Does Prince Harry really have to prove his manhood by shooting up Afghans. I think he would be better proving his manhood by stripping young damsels at strip poker.
Prince Harry was having fun striping young ladies in Las Vegas, and it looks like he is now being send to have more fun taking target practice on Afghans.
I know the whole routine involving telling us how he is fighting the Taliban. But the bottom line is that the West do not know exactly who they are killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas. They often claim they have killed Taliban only for the target to turn up alive later.
The West does not allow any close examination of who they are killing in the area because they themselves do not know who they are killing. They also do not care about the civilians, women and children caught in the crossfire.
Surely the British royal family must have better ways of proving the manhood of their menfolk, than fomenting wars in poor parts of the world and then sending their menfolk to have some target practice. It is a callous and disgusting manifestation of how cheaply they view OUR lives in the third world.
A man is frivolously stripping young ladies one week and the next he is being send to take target practice on our lives. Surely our lives can be as cheap as the banal activities of the Las Vegas strip.
I keep saying our lives because I am also a third world citizen and I plan on remaining one to the end of my days or until my particular patch of the third world rises to first world standards. I know very well what is being done in other parts of the third world can easily be done in my part of the world as well.
I did not design the emperor's costume so don't blame me for pointing out his nakedness. The pun with the particular individual we are discussing is entirely accidental but nonetheless appropriate.
Nonetheless the wars that the west are fomenting in many parts of the third world, are entirely pointless. I doubt if the West themselves even know why they are fighting those wars. I bet the primary reason is simply that they have the weapons and their politicians want to look tough.
In reality they end looking like manipulative backstabbers, who are misleading the entire world towards more, and more violent trouble.
It is a sad world where OUR lives in the third world have become an election commodity in the first world. First world politicians show off the biceps by lobbying a few bombs and missiles into third world populations whenever they wish.
Sunday 30 September 2012
Thursday 27 September 2012
Criticize the West too on Syria
The burden of expectation cannot only be on Bashir and his allies. That burden must be placed on the rebels and their allies as well.
Hillary Clinton is right. There should be consequences. But these should be consequences for the rebels and their sponsors. They are the ones primarily responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria. The people who have financed a second centre of armed coercion are the ones responsible for the instability of Syria. They are the ones bearing more of the responsibility for the suffering of the Syrian people.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the kleptocratic one family dictatorship in Syria is right. All I am saying is that those arming the rebels are not acting out of sincere concern for ordinary Syrian people. They are acting for their own selfish narrow ends.
The 'solution' for a hungry hyena's problem is not necessarily the same as the 'solution' for a trapped goat's problem, although the hyena might see a positive link in the circumstances.
The solution for Syria's ordinary people, is not sponsoring the rebels until they can defeat Bashar. In fact that is part of the problem.
Criticism should be sincere and honest. If criticism is allowed to become manipulative and scheming, then eventually people will loose faith in the schemers.
The West should stop shedding crocodile tears for Syria's people while conniving with the rebels to make the lives of Syrians hell by fomenting a war in their backyards.
Hillary Clinton is right. There should be consequences. But these should be consequences for the rebels and their sponsors. They are the ones primarily responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria. The people who have financed a second centre of armed coercion are the ones responsible for the instability of Syria. They are the ones bearing more of the responsibility for the suffering of the Syrian people.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the kleptocratic one family dictatorship in Syria is right. All I am saying is that those arming the rebels are not acting out of sincere concern for ordinary Syrian people. They are acting for their own selfish narrow ends.
The 'solution' for a hungry hyena's problem is not necessarily the same as the 'solution' for a trapped goat's problem, although the hyena might see a positive link in the circumstances.
The solution for Syria's ordinary people, is not sponsoring the rebels until they can defeat Bashar. In fact that is part of the problem.
Criticism should be sincere and honest. If criticism is allowed to become manipulative and scheming, then eventually people will loose faith in the schemers.
The West should stop shedding crocodile tears for Syria's people while conniving with the rebels to make the lives of Syrians hell by fomenting a war in their backyards.
Monday 17 September 2012
Mazano kuna Save
Save, ndange ndichikumbira kumbokurumaiwo nzeve pakanyaya kadikidiki aka kanenge kari kuda kukunetsai.
Hongu Save mungagombuka zvenyu nezvakaitwa namuzvare Locardia. Asika Save zivaiyi kuti hakuna mukadzi asingarwe shanje. Pamakangopfimba vakadzi vari vaviri mungadai makatoziva kuti munofanira kugara makagadzirira kutonga nyanya dzeshanje.
Zvisinei hazvo Save chadeuka chadeuka mvuru yeguchu haiworerwi. Pave nenyaya yenyu apa pava kuda kuti imi muchidzikamisa pfungwa. Motsvaga zano rekupodza bopota rapinda munzanga yenyu. Nharo ihuni dzemudzambiringwa pabopoto. Dzinoita kuti rive mavirimi emoto.
Asiwo fungai pachikuru. Imi munozviziva wani kuti yatsika dope yanwa. Imi mungafunga kuti kwaKarimatsenga ndakatsika dope chete, asi mhuri yekwaKarimatsenga ichitoti makatobhaguja. Daka rakadaro haripedzwe nekunyombana. Dai iri hanzvadzi yenyu yakanzarwo, maisarodza mapfumo?
Rangarirai zvakare kuti nyaya dzerudo hadzidi kumhanya. Dzinopingirisha. Hamuonewo here kuti makamhanya pamakati nanzvei kwaKarimatsenga, gore risati rapera mabva manonombora futi kwaMacheka. Nyangwe dai uchidya zvinotapira zvinoda kuti munhu umbotura mafemo. Honai mava kukachidzwa.
Save, itai pachirume, vakai kitchen dzenyu mbiri paBuhera apa mokanda malady enyu pakitchen. Mapedza nazvo. Inga President Zuma vanongozviita wani.
