also see the previous entries: Jamaican Opposition Leader says he would allow homosexuals in his cabinet ..... departing from his predecessor
Let us back track a little
Holness said in part while on his feet on April 25th 2014 in parliament said “ ..... there is great uncertainty in the LGBT community and ordinary Jamaicans alike about your promise to review the buggery act, the issue is very sensitive of course but I know you will agree that more and more Jamaicans are generally discussing the matter; discussing the issue; and I think Mr Speaker to need to finally bring some certainty to it would be to put it to the people.” He also lumped the CCJ, the decriminalization of marijuana and the queen as head of sate but do so during the due local government elections sometime next year.
The Jamaica Observer reported today that:
OPPOSITION Leader Andrew Holness says that his call for a grand referendum, to settle outstanding national issues, is geared at bringing finality to the matters involved.
In his recent budget speech, the Jamaica Labour Party leader suggested that the Government could resolve a number of key national issues by allowing the people to decide in a grand referendum next year. The issues include the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as Jamaica's final appeal court; liberalisation of ganja laws; review of the buggery law; and having the Queen of England as the head of State.
"There is an election due some time next year: Why not make arrangements to have a grand referendum at that time," the Opposition leader suggested then.
Last Thursday Holness reinforced his call, explaining to a Jamaica Observer Press Club forum at the newspaper's Beechwood Avenue office in Kingston, that a conscience vote in Parliament would not resolve them, and only a referendum — which would involve structured public discourse — would ensure that the people have a voice.
Explaining the reasoning behind his call, Holness said that how the democracy normally works is for the political parties to take positions on these issues and put them to a vote in Parliament. However, he said that in these cases none of the two major political parties have been able to come up with distinctive political positions, except in the case of the CCJ.
He used as an example, the different positions expressed by Opposition backbenchers Raymond Pryce and Dr Dayton Campbell in the recent debate in the House of Representatives on legalising the use of small quantities of ganja.
"It is the same thing in the JLP. There are two distinct positions on legalising the use of marijuana. So, it's not something that I could say, we are going to Parliament with this position. It's the same thing with hanging (which should have been resolved by a conscience vote more than a decade ago)," he said.
"What happens when you go to a conscience vote, which effectively releases the MP (member of Parliament) from not just the party whip, but also from his constituents, because he can now vote his conscience? But, they are critical issues which the people really should decide," he stated.
"Same thing with the Buggery Act: You have different views. You can't get a party whip. It's the same thing in the PNP. So let the people decide," he argued.
He said, however, that it was not an application to just say let the people decide, then hold a referendum and demand that the government carry through the mandate, immediately.
"You can't go to a referendum without a dedicated, structured public discourse and consultations, which would elevate public understanding of the issues. That's the real purpose behind the suggestion: To get structured discourse and bring some kind of finality," he stated.
He pointed out this would be an indicative referendum, in which the Government, having heard the position of the people, would be allowed time to put in place the structures needed to implement that position.
He said that even with the issue of replacing the Queen as the head of State, there were serious divisions which needed to be clarified.
"Where is the public education which is structured to bring us to account? I am saying, let's take on these issues, frontally," he commented. "It's not a waste of time either, if you have a government which understands the social issues and sees how these social issues affect the broader modernisation of the society."
Holness said that the JLP could not accept that a conscience vote would settle all these issues, especially in the case of the CCJ where the party has given its reasons for the need for the country to make that decision through and poll, which the Government is against.
OPPOSITION Leader Andrew Holness says that his call for a grand referendum, to settle outstanding national issues, is geared at bringing finality to the matters involved.
In his recent budget speech, the Jamaica Labour Party leader suggested that the Government could resolve a number of key national issues by allowing the people to decide in a grand referendum next year. The issues include the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as Jamaica's final appeal court; liberalisation of ganja laws; review of the buggery law; and having the Queen of England as the head of State.
"There is an election due some time next year: Why not make arrangements to have a grand referendum at that time," the Opposition leader suggested then.
Last Thursday Holness reinforced his call, explaining to a Jamaica Observer Press Club forum at the newspaper's Beechwood Avenue office in Kingston, that a conscience vote in Parliament would not resolve them, and only a referendum — which would involve structured public discourse — would ensure that the people have a voice.
Explaining the reasoning behind his call, Holness said that how the democracy normally works is for the political parties to take positions on these issues and put them to a vote in Parliament. However, he said that in these cases none of the two major political parties have been able to come up with distinctive political positions, except in the case of the CCJ.
He used as an example, the different positions expressed by Opposition backbenchers Raymond Pryce and Dr Dayton Campbell in the recent debate in the House of Representatives on legalising the use of small quantities of ganja.
"It is the same thing in the JLP. There are two distinct positions on legalising the use of marijuana. So, it's not something that I could say, we are going to Parliament with this position. It's the same thing with hanging (which should have been resolved by a conscience vote more than a decade ago)," he said.
"What happens when you go to a conscience vote, which effectively releases the MP (member of Parliament) from not just the party whip, but also from his constituents, because he can now vote his conscience? But, they are critical issues which the people really should decide," he stated.
"Same thing with the Buggery Act: You have different views. You can't get a party whip. It's the same thing in the PNP. So let the people decide," he argued.
He said, however, that it was not an application to just say let the people decide, then hold a referendum and demand that the government carry through the mandate, immediately.
"You can't go to a referendum without a dedicated, structured public discourse and consultations, which would elevate public understanding of the issues. That's the real purpose behind the suggestion: To get structured discourse and bring some kind of finality," he stated.
He pointed out this would be an indicative referendum, in which the Government, having heard the position of the people, would be allowed time to put in place the structures needed to implement that position.
He said that even with the issue of replacing the Queen as the head of State, there were serious divisions which needed to be clarified.
"Where is the public education which is structured to bring us to account? I am saying, let's take on these issues, frontally," he commented. "It's not a waste of time either, if you have a government which understands the social issues and sees how these social issues affect the broader modernisation of the society."
Holness said that the JLP could not accept that a conscience vote would settle all these issues, especially in the case of the CCJ where the party has given its reasons for the need for the country to make that decision through and poll, which the Government is against.
ENDS
Clearly the issue of buggery specifically is being shaped as an election issue by the JLP leader and there are geo-political considerations I think as well owing to the pending Chinese investments expected right in the United States backyard and owing to the fact that their grant aid or assistance is no pegged to LGBT rights considerations the Simpson Miller administration has to take into account that as well despite pressure at the diplomatic level regarding said aid/assistance from the US and EU with rights matters as considerations.
A Conscience vote as suggested later promised as it were by Mrs Simpson Miller can also not go in our favour I fear and the pretentious tolerance presented by her and some of her spokespersons to appease the LGBT lobby is not impressive in my eyes and as many others are now beginning to realise. Why announce a conscience vote when you know you can't win it in the affirmative in this case? when the cop out argument is the majority of Jamaicans do not favour homosexuality, the PNP if they decide to run the vote albeit time to educate or engage the parliamentarians and by extension the public is short can pander to the powerful sections of the church who also want a referendum if not they have demanded that the suggested conscience vote be an open one and not a secret ballot.
I would much prefer an open debate in the house on this and much more time (though several such lost) used by the lobbyists especially to properly sensitise the public but their own step-n-fetchiting over the years is just disappointing to me. It seems we have not learn from the original parliamentary submission made in 1998.
See more on the submission HERE
So let us see where this goes eh
Peace and tolerance
H
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
.jpg)
+(Light).jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment