A: Interview with Aitteti ole Nkarara, Sironkei ole Nkoie, and Seiro ole Rakwa – May 1973

Buxton was the man who shot Il Kidotu at Rotian. He was very brave but not a good man. He forced them to dig a road. They were told that they were going to cut a track. There were 600 murran cutting the road. Il Diegi had drunk milk but Il Kidotu went to Eunoto after the fight. 1 Kimoruai was the laibon. He was [very] powerful . . . and had many cattle. He was . . . a very nice, bright, man -- polite, not harsh. He was friendly to the Europeans, but even if he was not , the Europeans did not care because they had defeated the murran , all the elders and the laibons. . . .

The day that the fight occurred, Il Diegi were in the forest cutting and Il Kidotu were the murran digging. They had changed from the day before. There was a tree . . . that caused the fight. They had to cut it for eight days. On this day, Il Diegi passed the tree. Buxton came along on a horse with a white leg and stood by them and told them to cut the tree. They had cut the other trees and they refused to cut this big tree. They cut another tree. Then he started to insist and they again refused. Then people cried out . Buxton heard this and went, shouting to his camp. The murran heard the cry and thought that the elders were fighting the Europeans. They gathered together, threw down their [hoes], and rushed to their manyatta, which was nearby, to prepare. The elders tried to stop them but they would not listen. Buxton called his askaris 2 and killed some murran. Then they agreed and dug the road. Kimoruai was not there, he had been taken away by Buxton to his home. Kimoruai did not want them to fight. He told them not to, but, because of the hard work, they did not obey him. . . . The fight was caused by that cruel man Buxton. The Maasai and the Europeans had an oath not to fight and Buxton ignored it.

B: Interview with Senjura ole Nchoe – January 1983

The fight broke out when the government told them to dig the road from Narok to Mau. . . . [Il Diegi] started to dig and the murran joined them and were told to dig. The murran did not want to dig the road. They collected a few of the leaders of the murran to join [Il Diegi] in digging the road. Il Diegi were following behind the murran and the murran cleared the road ahead. There was a big cedar tree left still standing and Il Diegi cried out against it: "The murran have left this big tree for us to cut down; we are dead." The murran heard the outcry from ahead and they thought that the Europeans were beating their seniors. 3 They ran to their manyatta and brought out their weapons. Buxton was camped at Rotian. He heard the cries of Il Diegi and the war cries of the murran. He got on his horse and came up. On the way, he met the first murran and he went back at a gallop. A sword and club were thrown at him. He drew up the askaris. When they saw the murran advancing the askaris shot at them and killed three. The murran in front prevented those behind from coming [forward], so Buxton was able to go down the road to Narok with his wife. That is how the fight was.

[Senjura then describes negotiations between the murran and the colonial administration]

[At a meeting] the murran told Buxton that they hated digging the road and that they had not planned to fight. It was just that they had heard the seniors shouting and had thought that the askaris were beating them. Those seniors, when the fight broke out, went to the camp. The seniors told Buxton that it was true about the shouting because the murran were working ahead of them. So Buxton said: "Let us stop fighting and make peace. But let us go back [to Narok] because the [Officer in Charge] is coming ..." Then they could tell [him] what they disliked. . . .

[The murran were taken to Narok--to court--and the administration had already decided what they would do, which was to enroll the murran as Tribal Police]

Kimoruai was there at the manyatta. He was preparing for the Eunoto and Buxton thought that perhaps he was the one refusing them Eunoto [ie delaying the ceremony] because, as you know, laibons are consulted about the Eunoto. So Kimoruai was taken [away] to his own place. He was not inciting the muran. Anyone who says so is lying: he was not. Kimoruai just want to look after the murran so that he would be given cattle. He did not give them any charms to fight. It depends on how much medicine they take in the forest. 4 The charms of a laibon can do nothing to a murran. It is only medicine in the forest that makes him brave. . . . There was rivalry between right and left hand [circumcision groups]. The seniors were contemptuous of the left because, they said, they were very young. But when they had [retired as murran], who could despise them as they were all becoming elders then? Il Diegi were taunting [Il Kidotu] and even now, if they have been drinking, they still do. . . . It's just a joke – not serious now. But they were friendly when they were digging the road because they were one [age set]--only the names are different.

The elders wanted the murran to dig the road. They discussed it and agreed on it. Ole Galishu and ole Kotikosh were giving the orders. Ole Galishu liked the murran but did not want them to stay [murran] any longer without retiring. He had forced Il Diegi to have Eunoto while they were still [young initiates]; and after Eunoto some of them had built another manyatta. . . . Ole Galishu wanted to end murranhood completely. He wanted just a few days of murranhood and then they should settle down and become elders. . . .

[Senjura then describes disagreements between the chiefs over whether murran should retire early and whether they should be allowed to have manyattas. To force Il Diegi to retire, Ole Galishu had pressured their spokesmen into going though the final retirement ceremony in secret and in their fathers' camps.]