Save, musakanganwa zvakare kuti makanoroora mumwedzi weMbudzi. Makanzi muripe imi mukati aiwa chiVanhu hachina basa. Zvino nhasi zvazvava kukumomoterai musatsvaga vamwe vekupomera. Pamakavambira rwendo rwenyu munopaziva. Ripai zvipere.
Chimwezve Save, musanyanyosanganisa munyu netsvigiri. Zvamanga maroora paChivanhu dai manga maramba makamira ipapo. Honai pamava kuda kupinza Chirungu ndipo ndipo pamabva masimudza mhepo dzirere zvadzo. Dzokerai kuChivanhu kusvika nyaya yenyu yadzikama. Izvi zvekufadza nyika nemuchato munozoita pave paya.
Save ndipo panguwo pandati pamwe ndingakubatsirai. Kana maona zano rangu risina rubetsero, aiwa munongosaira kwakadaro uko sedhumbu rechembere.
VaPunungwe
Explaining the Furore over Tsvangirai's marriage
Recently Zimbabwe was entertained to the best reality soap opera a country can ever have. Attempts by Zimbabwe's prime ministers to marry monogamously, were scuttled by a jilted lover, amid high drama, scandal and salacious exposure of the Prime Minister rather lurid sojourns, with members of the opposite sex.
Some of us were twisting and distorting our jaws with laughter so much that, we almost ended up requiring a plaster-cast to straighten them. Those of us who understand Shona customs, were understanding nuances of what was happening in minute detail.
Only when a white colleague in the UK said, with a rather confused air, she now understands what the furore was about, did I realised that drama must have been flying over the heads of a large portion of the audience who have no clue about Tsvangirayi's Shona culture.
In Zimbabwe you can have either a civil marriage (held under European Marriages Act during the colonial days) which MUST be monogamous.
You can also have a customary marriage (held under the African Marriages Act in the colonial days).
European marriages are held in church or in the courts and are immediately registered.
Customary marriages are usually held in traditional ceremonies at home. The vast majority are not subsequently registered. That is if marriage process is completed in the first place.
Customary marriages involve a very elaborate process which involves a number of steps. The steps can generally be broken down into three basic stages.
1. Approaching the family of the bride to ask for her hand in marriage.
2. Negotiating and paying the dowry.
3. Handover of the bride to the groom's family. This may take place even if dowry has not been paid in full.
Some marriages then go on to step number 4, though this is not considered necessary in our customs.
4. White wedding (so called because the bride's white gown).
This last step may, but no always, also involve registration of the marriage as a civil union. Usually the grooms family ask for permission for a white wedding during step two. If that is granted then step 3 and 4 may be held together and are presumed to be mere formalities.
You may be wondering, do poor people marry? Yes they do because the dowry does not have to be paid in full for the bride to be handed over. But then permission for a white wedding is usually denied.
There is also another variation of the process which involves the bride simply eloping without her family's permission. This is now far much more prevalent because of poverty.
In that case the process starts at step zero, notifying the bride's family that 'we have your daughter'. That step is called matsvakirai kuno or matsvangirayi kuno (search [for your daughter] with us). Now you know where Morgan's surname comes from.
Understand that by our Shona customs, you are not considered married by your families if you only have a civil marriage. You are derisively referred to as just doing kubika mapoto (literally 'cooking pots' - which is cohabiting). By strict customary standards, a civil marriage is considered invalid and is not recognized by both families.
Hence most Africans go through the customary process first. Even if it is not complete (dowry has not been paid in full) the grooms family must ask for permission from the bride's family to have the marriage registered, or to hold a white wedding. You cannot go ahead and just register the marriage without that permission.
In contrast the law, first written by Europeans, recognizes civil marriages but does not recognize customary marriages. Also court judgments have precedence over customary practices.
With Locardia, the woman who stopped his marriage, Tsvangirai went up to step 2. He paid US$35'000 dowry (a typical dowry is between US$2'000 and $10'000). Tsvangirai's delegation also asked for permission to hold a white wedding and were granted.
Theresa Makone who was part of the delegation is heard shouting joyfully 'Tapihwa muchato!'. (We have been granted permission for the wedding!) She is the co-minister of home affairs in Cabinet. What this means is that step 3 and 4 where now mere formalities. For all intends and purposes Tsvangirayi was married to Locardia.
However in the week after step 2 there was a huge political furor over Tsvangirayi marrying into a Zanu-PF family. The Karimatsenga family then quickly conducted step 3 handing over the bride without waiting for step 4 to be organised. In terms of Shona tradition, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
However because of the political furore, some people were now claiming the process was now being run by the CIO. That is hogwash. Traditionally the CIO would not have had a role to play. They are not Locardia's relatives. What happened, Locardia going to Tsvangirayi's rural home, is normal as per tradition anyway.
Also, according to some claims not denied by him, Tsvagirayi had already impregnated Locardia. That means in terms customary tradition Locardia was also entitled to kickstart the process at step zero - simply eloping to Tsvangirayi's home.
Thus the undisputed facts, proved by a video produced in court, are that Tsvangirayi had voluntarily gone up to step 2. He had also asked for step 4 and had been granted permission, so it was also a formality. Thus in terms of customary tradition Morgan was in a marriage to Locardia recognized by both his and the Karimatsenga family.
Tsvangirayi then made a U-turn faster than a MiG 21 in a dog fight. He announced in the press, not to the Karimatsenga family, that he was breaking up with Locardia. In our customs to divorce your wife you give a her a token called gupuro. This must be handed to her, in front of members of her family and the groom's family.
In case of heated disputes, the case may need to be taken to a traditional leader such as a chief or a headman. He would pass judgement to either allow the divorce or reject it. In cases where there are children born in the marriage, divorce is mostly rejected, unless the woman agrees.
In Shona culture it is considered not proper to ask a mother to leave her children. At the same time the children are considered to belong to the husband's family, and must stay with him. A divorced woman must go back to her family.
Tsvangirayi then went through the same traditional process for Elizabeth Macheka. There is nothing wrong with that because polygamy is allowed by customary tradition. That is to say he approached her family, paid dowry and apparently she was handed over to him because he has been travelling around with her. Thus step 1 to 3 had been completed.
