PNP's Damion Crawford says it's highly unlikely buggery review will happen ........ it's not important now

Damion Crawford State Minister in the ministry of tourism in a follow up interview on CVM TV’s Direct with host Garfield Burford on Wednesday March 13^th tried to explain his recent comments at a function that was carried as a news item on the same television station on the proposed Buggery Law Review by his boss Prime Minister Portia Simpson Prime Minister Miller who in the run up to the last general elections suggested a review of the law along with a conscience vote on the matter. Mr. Crawford as extensively reported in a previous post has satirically suggested that no gay member of parliament is going to come forward and he doubted that the issue would be even raised in parliament.

click here to See a previous post with the video of the news item where the comments were made

Damion Crawford PNP Member of Parliament

In what now seems a PR stint on the face of it or some sort of damage control in light of the perception given that the review of the law would automatically mean a repeal he seems to be capitalizing on this. Bearing in mind also the other perception though not in essence true in that of the supposed 100 day ultimatum given by none other than JFLAG in a botched interview which was interpreted as such leaving the group to be putting out fires in sections of the media as the public became somewhat incensed as to the perceived demand. It is just over seventy days since the new PNP administration is in power.

Considering the issue of Mr Crawford’s cynicism and the Don Anderson recent poll commissioned by CVM TV which gagded the views of 1000 Jamaicans on the buggery issue the question was posed “What would be your perception of the government if it were to repeal or review the buggery law?”

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.

He continued in answering Garfield “Why did Mrs Simpson Miller in your view say this in the debate?” “There is nothing wrong with saying that you’ll have a conscience vote Mrs Simpson Miller understands that it is about a group ........... to have all us say what we perceive or are picking up from our constituents nothing is wrong with that, I could not have understood how it automatically became that she was in favour of a repeal, you don’t even know what her conscience vote would say, therefore to say that we will have a vote in parliament I can’t see anything wrong with that.”

“If the majority of parliamentarians based on their conscience feels that it should be reviewed then it would be reviewed so therefore the possibility would exist once you have a vote on it once it is considered, again it doesn’t mean that her inclination is there or not there, what we’re saying is that her substantive point is she was not going use someone’s sexuality to decide if they are capable or incapable that was the essence of the question, would she have a person of homosexual view in the cabinet, she says she wasn’t going to research that person’s sexuality and that is fear, I am not going to research somebody’s sexuality to see if you’re homosexual or not and then to say you are ineligible to be employed, I don’t think that that is right. The fact that you don’t support a type of life style it doesn’t mean that that person should be punished by the society in any way and that’s what she was saying.”

In as far being diametrically opposed to the Golding not in my cabinet pronouncement he said that there are many other things former PM Golding stood for and the PNP in disagreement so that would be nothing new “What we want in our cabinet is to have people with the greatest ability to achieve the goals of the country.” He said he was not Rastafarian by faith but wears his hair in respect to his father as he is but he (Damion) does not subscribe to Haille Selassie being God.

He tried to also represent the point that the same zeal used by the public to oppose the buggery law should also be applied to education, health care and others as the people are not sufficiently interested. “But this one issue is the one that everybody is totally concerned about, I want them to transfer some of that concern and some of that influence to all the other issues.”

Host Garfield Burford then asked a more profound question: “Do you think in your own view as one of the younger members of parliament and a first time member of parliament that there will ever be a point in Jamaica where views change significantly in this area of homosexuality?” (to me a yes or no answer) he responded “I don’t know, sometimes the more one group pushes the more it is resisted, sometimes that is the case, the reality of the situation is that Jamaica has no homosexual laws, buggery is the law that speaks to penile and anal interaction, it means therefore that if a male buggers a female he can equally be arrested ......... a lesbian couple can’t be charged with buggery ............ if anything it is a sexist law more than an anti homosexual law because women can’t be charged with it but men can with it, it’s the same with rape for example doesn’t mean therefore that rape should be taken off the books, so the argument being put forward of the buggery law as a anti homosexual thing isn’t in itself correct.”

Garfield Burford: “How do you think that should be corrected, because you say that it’s sort of sexist law?” Mr Crawford replied “No I don’t see it as sexist I am saying that if there is any claim, it’s the same as men can rape but women can’t rape so therefore it’s not like I am perceiving it as sexist ............ if there is any prejudice it would not be against sexual orientation it would be against gender, the reality of the situation is that the concept that because of the buggery law is proof that we are anti homosexual is falsehood because it doesn’t apply only ....... the reality of the situation is that any parliamentarian in my mind represents the views of the people, I am elected as a representative ............... when they refer to me they say representative from East Rural St Andrew, it is therefore above me therefore having been elected to represent my own views then become superior to the views of the populace, I must represent the views of the majority in my constituency (Garfield Burford interjects: “...presumably Mrs Simpson Miller as Prime Minister she represents by that argument taken to its logical conclusion she must represent the majority of the views of the people of Jamaica?”) she will represent the views firstly of her constituency, now when the amalgamation of all representatives come together she automatically represents the view of the country .”

Garfield Burford: “What about the argument then that because the majority of persons in Jamaica are still opposed to any review or repeal of the buggery law then she should perhaps not try to have members who are gay, homosexual in her cabinet?”

