30141/04);
  • Article 12 confirmed the traditional concept of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman and "does not impose an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage" (§ 36, making reference to Gas and Dubois v. France, n°25951/07, § 66);
  • Article 12 “cannot be interpreted as imposing such an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage”. This recall of the recent judgements of Hämäläinen v. Finlande [GC] (n°37359/09), and Oliari and others v. Italy (n°18766/11 et 36030/11) has a very strong impact since it recognises the theoretical limits of the interpretation of the right to marry (§ 39);
  • In regard to the right to respect for private life (guaranteed by Article 8) and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 14), “States are still free (...) to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples", (making reference to Schalk and Kopf ,§ 108 and Gas and Dubois, § 66)
  • States “enjoy a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred by alternative means of recognition” of same-sex relationships, and its differences concerning the rights and obligations conferred by marriage (§ 58).
The ECLJ welcomes this decision, which it considers consistent with the correct interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECLJ notes, however, that this decision does not totally rule out the possibility of a future development in the Court position in favour of a right to same-sex marriage as part of a right “to the recognition” of stable relationships. It also recognises that such an interpretation cannot be based on the wording of the Convention.
The question of same-sex marriage pushes the Court to the limits of its ability to interpret the Convention. These limits are marked by the very wording of this treaty and by the explicit will of the majority of its Member States. Although it is still appropriate to apply the Convention to the changes in society, on the contrary, it is inappropriate to pretend changing the very content of the Convention.
For further reading, see particularly: G. Puppinck, Same Sex Unions at the ECHR, 20 April 2015.
 
dorin

dorin

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
262
Points
250
dorin

dorin

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2010
262 250
Kwenye maaImio ya EU hii ilikua peanut inaamaana kama tunawapeleka mahakamani kwa hili basis Yale mengine tunayatekeleza

Hili suala LA ushoga lipo tangu zamani na Kikwete alishawaambia sio tamaduni zetu
 
C

comte

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,793
Points
2,000
C

comte

JF-Expert Member
Joined Dec 11, 2011
1,793 2,000
Kwenye maaImio ya EU hii ilikua peanut inaamaana kama tunawapeleka mahakamani kwa hili basis Yale mengine tunayatekeleza

Hili suala LA ushoga lipo tangu zamani na Kikwete alishawaambia sio tamaduni zetu
"dorin, tuwapeleke kwa yote maana mengi hayana ushahidi ni mwendelezo wa kampeni za uchaguzi zisizoisha hapa Tanzania
 
M

mbingunikwetu

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
6,225
Points
2,000
M

mbingunikwetu

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 17, 2015
6,225 2,000
kuna watu ni mashoga by Nature. ukisema sio human rights basi nao sio human
Hakuna mtu ambaye ni shoga by nature! Ila inawezekana shoga asijue ni lini alianza kuwa shoga maana tangu apate akili alijikuta amezoea ushoga. Hii ni kwa sababu kuna watoto huwa wananajisiwa tangu wakiwa watoto wadogo chini ya miaka minne!! Kwa hiyo mtoto alizoeshwa hisia kinyume na maumbile tan gu akiwa mtoto kwa hiyo yeye anadhani kuwa alizaliwa hivyo lakini ukweli ni kuwa alianza kunajisiwa tangu utoto wake!!
 
Rich Hash

Rich Hash

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
148
Points
250
Rich Hash

Rich Hash

Senior Member
Joined Mar 7, 2017
148 250
On June 9, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its decision on the case of Chapin and Charpentier v. France (n°40183/07). It questioned the French courts' decision to annul the “marriage of Bègles” contracted in 2004 between two men, in violation of French law.

By this decision, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously recalled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not include the right to marriage for homosexual couples, neither under the right to respect for private and family life (art. 8) nor the right to marry and to found a family (art. 12).

More precisely, this new decision confirms a series of judgements and particularly recalls that:

  • The question of same-sex marriage is “subject to the national laws of the Contracting States” (§ 36, making reference to the Schalk and Kopf v. Austria judgement (n°30141/04);
  • Article 12 confirmed the traditional concept of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman and "does not impose an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage" (§ 36, making reference to Gas and Dubois v. France, n°25951/07, § 66);
  • Article 12 “cannot be interpreted as imposing such an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage”. This recall of the recent judgements of Hämäläinen v. Finlande [GC] (n°37359/09), and Oliari and others v. Italy (n°18766/11 et 36030/11) has a very strong impact since it recognises the theoretical limits of the interpretation of the right to marry (§ 39);
  • In regard to the right to respect for private life (guaranteed by Article 8) and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 14), “States are still free (...) to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples", (making reference to Schalk and Kopf ,§ 108 and Gas and Dubois, § 66)
  • States “enjoy a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred by alternative means of recognition” of same-sex relationships, and its differences concerning the rights and obligations conferred by marriage (§ 58).
The ECLJ welcomes this decision, which it considers consistent with the correct interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECLJ notes, however, that this decision does not totally rule out the possibility of a future development in the Court position in favour of a right to same-sex marriage as part of a right “to the recognition” of stable relationships. It also recognises that such an interpretation cannot be based on the wording of the Convention.

The question of same-sex marriage pushes the Court to the limits of its ability to interpret the Convention. These limits are marked by the very wording of this treaty and by the explicit will of the majority of its Member States. Although it is still appropriate to apply the Convention to the changes in society, on the contrary, it is inappropriate to pretend changing the very content of the Convention.

For further reading, see particularly: G. Puppinck, Same Sex Unions at the ECHR, 20 April 2015.
 
K

kastro

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
920
Points
1,000
K

kastro

JF-Expert Member
Joined Oct 28, 2018
920 1,000
Hawa wote wanao shabikia Wasenge kama kina Obama na kina Tonny Blair mbona hawajawahi kutuonesha mabest wao wakisenge wakila nao pozi kwenye sebule zao ?
 
M

mkma

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
122
Points
250
M

mkma

Senior Member
Joined Feb 27, 2018
122 250
Nimsubili MTETEZI wa Mashoga F KARUME atoke kwenye mkutano wao na Chama chake aje apinge hii Hukumu.. Au Akate Rufaa

Yule mwanamke HANA AIBU KABISA!!!!!!!

wangekuwa wazazi wake wanakalia Kufirana SIJUI YEYE ANGEPATIKANA VIPI

KWA HILI NINAPOKUMBUKA NDIPO NAMPUUZA SAAAANA

mengine ya Uchadema ndani ya TLS hayo yanajadilika Maana Ni hiari ya Uchaguzi.. LAKINI USHOGA NA UJINGA KAMA HUO!!!!!! NAMPUUZA SANA HUYU MWANAMKE
 
Aikambee

Aikambee

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2017
Messages
3,041
Points
2,000
Aikambee

Aikambee

JF-Expert Member
Joined Sep 27, 2017
3,041 2,000
Nilikua namaanisha ukisema kuwa gay sio a right,then in a nutshell you are saying being straight is also not a right buddy.i have met also some gay people who are amazing,great personalities and I would not change them for anything

manengelo
 
mchillo

mchillo

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
485
Points
225
mchillo

mchillo

JF-Expert Member
Joined Oct 13, 2010
485 225
Nimsubili MTETEZI wa Mashoga F KARUME atoke kwenye mkutano wao na Chama chake aje apinge hii Hukumu.. Au Akate Rufaa

Yule mwanamke HANA AIBU KABISA!!!!!!!

wangekuwa wazazi wake wanakalia Kufirana SIJUI YEYE ANGEPATIKANA VIPI

KWA HILI NINAPOKUMBUKA NDIPO NAMPUUZA SAAAANA

mengine ya Uchadema ndani ya TLS hayo yanajadilika Maana Ni hiari ya Uchaguzi.. LAKINI USHOGA NA UJINGA KAMA HUO!!!!!! NAMPUUZA SANA HUYU MWANAMKE
Usitulishe pumba! Wewe Ndiyo huelewi Fatma Karume anachosimamia! Fatma haungi mkono ushoga, anapinga uvunjifu wa haki ya faragha iliyoko katika Katiba kwa kuingiliwa faragha ya watu wawapo vyumbani! Ndiyo ufafanuzi tuliopewa na serikali hiihii ilipoihakikishia jumuia ya kimataifa kuwa haikuhusika na maamuzi ya Bashite! Fatma aliweka wazi kwamba alikuwa tayari kuwatetea watu wanaoshtakiwa kwa kesi za aina hiyo - wajibu wa kisheria wa mawakili na Wanasheria anaowawakilisha kama Rais wao!

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 

Forum statistics

Threads 1,307,080
Members 502,332
Posts 31,601,025
Top