Step 4, the white wedding was what was now being arranged. Tsvangirayi also intended to register this marriage as a civil union (European marriage) which must be monogamous.
At law European marriages trounce African marriages. Successful registration of Elizabeth's marriage would have automatically invalidated Locardia's customary marriage. But the law does allow for objection to a civil union within 90 days.
Locardia did jump the gun and appeal straight to the High Court. The High Court told her to go and object with the magistrate who granted Tsvangirayi the marriage licence. Her case was not completely thrown out as claimed by some.
The objection was lodged. The magistrate sustained the objection and withdrew his permission for Tsvangirayi to marry Elizabeth in a monogamous civil marriage.
I have read the magistrate's ruling in full, and I think it is pretty straight-forward. In terms of the marriages laws, Locardia's customary marriage would not prevent Tsvangirayi from marrying in a civil union. Remember these are laws which were designed to favour Europeans in the colonial racist system.
However in terms of the criminal laws sanctioning the civil union would be allowing Tsvangirayi to commit bigamy, a crime. Annulling Locardia's customary marriage to allow the civil marriage could in theory have been possible. But that would have set a very bad precedent for women.
The vast majority of African women are in unregistered customary marriages. Many men resist entering into civil unions because of the legal restrictions placed upon their philandering activities. Others are unable because they haven't paid dowry portions big enough to get permission from the bride's family. Perhaps the biggest number, it is because they women simply eloped, and the husband cannot afford dowry.
Please let nobody try and insult us for not simply ignoring our families. It is our culture and we are proud of it. We will probably ignore it the day the British get rid of their monarchy, which according to some is fo no use. Besides the marriage process, has important ramifications throughout life, right up to the day of the burial of either spouse.
Culturally, not having a proper customary marriage is considered an impairment of dignity and may be met with stigmatization, hurtful mockery and jibes by family members. I have already said a non-customary marriage even if it is a registered civil union, is derisively and contemptuously referred to as kurova mapoto. Any self respecting Shona person, would want to be in a marriage that is accepted by their families.
This should also explain to many why Locardia fought tooth and nail to have her marriage remain relevant customarily. Remember in her affidavit she said she didn't object to Tsvangirai taking a second wife. It was a matter of upholding her personal dignity in the eyes of the community.
Those who are saying things were arranged by state agents are simply being shallow. Any woman would have done what she did. Most women cannot do it because they are too poor. They do not have the resources for legal action. They often fall victim to abandonment by philandering and scheming husbands.
Organisations such us the Legal Resources Centre, were primarily set up to try and help Zimbabwe's poor women who fall victim to men's shenanigans such as the one Tsvangirayi was trying to pull on Locardia - get a civil marriage to get rid of the old customary wife without a proper divorce settlement.
In Locardia's case it might seem frivolous because the marriage had not lasted, but this regularly happens to women who have been married for decades. They and their children are abandoned and find it difficult to get redress at law. Most don't.
A ruling simply annulling a customary marriage, to allow a civil marriage, without due process, would have completely stripped women of what little rights they have at law. Any man who no longer wanted his customarily married wife, could in theory simply find another woman and marry her in a civil marriage without proper divorce settlement.
I think the case highlights some of the senseless contradictions cause by imposing the values of one culture upon another without any thought to it at all. Tsvangirai was trying to exploit a loophole that some Zimbabwean men use to get rid of their customarily married wives without proper divorce settlement.
Believe me if Tsvangirayi did not have so many foes watching his every misstep, waiting to trip him up, he would have pulled this off without a hitch for Locardia only to discover many years later that she did not have a marriage. Many women only discover upon the death of the husband that he is in a civil marriage to someone they thought was a mere second wife and they are not entitled to anything.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the whole saga, is that after a very bumpy round robin ride, Tsvangirayi is exactly where the whole thing started, still married into a Zanu-PF family albeit a different one. However the round-robin ride has considerably jolted his moral standing, and caused maybe mortal damage to his political stature.
I wonder why his supporters couldn't just let him marry whoever he wished in the first place. In the end all that was achieved was to give opponents luxurious time to take pot-shots at his moral standing, I would say with considerable success, for absolutely nothing in return.
It was like asking a platoon to go for an exercise jog, between the opposing trenches during the first world war - take a risk for no good reason.
Those who are saying Tsvangirai defied a court order are wrong. He didn't because he married customarily whereby polygamy it is allowed. The court order was to stop a civil monogamous marriage.
However he may have perjured himself. He swore before the magistrate that he didn't have any impediment hindering his intention to enter a monogamous marriage, while he clearly knew about the Locardia marriage. He may argue that he didn't know he was required to properly divorce here. As we know ignorance is no defence at law.
He basically admitted to this marriage when he attached a $1 gupuro (divorce token) to an affidavit he tried to hand to the magistrate.
I do not know exactly why Tsvangirai tried to hand the token to a magistrate, because that is not how it is done. The magistrate stated that the wife to be divorced was not present to give her side anyway.
There is also another catch, a woman may simply refuse to be divorced. This usually happens where a woman has children. Refusing the token means that she may stay with the husband's family, and use their resources to look after the children, though the husband might subsequently deny her conjugal rights.
A woman, especially one you deflowered, might also refuse to leave. In our culture a woman is supposed to be a virgin upon marriage, thus a woman is allowed to claim that she can no longer get married elsewhere because you deflowered her.
While many found the whole saga humorous, the matter of customarily married women falling victim to scheming husbands is not a joke. The vast majority of Zimbabwe's marriages are unregistered customary marriages.
Many women only discover, upon the death of the husband, that they are not even entitled to the estate of the man they have been married to for life. He would be in a civil marriage with someone they thought was a co-wife.
Now that Tsvangirai's behaviour has highlighted the problem, I hope it can be non-partisanly tackled, in order to protect women and children.
Some of us were twisting and distorting our jaws with laughter so much that, we almost ended up requiring a plaster-cast to straighten them. Those of us who understand Shona customs, were understanding nuances of what was happening in minute detail.