Crawford said: “What I just said to you that buggery and homosexuality are not automatic, so therefore that don’t mean that, the fact of the matter is that is there a process to ascertain with certainty that a person is of a particular sexual persuasion? (he replied no) ....... you cannot look at man or female and automatically know their sexual preferences. We had never had a situation where there is a self confessed politician victorious in the first place and then secondly to be considered there, the question seemed to have arisen out of the pigment of someone’s imagination, more so that one that is of great importance to the development of the nation ........... In the same way that we have consistently have parliament who are afraid and unwilling to touch the buggery law because of the perception that it is automatically homosexual accommodation is in the same way that we shouldn’t have a system that is turning out two children that can’t read very good and one children that can read” (his actual words)

He erred at a point in the interview where he said in response to a question posed on the gay community’s desire to have the law reviewed. He described the so called majority as normal, “There are many things that many people want within a society, the government has a responsibility I believe for the greater good for the greater majority at this point for some reason right which by socialization or otherwise ........... The normal Jamaican is not, sorry, the average Jamaican is not in support of a repeal, it is our responsibility .......... a review in my mind it doesn’t affect the reality, people should be open to the review but then the outcome based on the point I am making of the people’s power will be that very, I predict zero politicians would be willing to risk their political careers based on the people’s influence and that is the central point, the people’s influence is great and this is the evidence of it, they therefore should use that influence to change more important things, what are the most important things facing this country right now? The most important thing facing us is the ability for our children to go through school and come and being equipped to survive in a new society, a knowledge society, why therefore are we not paying equal attention as a people to that? Why are we not paying equal attention to health policies? And so what I was saying in the conversation we were having at the presentation was people power is further than the election, it goes to the governance because the politician can only act in ways that he perceives will find greatest favour with people if he is to be successful as a politician.”

Mr Burford asked Mr Crawford if Mrs Simpson Miller in the last general election was trying to straddle the fence or appeal to both gay voters and otherwise? The question was posed on the perception that there is a powerful homosexual lobby in Jamaica who want a review of the buggery law, was she trying to be politically expedient? Mr Crawford replied “remember you know her point was we , she was not willing to research someone’s sexuality to hire, it was a follow up question that then she said yes, she’d be willing to review and each representative by extension each individual if it is supposed to be in the best case because I’m supposed to represent the views of my people therefore if in such a review I should go and interact with my constituents and so should the other 63 (there are 63 seats in parliament) and come with a consensus from the constituents and so therefore the nation would have had their say on it, we could have a referendum for example which is another form of review, the point that you are willing to review is not pondering to both sides because the outcome will be either or this is an outcome that can be a middle ground outcome, it’s not a grey area, it is either it is repealed or not repealed.”

He confirmed that there has been no moves on the issue since the party has come to power some two months plus, “nothing has been moved in parliament to my knowledge.” As for JFLAG and the perceived 100 day ultimatum which they tried to clear up after a media report presented a radio interview as such Mr Crawford suggested again that other groups are lobbying for their own causes such as the Private Sector Organization of Jamaica, PSOJ, “there are always groups in society that want different things. I want for example for sign language to be taught in schools. They are some persons who want marijuana to be legalized, that fact that a group wants some movement don’t mean automatically that we can all have it in two months”

Then came the other million dollar question by Mr Burford for some despite denials to that effect, “Did the party get any help financially assistance, contributions from the gay community because of Mrs Simpson Miller’s statement in that debate?” Mr Crawford responded “Not to my knowledge, no, I don’t know, I wasn’t the centre of that I was busy on the road walking up and down but I don’t know of any contributions from any particular group because of that statement and if so they would have misread the statement because a review can’t be sufficient, there was a review of hanging what has happened since” He continued “The context is that we have politically for reasons and otherwise seem to come to a conclusion that a review automatically means a repeal and it is in my mind because of the influence of the people that that is highly unlikely.”

The interview steered to tourism issues.

The somewhat cumbersome roundabout answering of direct questions (as the program is themed) is worrisome to me and the shifting goalposts too. On one hand he is calling for the public to be as energized on other national issues but on the other he is dismissing the review of the buggery law as unimportant while expressing the long held fear factor by his predecessors of directly confronting this issue bearing in mind that albeit the promise by his boss Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller (the she was opposition leader) did not stop the PNP from winning but then again there was electorate burn out and disillusionment with the poor performances overall of both political parties. The nation was also weary from the protracted Manatt Dudus commission affair so only core voters came out on election day for the PNP while the incumbent supporters ate all the food and revelled on the campaign trail making the party thinking it had a second term in the bag but they didn’t vote on the day when it mattered.

Strange circumstances here I think, what is the purpose of Mr Crawford standing alone publicly on this matter when none of his other PNP colleagues have responded publicly so far?

Is this a diversion or a delay tactic? 

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?

for some background on the JFLAG 100 day demand misconception go here: 

JFLAG wants PNP to discuss Buggery Law within 100 days of assuming office

also see:   CVM TV @ Sunrise on JFLAG 100 days meeting/PM & the Buggery Law 11.01.12 

and this video clip

As for JFLAG ………… mistakes such as granting a telephone interview (sans any consultations with the community I might add) to the media in a “hot environment” when homosexuality or related matters are in the public domain is a no no, all the J should have done was waited and not mention anything at all to do with any time line in any way, shape or form now for it to be misrepresented as an ultimatum. We have had previous misconceptions before of JFLAG’s position by media and one would have thought that as a former media participant himself the Executive Director of JFLAG Mr. Lewis would have known the ins and outs of local media with regards to hot button issues such as this. The San Francisco boycott some years ago and the suggested EGALE tourism boycott as well are prime examples of learning curves for the group and speaking just a little too much but when it’s time to speak there is silence. How many mistakes are there to be made before it is perfected? one never knows.

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.

Peace and tolerance

H