Most respondents said they would be less favourably inclined amounting to 61% with 9% not responding to the question while 7% responding favourably while 23% saying it would not make a difference. Why did Mr. Crawford take on this issue at this time? He responded in the opening of the interview that he was not against the review he said what he was trying to prove was that people have power over parliamentarians and that parliamentarians are aware of the people’s views and may not want to move in that direction in fear of losing support. “Why aren't they using that same power to ensure education is treated in a particular way?” he asked hinting in my view that the buggery law is not important at this time if at all and tacitly contradicting himself when he said he was not against a review. “At the end of the day it is unlikely that a politician will seek to vote in favour of removing the buggery law because he feels he will lose favour with the people, however they can do other things that are essential and more influential on our daily lives ..... that we are unwilling to exhibit that same power ....” he tried to say that the people’s power should be more widespread not just to this issue.
Mr. Crawford seems to have forgotten his question he asked at that function where he said, "Which Government you think is going to try to legalize homosexuality?" where he answered "none of us are going to try to do it," with the crowd laughing in jest and he encouraged them by saying "Not just of out probability there must be even one homosexual in the parliament but him nah go raise up him hand cause de people nuh inna dat" [he is not going to raise his hands because the people are not into that] yet in the above transcript he tries to paint a picture to say buggery and homosexuality are not synonymous, what gives here, really? Can we conclude that the promise by Mrs Simpson Miller was just that? Another promise?
Let us also keep in sight the press release from the PNP days following the suggestion by then opposition leader Simpson Miller, the general secretary Peter Phillips had said " .........the Party Leader has proposed a review of the Act, and not a repeal of it.“During the review, every Member of Parliament will be required to bring to bear on the discussions, the views and the opinion of his or her constituents. At the end of the review, if a vote is to be taken, the vote will be a conscience vote, which means each Member of Parliament will vote according to the directive of his/ her constituents........”
Bear this in mind as well, after digging my archives I found the presentation by Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 (poor audio though) where she sided wholeheartedly with the then Prime Minster Bruce Golding (his speech linked) on the banning of gay marriage, gay marriage rights by the way was never asked for by the LGBT advocacy structure at that time but it was dishonestly pushed on the agenda during the Charter of Rights debate then as a smoke screen to deny us recognition in the Charter. The clause that had discrimination as an infraction then was also removed from the draft prior to this speech after successful lobbying by none other than the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship with support from none other than reverend Al Miller.
She said on October 20th 2009 - "Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity ………. yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ……….."
Has Prime Minister Simpson Miller changed her mind or is evolving as President Obama did and is moving towards having the review done?
I would much rather be certain of this than having to be getting unpredictable moves by politicians.