Only when a white colleague in the UK said, with a rather confused air, she now understands what the furore was about, did I realised that drama must have been flying over the heads of a large portion of the audience who have no clue about Tsvangirayi's Shona culture.
In Zimbabwe you can have either a civil marriage (held under European Marriages Act during the colonial days) which MUST be monogamous.
You can also have a customary marriage (held under the African Marriages Act in the colonial days).
European marriages are held in church or in the courts and are immediately registered.
Customary marriages are usually held in traditional ceremonies at home. The vast majority are not subsequently registered. That is if marriage process is completed in the first place.
Customary marriages involve a very elaborate process which involves a number of steps. The steps can generally be broken down into three basic stages.
1. Approaching the family of the bride to ask for her hand in marriage.
2. Negotiating and paying the dowry.
3. Handover of the bride to the groom's family. This may take place even if dowry has not been paid in full.
Some marriages then go on to step number 4, though this is not considered necessary in our customs.
4. White wedding (so called because the bride's white gown).
This last step may, but no always, also involve registration of the marriage as a civil union. Usually the grooms family ask for permission for a white wedding during step two. If that is granted then step 3 and 4 may be held together and are presumed to be mere formalities.
You may be wondering, do poor people marry? Yes they do because the dowry does not have to be paid in full for the bride to be handed over. But then permission for a white wedding is usually denied.
There is also another variation of the process which involves the bride simply eloping without her family's permission. This is now far much more prevalent because of poverty.
In that case the process starts at step zero, notifying the bride's family that 'we have your daughter'. That step is called matsvakirai kuno or matsvangirayi kuno (search [for your daughter] with us). Now you know where Morgan's surname comes from.
Understand that by our Shona customs, you are not considered married by your families if you only have a civil marriage. You are derisively referred to as just doing kubika mapoto (literally 'cooking pots' - which is cohabiting). By strict customary standards, a civil marriage is considered invalid and is not recognized by both families.
Hence most Africans go through the customary process first. Even if it is not complete (dowry has not been paid in full) the grooms family must ask for permission from the bride's family to have the marriage registered, or to hold a white wedding. You cannot go ahead and just register the marriage without that permission.
In contrast the law, first written by Europeans, recognizes civil marriages but does not recognize customary marriages. Also court judgments have precedence over customary practices.
With Locardia, the woman who stopped his marriage, Tsvangirai went up to step 2. He paid US$35'000 dowry (a typical dowry is between US$2'000 and $10'000). Tsvangirai's delegation also asked for permission to hold a white wedding and were granted.
Theresa Makone who was part of the delegation is heard shouting joyfully 'Tapihwa muchato!'. (We have been granted permission for the wedding!) She is the co-minister of home affairs in Cabinet. What this means is that step 3 and 4 where now mere formalities. For all intends and purposes Tsvangirayi was married to Locardia.
However in the week after step 2 there was a huge political furor over Tsvangirayi marrying into a Zanu-PF family. The Karimatsenga family then quickly conducted step 3 handing over the bride without waiting for step 4 to be organised. In terms of Shona tradition, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
However because of the political furore, some people were now claiming the process was now being run by the CIO. That is hogwash. Traditionally the CIO would not have had a role to play. They are not Locardia's relatives. What happened, Locardia going to Tsvangirayi's rural home, is normal as per tradition anyway.
Also, according to some claims not denied by him, Tsvagirayi had already impregnated Locardia. That means in terms customary tradition Locardia was also entitled to kickstart the process at step zero - simply eloping to Tsvangirayi's home.
Thus the undisputed facts, proved by a video produced in court, are that Tsvangirayi had voluntarily gone up to step 2. He had also asked for step 4 and had been granted permission, so it was also a formality. Thus in terms of customary tradition Morgan was in a marriage to Locardia recognized by both his and the Karimatsenga family.
Tsvangirayi then made a U-turn faster than a MiG 21 in a dog fight. He announced in the press, not to the Karimatsenga family, that he was breaking up with Locardia. In our customs to divorce your wife you give a her a token called gupuro. This must be handed to her, in front of members of her family and the groom's family.
In case of heated disputes, the case may need to be taken to a traditional leader such as a chief or a headman. He would pass judgement to either allow the divorce or reject it. In cases where there are children born in the marriage, divorce is mostly rejected, unless the woman agrees.
In Shona culture it is considered not proper to ask a mother to leave her children. At the same time the children are considered to belong to the husband's family, and must stay with him. A divorced woman must go back to her family.
Tsvangirayi then went through the same traditional process for Elizabeth Macheka. There is nothing wrong with that because polygamy is allowed by customary tradition. That is to say he approached her family, paid dowry and apparently she was handed over to him because he has been travelling around with her. Thus step 1 to 3 had been completed.
Step 4, the white wedding was what was now being arranged. Tsvangirayi also intended to register this marriage as a civil union (European marriage) which must be monogamous.
At law European marriages trounce African marriages. Successful registration of Elizabeth's marriage would have automatically invalidated Locardia's customary marriage. But the law does allow for objection to a civil union within 90 days.
Locardia did jump the gun and appeal straight to the High Court. The High Court told her to go and object with the magistrate who granted Tsvangirayi the marriage licence. Her case was not completely thrown out as claimed by some.
The objection was lodged. The magistrate sustained the objection and withdrew his permission for Tsvangirayi to marry Elizabeth in a monogamous civil marriage.
I have read the magistrate's ruling in full, and I think it is pretty straight-forward. In terms of the marriages laws, Locardia's customary marriage would not prevent Tsvangirayi from marrying in a civil union. Remember these are laws which were designed to favour Europeans in the colonial racist system.
However in terms of the criminal laws sanctioning the civil union would be allowing Tsvangirayi to commit bigamy, a crime. Annulling Locardia's customary marriage to allow the civil marriage could in theory have been possible. But that would have set a very bad precedent for women.