Ole Galishu wanted them to [retire] early to lessen the trouble that they might cause. Il Diegi caused trouble because they were many. They could have gone on a raid and finished people if they had been allowed to. They went [as small raiding groups] on more than one occasion, but not [as a major war party]. . . . Ole Galishu was ol piron of Il Diegi [and Il Kidotu] 5 and the other sponsors agreed with him. . . . They agreed because Ole Galishu was olaigwanani kitok and ruled them. 6 No one would go against what he said because it was the spokesman speaking.

Roman marble sarcophagus created to commemorate the death of a child.

Roman sarcophagus depicting a series of points in the life cycle of a child.

. . .[In] X v the United Kingdom (No. 7212/75 referred to above) the Commission found that an objective and reasonable justification existed for the different ages of consent, there being a realistic basis for the Government's opinion that, given the controversial and sensitive nature of the question involved, young men in the 18-21 bracket who were involved in homosexual relationships would be subject to substantial social pressures which could be harmful to their psychological development. . . .

The Commission, however, observes that its Report in X. v. the United Kingdom is now nearly 20 years old. While it is true that the views expressed in that Report have been subsequently repeated, it is also true that major changes have in the meantime occurred in professional opinions - particularly those of the medical profession - on the subject of the need for the protection of young male homosexuals and on the desirability of introducing an equal age of consent. . . . In particular, . . . the Council of the British Medical Association (BMA), which in 1981 gave evidence to the Policy Advisory Committee that boys and girls of the same age did not possess the same degree of emotional and psychological maturity, observed in 1994 that most researchers now believed that sexual orientation was usually established before the age of puberty in both boys and girls and referred to evidence that reducing the age of consent would be unlikely to affect the majority of men engaging in homosexual activity, either in general or within specific age groups. The BMA Council concluded in its Report that the age of consent for homosexual men should be set at 16 since the then existing law might inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual and bisexual men. . . .

Two such principal arguments emerge from the speeches in Parliament and are adopted and repeated in the Government's submissions. In the first place it is argued that certain young men between the ages of 16 and 18 do not have a settled sexual orientation and that the aim of the law is to protect such vulnerable young men from activities which will result in considerable social pressures and isolation which their lack of maturity might cause them later to repent: it is claimed that the possibility of criminal sanctions against persons aged 16 or 17 is likely to have a deterrent effect and give the individual time to make up his mind. Secondly, it is argued that society is entitled to indicate its disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference that children follow a heterosexual way of life.

The Commission does not consider that either argument offers a reasonable and objective justification for maintaining a different age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts or that maintaining such a differential age is proportionate to any legitimate aim served thereby. As to the former argument, as was conceded in the Parliamentary debates, current medical opinion is to the effect that sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes by the age of 16 and that men aged 16-21 are not in need of special protection because of the risk of their being "recruited" into homosexuality. . . .

As to the second ground relied on - society's claimed entitlement to indicate disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference for a heterosexual lifestyle - the Commission cannot accept that this could in any event constitute an objective or reasonable justification for inequality of treatment under the criminal law. . . .

Consequently, the Commission finds that no objective and reasonable justification exists for the maintenance of a higher minimum age of consent to male homosexual, than to heterosexual, acts. . . .

. . . It is, however, a fact that there is in full operation among us a system of which the violation of virgins is one of the ordinary incidents; that these virgins are mostly of tender age, being too young in fact to understand the nature of the crime of which they are the unwilling victims; that these outrages are constantly perpetrated with almost absolute impunity; and that the arrangements for procuring, certifying, violating, repairing, and disposing of these ruined victims of the lust of London are made with a simplicity and efficiency incredible to all who have not made actual demonstration of the facility with which the crime can be accomplished.

. . . Before beginning this inquiry I had a confidential interview with one of the most experienced officers who for many years was in a position to possess an intimate acquaintance with all phases of London crime. I asked him, "Is it or is it not a fact that, at this moment, if I were to go to the proper houses, well introduced, the keeper would, in return for money down, supply me in due time with a maid—a genuine article, I mean, not a mere prostitute tricked out as a virgin, but a girl who had never been seduced?" "Certainly," he replied without a moment's hesitation. . . ."Are these maids willing or unwilling parties to the transaction—that is, are they really maiden, not merely in being each a virgo intacta in the physical sense, but as being chaste girls who are not consenting parties to their seduction?" He looked surprised at my question, and then replied emphatically: "Of course they are rarely willing, and as a rule they do not know what they are coming for." "But," I said in amazement, "then do you mean to tell me that in very truth actual rapes, in the legal sense of the word, are constantly being perpetrated in London on unwilling virgins, purveyed and procured to rich men at so much a head by keepers of brothels?" "Certainly," said he, "there is not a doubt of it." "Why," I exclaimed, "the very thought is enough to raise hell.". . .

The third they were charged with, was Stephen Arrowsmith for the Rape committed on Elizabeth Hopkins. . . .