The vast majority of African women are in unregistered customary marriages. Many men resist entering into civil unions because of the legal restrictions placed upon their philandering activities. Others are unable because they haven't paid dowry portions big enough to get permission from the bride's family. Perhaps the biggest number, it is because they women simply eloped, and the husband cannot afford dowry.
Please let nobody try and insult us for not simply ignoring our families. It is our culture and we are proud of it. We will probably ignore it the day the British get rid of their monarchy, which according to some is fo no use. Besides the marriage process, has important ramifications throughout life, right up to the day of the burial of either spouse.
Culturally, not having a proper customary marriage is considered an impairment of dignity and may be met with stigmatization, hurtful mockery and jibes by family members. I have already said a non-customary marriage even if it is a registered civil union, is derisively and contemptuously referred to as kurova mapoto. Any self respecting Shona person, would want to be in a marriage that is accepted by their families.
This should also explain to many why Locardia fought tooth and nail to have her marriage remain relevant customarily. Remember in her affidavit she said she didn't object to Tsvangirai taking a second wife. It was a matter of upholding her personal dignity in the eyes of the community.
Those who are saying things were arranged by state agents are simply being shallow. Any woman would have done what she did. Most women cannot do it because they are too poor. They do not have the resources for legal action. They often fall victim to abandonment by philandering and scheming husbands.
Organisations such us the Legal Resources Centre, were primarily set up to try and help Zimbabwe's poor women who fall victim to men's shenanigans such as the one Tsvangirayi was trying to pull on Locardia - get a civil marriage to get rid of the old customary wife without a proper divorce settlement.
In Locardia's case it might seem frivolous because the marriage had not lasted, but this regularly happens to women who have been married for decades. They and their children are abandoned and find it difficult to get redress at law. Most don't.
A ruling simply annulling a customary marriage, to allow a civil marriage, without due process, would have completely stripped women of what little rights they have at law. Any man who no longer wanted his customarily married wife, could in theory simply find another woman and marry her in a civil marriage without proper divorce settlement.
I think the case highlights some of the senseless contradictions cause by imposing the values of one culture upon another without any thought to it at all. Tsvangirai was trying to exploit a loophole that some Zimbabwean men use to get rid of their customarily married wives without proper divorce settlement.
Believe me if Tsvangirayi did not have so many foes watching his every misstep, waiting to trip him up, he would have pulled this off without a hitch for Locardia only to discover many years later that she did not have a marriage. Many women only discover upon the death of the husband that he is in a civil marriage to someone they thought was a mere second wife and they are not entitled to anything.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the whole saga, is that after a very bumpy round robin ride, Tsvangirayi is exactly where the whole thing started, still married into a Zanu-PF family albeit a different one. However the round-robin ride has considerably jolted his moral standing, and caused maybe mortal damage to his political stature.
I wonder why his supporters couldn't just let him marry whoever he wished in the first place. In the end all that was achieved was to give opponents luxurious time to take pot-shots at his moral standing, I would say with considerable success, for absolutely nothing in return.
It was like asking a platoon to go for an exercise jog, between the opposing trenches during the first world war - take a risk for no good reason.
Those who are saying Tsvangirai defied a court order are wrong. He didn't because he married customarily whereby polygamy it is allowed. The court order was to stop a civil monogamous marriage.
However he may have perjured himself. He swore before the magistrate that he didn't have any impediment hindering his intention to enter a monogamous marriage, while he clearly knew about the Locardia marriage. He may argue that he didn't know he was required to properly divorce here. As we know ignorance is no defence at law.
He basically admitted to this marriage when he attached a $1 gupuro (divorce token) to an affidavit he tried to hand to the magistrate.
I do not know exactly why Tsvangirai tried to hand the token to a magistrate, because that is not how it is done. The magistrate stated that the wife to be divorced was not present to give her side anyway.
There is also another catch, a woman may simply refuse to be divorced. This usually happens where a woman has children. Refusing the token means that she may stay with the husband's family, and use their resources to look after the children, though the husband might subsequently deny her conjugal rights.
A woman, especially one you deflowered, might also refuse to leave. In our culture a woman is supposed to be a virgin upon marriage, thus a woman is allowed to claim that she can no longer get married elsewhere because you deflowered her.
While many found the whole saga humorous, the matter of customarily married women falling victim to scheming husbands is not a joke. The vast majority of Zimbabwe's marriages are unregistered customary marriages.
Many women only discover, upon the death of the husband, that they are not even entitled to the estate of the man they have been married to for life. He would be in a civil marriage with someone they thought was a co-wife.
Now that Tsvangirai's behaviour has highlighted the problem, I hope it can be non-partisanly tackled, in order to protect women and children.
Friday 7 September 2012
Open Advice to Locadia
My dear sister I have never met you or your husband Mr Morgan Tsvangarayi. I am giving you this advice based entirely on reports I have seen and read in the media.
I understand you are Mr Tsvangirayi's customarily married wife. I also understand that he is currently planning to wed another woman behind your back.
I am not saying your husband should not marry a second wife. It is entirely his choice. If that is the case, there are proper traditional ways of informing you as the first wife of that intention. Your husband seems a bit confused at to which customs he wants to pursue, traditional customs or European customs. His confusion is none of your business.
He can certainly not change horses in mid-stream. Having at first traditional married you, he cannot turn around and say he now wants to forget about you and marry another woman according to European customs, pretending as if you do not exist.
You do exist and you are doing the proper and legal thing taking him to court so that he continues to fulfil his duties and obligations towards you. After all he is the one who proposed to you, unless I am mistaken.
Your husband is politically powerful and your will be faced propaganda driven attacks on you from his powerful political allies. But my sister, do not let such attacks dissuade you from fighting for your rights as a woman. You have nothing to be ashamed of.
You should make it a point of formally objecting to Tsvangirayi's wedding with Elizabeth. If you allow the wedding to go ahead it might negatively affect your court case and impinge on your rights.
For best result, you have to go yourself to make that objection. However his security might stop you from entering. So as a backup plan send in a number of people with instructions to object on your behalf.
I do not know if it is possible but you can also lodge an objection with the church ministers supposed to conduct the wedding. You are his wife and he should not be marrying another woman behind your back. Fulstop.