The Girl that was ravished, being between 8 and 9, testified that he had had to do with her for half a year together every Sunday, that she was hindred from crying the first time, by his stopping her mouth, and that he gave her money afterwards; and she never discovered it, still some of her friends observing her to go as if she were very sore, examined her, and by telling her she would be in danger of hanging in Hell, got her to confess, that the Prisoner was her fathers Prentice. . . .

The Prisoner with a great many tears denied the Fact, and desired some Witnesses might be called. Among whom there was a maid that lived at the Doctors where the Girl was for Cure, who testified that the Girl upon Taxing her, why she did conceal it, said, she took Pleasure in it, and that upon Examination there were no Symptomes on the Prisoner, as the Doctor said, of any such disease as the Girl had, which was indeed the Pox; which was also attested by one Mrs. Rawlins: and the Prisoner protesting his Innocence, alledged that they offered a Composition. 1

All which notwithstanding, the Court with great detestation and abhorrence of so Horrid and Vile an Offence, told him the Matter was so plain against him, that he must have as great impudence to deny it, as he had wickedness to Commit it; that her consent would not save him, for the Statute provides, that a Child under 10 years of age, should not be abused with, or without her Consent. That the First Violence whereby he stop'd her Crying, made the Rape, had it been a Woman above 10; that if the Parents were so wicked, as to offer a Composition, yet that made not him innocent. . . .

[The jury returned a verdict of not guilty] which Verdict Mr. Recorder, not conceiving it to be according to their Evidence, would not take from them without further deliberation, and labour'd to satisfie them of the Manifestness of the Proof. One of the Jury being an Apothecary, said it was his opinion, that a Child of those years could not be Ravished. Which the Court told him was to Elude the Statute, that having provided a Punishment, had done it in vain, if there were no offence, and so he did tax the Wisdom of a whole Parliament; Which ought not to be Others of the Jury, because the Girls were not sworn, doubted of the sufficiency of their Testimony, and they had nothing but hearsay from the other Witnesses. But the Court told them, in regard such Offenders never call others to be by while they commit such actions, they could expect no other Testimony than from the Party injured, which they had, and with it of an eye Witness, both whom they forbore to Swear, because of the tenderness of their Age; but if they insisted upon it, they should be Sworn.

[The jury deliberated again and found Arrowsmith guilty]

Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws in Selected Countries

The Pledge of the Thälmann Pioneers:

"Ernst Thälmann is my model. I promise to learn to work and to fight as Ernst Thälmann teaches. I will follow the rules of the Thälmann Pioneers. True to our greeting, I am always ready to support peace and socialism."

We Thälmann Pioneers love our socialist fatherland, the German Democratic Republic.

In word and deed, we will always defend our workers' and farmers' state, which is a firm part of the socialist community of nations.

We Thälmann Pioneers carry with pride a red scarf and wear it with honor.

Our red scarf is a part of the flag of the working class. It is a great honor for us Thälmann Pioneers to wear the red scarf as an outward symbol of our devotion to the cause of the working class and its party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany.

We Thälmann Pioneers love and respect our parents.

We know that we have much to thank our parents for.

We follow their advice and help them. We want to become conscious builders of the socialist society.

We Thälmann Pioneers are friends of the Soviet Union, and protect peace while hating the warmongers.

By working hard to learn and through good deeds, we help socialism and the forces of peace throughout the world. We always and everywhere oppose the incitement and lies of the imperialists.

We Thälmann Pioneers are friends of the Soviet Union and all socialist brother nations, and want friendship with all the children of the world.

Friendship with the Soviet Union is a matter of the heart for us. The Lenin Pioneers are our best friends. We work closely with the pioneers of the socialist nations and with all progressive children's organizations in the world. We express active solidarity with all peoples struggling for their freedom and national independence.

We Thälmann Pioneers study diligently, are orderly and disciplined.

We gain basic knowledge and abilities, and work everywhere for order, discipline and cleanliness.

We work to help everyone to earn honestly, to use his knowledge, and to make word and deed be the same.

We thus prepare for life and work in socialist society.

We Thälmann Pioneers love work, and respect every form of work and all working people.

We learn from the workers, farmers and other working people and join in wherever we can be helpful. We respect the people's property.

We Thälmann Pioneers love truth and are reliable and friendly to each other.

We always seek to know the truth and work for socialism. We fulfill the tasks we take on and stand by our word as pioneers. We strive to make our group a strong community and give friendly assistance to other pupils.

We Thälmann Pioneers learn technology, learn the laws of nature and become familiar with the treasures of culture.

We are interested in the latest in science and technology. We participate in scientific activities, join in artistic activities, develop our talents and demonstrate our abilities.

We Thälmann Pioneers keep our bodies clean and healthy, participate in sports, and are cheerful.

We strengthen our bodies by sports, games and tourism. We are interested in the beauties of our homeland and hike with pleasure. We do not smoke or drink alcohol.

We Thälmann Pioneers prepare ourselves to be good members of the Free German Youth.

We are interested in the history of the socialist youth group and in the deeds of Free German Youth members. Their splendid achievements are our model and spur. We work together with them.