If he wants to marry a second wife he should inform you properly. My sister, as per our tradition, I would advise you to let him go ahead, but within the proper channels.
As per our tradition, his second marriage does not nullify your own marriage. However if you allow the European type marriage to go ahead, this might change. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly what will happen. However I do think it is very important for you to lodge your objection to the European style marriage. The law and Europeans customs do allow for such objections.
His political career is none of your business. It is his business. He should be keeping his affairs in order by himself. My apologies for the pun.
Your business is to safeguard your rights as a woman. Do not be intimidated by his political power. It is not morally right for him to move on pretending as if you don't exist. If he is a man of honour he should do the right things for you first. He cannot use your as a wiping cloth for his sexual satisfaction and then discard you.Hanzvadzi yangu, hausi chikorobho chaTsvangirayi.
My sister, you are under no obligation whatsoever to take my advice. I do not know the inner workings of your relationship with Mr Tsvangirai so my advice might be completely off the mark and irrelevant. If that is the case, please discard it.
I just wanted you to be aware, that your rights are not secondary to husband's because of his political power. He may be rubbing shoulders with Obama today, but that still does not give him a right to treat you, or any other woman, like trash.
Thursday 6 September 2012
Increasing Perception that Aid Agencies are used by Spy Agencies dangerous for aid workers
A Pakistani doctor was used in a fake immunization scheme. He is now in jail - alive. He is lucky.
A Ghanaian doctor was not so lucky. He is dead. He was shot in Pakistan. I victim of the mistrust of aid workers that is caused by reported CIA activities.
Pakistan has now expelled the entire foreign staff of an aid agency. It claims the agency was used as cover by the CIA. They could right, they could be wrong. We will never know. The CIA does not exactly wear its heart on the sleeve.
CIA operatives are well protected. The Firm is even prepared to pay blood money where operatives do commit crimes. They recently paid such money for an operative who murdered two people in Pakistan.
Operatives are also highly trained to deal with the dangerous situations they may encounter or create for themselves. The same cannot be said for aid workers. In most cases they are armed with nothing but their do-gooder hearts.
Unfortunately us mere humans, cannot see what is inside the heart. Simple goodness of the heart, is no defence when faced with highly suspicious and hostile populations who may have been victims of deceit, or know about such deceit being done elsewhere.
The sad thing is that the leader of the world's largest organisation involved in aid, Ban Ki Moon is totally silent about the dangers created for his workers by activities of particularly the CIA. He seems to come alive only when targeting regimes also targeted by the parent body of the CIA, the US government, and their allies. It is very unlikely he is a CIA operative, but by his actions he is reducing himself to a little more than a CIA plant in the UN.
In the years when I was a UN employee, it was supreme taboo for anyone to target UN workers of any sort. However now they seem to have become open season for anyone with a grievance and a gun or a bomb. There have been several very high profile bombings buildings and killings of UN staff.
Surely even a grotto salamander, without eyes, can see the link between aid workers increasingly becoming unsuspecting victims of aggrieved parties and the tendency of particularly Western intelligence agencies to plant operatives among aid workers.
The neutrality of the UN vis-a-vis geopolitical rivalries, has been seriously compromised in the eyes of many. It has become a little more than a Western foreign ministry. This perception of compromised neutrality, is affecting the safety of the hundreds of thousands of good people who dedicate their lives to helping others through UN work in dangerous places.
As such one would expect the UN to safeguard it's neutrality and integrity with all its might. Not so, especially under Ban Ki Moon. The UN has been increasingly flowing along with Western propaganda, increasingly parroting Western positions against a few targeted regimes while ignoring similar transgressions by non-targeted regimes.
For example, Bahrain has been allowed to literally get away with murder in supressing Arab Spring uprisings. In Syria, the one family dictatorship of the Al Assad family has been targeted with ferocious sponsorship of an armed insurgency. Bahrain is also a one family dictatorship. So are Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but those families are considered allies by the West. So they are given the free reign to oppress their people, with the UN faithfully trotting along with that position.
Yes it can be argued that the world is faced with increasingly vicious and much more dangerous aggrieved insurgent movements. In fact it is true. However when the UN is contrasted with an organisation like the ICRC, it is as clearly visible as the bottom of a baboon facing away from you, that the UN has unnecessarily given away some of its neutrality capital.
I believe that governments that have abused UN trust by planting their operatives among the staff should be held to account. Unfortunately such organisations as the CIA belong to the world's most powerful governments that are acting with unbridled impunity in pursuit of their narrow, ill thought-out and plain unwise agendas.
The mistaken perception that technological advancement equals all-knowing wisdom, sees many in the world allowing these organisations to act as they wish. However a logical analysis of their actions reveals that they are just as ignorant and prone to misjudgement as any other human. Their misjudgement should not be allowed to cost lives with impunity.
Countries like the USA have had great visionary leaders who have undoubtedly played a leading role in shaping the world into what it is today. However that great vision has not rubbed off onto later generations.
Most western leaders of today like Blair and Bush, are little more than petty crooks trying to use the great past history of their countries to leave a legacy but failing with horrible consequences for the peoples that are experimented upon such as the Iraqis and Afghans.
A Ghanaian doctor was not so lucky. He is dead. He was shot in Pakistan. I victim of the mistrust of aid workers that is caused by reported CIA activities.
Pakistan has now expelled the entire foreign staff of an aid agency. It claims the agency was used as cover by the CIA. They could right, they could be wrong. We will never know. The CIA does not exactly wear its heart on the sleeve.
CIA operatives are well protected. The Firm is even prepared to pay blood money where operatives do commit crimes. They recently paid such money for an operative who murdered two people in Pakistan.
Operatives are also highly trained to deal with the dangerous situations they may encounter or create for themselves. The same cannot be said for aid workers. In most cases they are armed with nothing but their do-gooder hearts.
Unfortunately us mere humans, cannot see what is inside the heart. Simple goodness of the heart, is no defence when faced with highly suspicious and hostile populations who may have been victims of deceit, or know about such deceit being done elsewhere.
The sad thing is that the leader of the world's largest organisation involved in aid, Ban Ki Moon is totally silent about the dangers created for his workers by activities of particularly the CIA. He seems to come alive only when targeting regimes also targeted by the parent body of the CIA, the US government, and their allies. It is very unlikely he is a CIA operative, but by his actions he is reducing himself to a little more than a CIA plant in the UN.
In the years when I was a UN employee, it was supreme taboo for anyone to target UN workers of any sort. However now they seem to have become open season for anyone with a grievance and a gun or a bomb. There have been several very high profile bombings buildings and killings of UN staff.
Surely even a grotto salamander, without eyes, can see the link between aid workers increasingly becoming unsuspecting victims of aggrieved parties and the tendency of particularly Western intelligence agencies to plant operatives among aid workers.
The neutrality of the UN vis-a-vis geopolitical rivalries, has been seriously compromised in the eyes of many. It has become a little more than a Western foreign ministry. This perception of compromised neutrality, is affecting the safety of the hundreds of thousands of good people who dedicate their lives to helping others through UN work in dangerous places.
As such one would expect the UN to safeguard it's neutrality and integrity with all its might. Not so, especially under Ban Ki Moon. The UN has been increasingly flowing along with Western propaganda, increasingly parroting Western positions against a few targeted regimes while ignoring similar transgressions by non-targeted regimes.
For example, Bahrain has been allowed to literally get away with murder in supressing Arab Spring uprisings. In Syria, the one family dictatorship of the Al Assad family has been targeted with ferocious sponsorship of an armed insurgency. Bahrain is also a one family dictatorship. So are Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but those families are considered allies by the West. So they are given the free reign to oppress their people, with the UN faithfully trotting along with that position.
Yes it can be argued that the world is faced with increasingly vicious and much more dangerous aggrieved insurgent movements. In fact it is true. However when the UN is contrasted with an organisation like the ICRC, it is as clearly visible as the bottom of a baboon facing away from you, that the UN has unnecessarily given away some of its neutrality capital.
I believe that governments that have abused UN trust by planting their operatives among the staff should be held to account. Unfortunately such organisations as the CIA belong to the world's most powerful governments that are acting with unbridled impunity in pursuit of their narrow, ill thought-out and plain unwise agendas.
The mistaken perception that technological advancement equals all-knowing wisdom, sees many in the world allowing these organisations to act as they wish. However a logical analysis of their actions reveals that they are just as ignorant and prone to misjudgement as any other human. Their misjudgement should not be allowed to cost lives with impunity.
Countries like the USA have had great visionary leaders who have undoubtedly played a leading role in shaping the world into what it is today. However that great vision has not rubbed off onto later generations.
Most western leaders of today like Blair and Bush, are little more than petty crooks trying to use the great past history of their countries to leave a legacy but failing with horrible consequences for the peoples that are experimented upon such as the Iraqis and Afghans.
Why are we sleeping in Zimbabwe
The company I work for designs and manufactures turnkey electronic systems to customer specifications. Among the systems we make are queue management systems.
Recently a job landed on my desk. The salesperson let me know it was a queue management system for the consulate of my home country, Zimbabwe. The job required customization because of specific site conditions and non-standard components that needed to be incorporated into the system.
As the software engineer it was my responsibility to modify the system to customer requirements. In situations when it appears to me that the salesperson is not quite sure what the customer wants, I prefer to get it from the horses mouth.
I looked up the contact details of the Zimbabwe consulate on their website, believing that if I could get through to the reception I would soon be put in touch with the right people. One of the numbers advertised on the Zimbabwe Consulate website, appeared to be faulty. The other number was ringing and never getting answered.
For four straight days I tried calling either number about four or five times a day at different times. I never got through. I finally decided to contact the Zimbabwe embassy in Pretoria thinking maybe something was wrong.
Luckily with the embassy my call was answered at the second attempt. I told the lady on the other side that I was trying to get hold of the consulate, I needed some information for a job my company was doing for them. She gave me a number that was not listed on the consulate web site.
Again that number rang and rang and rang and rang and was never answered. I tried for a full day, no answer.
In the beginning I was full of so much zeal and energy proud that I was doing a job for my country. I was going to do my best. Now I am badly deflated. Ndaponja sebhasikoro ravaMugoni.
Seriously speaking how do we hope to attract tourists when we exhibit this level of simple lack of care, diligence and commitment to one's duties. How can a consulate responsible for issuing visas to tourists, never answer their phones? Alternatively how can they afford to have wrong numbers listed of the world's biggest market place, the Internet, for so long. That is if that is what the problem is.
I know the consulate staff a probably under tremendous pressure. With the very large number of Zimbabweans now living in South Africa, the consulate is bound to be overloaded with work. But to me that's not an excuse for never answering the phone in two weeks of trying.
The problem of congestion is one that can be easily addressed with good planning from the responsible authorities. I believed getting a queue management system is part of such a plan. That is why to this day I am so eager to have this job done and done properly. This is a system that is definitely going to serve me one day.
However as the English say, you can only take a horse to the water. For it to drink, it's another story.
Recently a job landed on my desk. The salesperson let me know it was a queue management system for the consulate of my home country, Zimbabwe. The job required customization because of specific site conditions and non-standard components that needed to be incorporated into the system.
As the software engineer it was my responsibility to modify the system to customer requirements. In situations when it appears to me that the salesperson is not quite sure what the customer wants, I prefer to get it from the horses mouth.
I looked up the contact details of the Zimbabwe consulate on their website, believing that if I could get through to the reception I would soon be put in touch with the right people. One of the numbers advertised on the Zimbabwe Consulate website, appeared to be faulty. The other number was ringing and never getting answered.
For four straight days I tried calling either number about four or five times a day at different times. I never got through. I finally decided to contact the Zimbabwe embassy in Pretoria thinking maybe something was wrong.
Luckily with the embassy my call was answered at the second attempt. I told the lady on the other side that I was trying to get hold of the consulate, I needed some information for a job my company was doing for them. She gave me a number that was not listed on the consulate web site.
Again that number rang and rang and rang and rang and was never answered. I tried for a full day, no answer.
In the beginning I was full of so much zeal and energy proud that I was doing a job for my country. I was going to do my best. Now I am badly deflated. Ndaponja sebhasikoro ravaMugoni.
Seriously speaking how do we hope to attract tourists when we exhibit this level of simple lack of care, diligence and commitment to one's duties. How can a consulate responsible for issuing visas to tourists, never answer their phones? Alternatively how can they afford to have wrong numbers listed of the world's biggest market place, the Internet, for so long. That is if that is what the problem is.
I know the consulate staff a probably under tremendous pressure. With the very large number of Zimbabweans now living in South Africa, the consulate is bound to be overloaded with work. But to me that's not an excuse for never answering the phone in two weeks of trying.
The problem of congestion is one that can be easily addressed with good planning from the responsible authorities. I believed getting a queue management system is part of such a plan. That is why to this day I am so eager to have this job done and done properly. This is a system that is definitely going to serve me one day.
However as the English say, you can only take a horse to the water. For it to drink, it's another story.
Tuesday 4 September 2012
China is bound to run into problems in Africa
Chinese companies are bound to run into serious problems in Africa sooner rather than later.
The way they operate is unconscionable. In most cases, safety standards are non-existent. Wages are a pittance. The management have no human relations skills whatsoever and are often accused of practicing karate on workers. That is if the speak English at all let alone the local language of the area where they will be operating.
They don't socialize with locals much. In contrast Europeans were rapacious in their appetite for local black women (although they liked to pretend they were not and claim it was black men who wanted white women). Africa's large mixed race community, of whom over 95% have white men as ancestors, is testimony to that.
Individual Chinese businesses do not invest in local infrastructure. Where investiment happens it is from the Chinise government, but that is not a substitute for the company being seen to be caring by the community within which it is operating. In fact Chinese businesses are notorious for evading taxes, and their owners are infamous for carrying cash around to evade being monitored through the banking system.
The Chinese are relying on lining the pockets of politicians to smooth their stay in Africa. That won't help them for long. Without the option of straight forward oppression and colonization that Europeans used, they won't last for long in Africa. They have to develop good community relations if they want to last. They should not be taken for a ride by politicians who only want to line their pockets while misleading both the Chinese and the community.
It is said that working conditions in China itself are not any better. Indeed this has been highlighted by some very high profile cases such as recent suicides at factories supplying world computer giant Apple. Chinese workers have little rights and apparently are not even allowed to form trade unions.
That can only mean that Chinese managers who are not accustomed to managing unionized workers are going to have problems in Africa. Workers in Africa have a long history of fighting for their rights, not just in the workplace but also against general racial oppression. They generally follow the Western unionization model. Chinese managers who do not have experience with the Western unionization model are bound to run into problems when dealing with collective labour action.
Indeed a recent incident in Zambia ended with tragic consequences for a Chinese manager who was killed when workers pushed a mine trolley at him.
It has been reported in some media that Chinese crime syndicates are now also finding their way to Africa and getting involved in such illicit activities as prostitution. Many African cultures exhibit strong communal loathing for crime with vigilante action sometimes being a result.
With their business practices already perceived negatively, the Chinese should not add crime to that negative perception.
They should be keenly aware that the main reason why they enjoy good fortunes in Africa now, is that they are seen as being better than the exploitative Western domination, that was the hallmark of colonialism. If they start being equated with Western colonizers, their star will very quickly crash to the ground.
Given that they don't have a strong neo-colonial presence in Africa as the West does, their exit will be much faster.
The way they operate is unconscionable. In most cases, safety standards are non-existent. Wages are a pittance. The management have no human relations skills whatsoever and are often accused of practicing karate on workers. That is if the speak English at all let alone the local language of the area where they will be operating.
They don't socialize with locals much. In contrast Europeans were rapacious in their appetite for local black women (although they liked to pretend they were not and claim it was black men who wanted white women). Africa's large mixed race community, of whom over 95% have white men as ancestors, is testimony to that.
Individual Chinese businesses do not invest in local infrastructure. Where investiment happens it is from the Chinise government, but that is not a substitute for the company being seen to be caring by the community within which it is operating. In fact Chinese businesses are notorious for evading taxes, and their owners are infamous for carrying cash around to evade being monitored through the banking system.
The Chinese are relying on lining the pockets of politicians to smooth their stay in Africa. That won't help them for long. Without the option of straight forward oppression and colonization that Europeans used, they won't last for long in Africa. They have to develop good community relations if they want to last. They should not be taken for a ride by politicians who only want to line their pockets while misleading both the Chinese and the community.
It is said that working conditions in China itself are not any better. Indeed this has been highlighted by some very high profile cases such as recent suicides at factories supplying world computer giant Apple. Chinese workers have little rights and apparently are not even allowed to form trade unions.
That can only mean that Chinese managers who are not accustomed to managing unionized workers are going to have problems in Africa. Workers in Africa have a long history of fighting for their rights, not just in the workplace but also against general racial oppression. They generally follow the Western unionization model. Chinese managers who do not have experience with the Western unionization model are bound to run into problems when dealing with collective labour action.
Indeed a recent incident in Zambia ended with tragic consequences for a Chinese manager who was killed when workers pushed a mine trolley at him.
It has been reported in some media that Chinese crime syndicates are now also finding their way to Africa and getting involved in such illicit activities as prostitution. Many African cultures exhibit strong communal loathing for crime with vigilante action sometimes being a result.
With their business practices already perceived negatively, the Chinese should not add crime to that negative perception.
They should be keenly aware that the main reason why they enjoy good fortunes in Africa now, is that they are seen as being better than the exploitative Western domination, that was the hallmark of colonialism. If they start being equated with Western colonizers, their star will very quickly crash to the ground.
Given that they don't have a strong neo-colonial presence in Africa as the West does, their exit will be much faster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)