If we accept the fact that the last PNP Government had 18 1/2 years to consider a review of the buggery law and that politicians never act unless they sense that such action will enhance their power or, if in opposition, propel them into power, the question must be asked, why did Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller promise a review of the buggery law when questioned during last Tuesday's leadership debate?

Is it that she was stumped for the 'politically correct' answer or was she just being honest about a subject that most Jamaicans get excessively hot about?

Weeks ago I was in conversation with a group of men — artisans like mechanics, plumbers, carpenters and general labourers. I pointed out to them that Britain and the US had decided to tighten the screws on developing countries like Jamaica in light of the drying up of aid funds.

"What these countries are saying to us is that you hungry belly countries must tow our social line or stop the damn begging," I said to them. "Easing up on the anti-homosexual sentiments and behaviour are simply a part of their demands," I added.

I told them that as much as I abhorred even the very thought of two men 'mixing it up', if they wanted to indulge their carnal urges, as disgusting as I saw it, in the privacy of their bedrooms, it was no business of mine, if even for the reason that I desired no one to be peeping at me and my lady when we are taking a trip of physical love.

One man, in his late 30s, stared at the ground then up at me, then said, "So yu a tell me say dem fi change di law so my boy pickney can si two man a walk pan Half-Way-Tree Road a hol' han an a kiss. Yu mussi waan si Jamaica bun dung!"

It mattered little how much I tried to sell them the idea that it is my belief that homosexuals are born with that urge and that just as how their systems short-circuited whenever a particularly attractive woman came into view, so it was with male homosexuals.

"Well if a so," said another, "mek dem keep dat under lock and key." Then he joked, "Not in my cabinet!"

I then told them that any government that was brave enough or, considering the Jamaican sentiments, that foolhardy to bring about a change in the buggery law would be wiped out at the next polls.

It has been estimated that the homosexual label applies to about eight per cent of the world. We have no reason to believe that Jamaica enjoys any exclusivity in this. Following on this, if we assume that that same percentage can be applied to politicians, who are, surprisingly, human, then of the 126 PNP and JLP candidates who will be applying to the electorate for votes in a few days' time, then about 10 are homosexual or, could be.

If we should extract the fear that Jamaican homosexuals have of being 'outed', it could mean that that number could be less than 10 as they probably would not want to enter the world's second oldest profession where they would be on a stage for all to see.

Did the opposition leader suggest a review of the buggery law because there are candidates in the PNP who are homosexual, or is it that she believed that she had to address a matter whose time had come?

If we believe that politicians are cynically rational, it is my belief that Simpson Miller made the suggestion to get that eight per cent in the electorate (less, considering that it involves those over 18 and registered). But what about the huge anti-homosexual vote? Will it move the diehard PNP to another place? I think not.

It may move the voter with PNP sentiments but who doesn't consider himself a diehard, in which case, he may not vote.

Cynically rational may not accurately fit the description of Simpson Miller's suggestion. I say this because she is a highly experienced politician and must know that there are 'red flag' areas that Jamaican politicians have avoided like the plague. So why did she make the suggestion?

It is my belief that she did it because in a one-hour debate, those who are not strong on debating skills are more likely to trip up on 'hot-button' items like homosexuality. As much as she is likely to have homosexuals on her team, as the JLP has, it could be that the number has increased since the last time out and her conscience would not allow her to 'ditch them' when the delicate question arose in the debate.

The problem with this issue is that the PNP cannot go out there and openly court the gay vote. Jamaica is a far way from New York or San Francisco — in miles, in development and in culture.

And neither can the JLP, in courting the voter, 'bun' the gay vote. Already a savvy politician like Daryl Vaz of West Portland has pounced on the issue with, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." To a public looking on from outside, especially in the developed world, this may appear to be a crude and trivial response, but it is politics, where one side will attempt to punch holes in the other side, even on a matter that cannot produce one additional job.

With an election looming, it is my belief that Simpson Miller could have skilfully diverted the question into an answer full of nothingness. This is Jamaica, not somewhere else, and Jamaicans are rabidly anti-homosexual.

Leadership debate — Truism at the start, blunder at the end

JAMAICA'S oldest newspaper columnist (90 plus 'nuff') Hedley Jones sent me a commentary he made on the debate. I would like to share it with readers who will recall that Mr Jones was this year's Musgrave Gold medallist.

"I truly am apolitical and an unapologetic committed patriot of my country — Jamaica — for which I volunteered to fight to save from tyranny in WW II.

"First, I found that the times allotted for answers and rebuttals to questions quite inadequate, given the fact that most questions were framed in a format pre-empted in most cases by long statements that required much longer than a simple yea/no reply.

"Again, the reply must be in context to the question, and if a question is so framed that more than one answer may be correct, then any failure to arrive at a cohesive statement for an answer must be laid at the feet of the questioner. One should not ask vague questions and expect to receive the reply he/she deems to be correct. In such a circumstance, a good debater could run rings around you.

"Mrs Simpson Miller opened the debate on a subject that is now of primary concern to most Jamaicans who are not party hacks, not tribalists nor politically created mendicants: the precarious state of a nation in crisis and lacking leadership that is critical and visionary (my words).

"She did not follow that course during the cut and thrust of dialogue. She made accusations of mismanagement and corruption without admitting that the immediate past administration was guilty of any misconduct that she would seek to amend, not if given the opportunity by the electorate, but 'when we assume the role of government come January 2012'!!

"She ended the debate with what I think was her biggest blunder, given that even part of our present dilemma was initiated during the over 18-year tenure of the previous administration: 'We did it (what?) before, and we will do it again'!! she said.

"The PM (in a sort of messianic mode I think) opened fairly, kept his cool, rebutted gently, and admitted to misdeeds by the present administration while pledging to reformation if given the privilege, and ended his discourse somewhat more assured.

"I remain disappointed with the media of which I am a small part. I have not heard any reference from any media house to some of my references above. All the commentators, analysts, gurus, seem to have fallen into a trance when some of the utterances quoted above were made.

"I believe it is an onerous duty the media assumes when it takes on the responsibility to inform. I think that duty ought to be done with utmost care, taking timely, and to the best of its knowledge accurate, information to the public domain without fear or favour, without discrimination or ill will.

"I am not sure that is the case in my country. What I'm sure of is that we owe, in loyalty to our country, a duty to keep its population healthy, educated and well informed; eschewing propaganda of any kind, regardless of the party/government in state power; and mischief making should not become part of such endeavour.

"Happy New Year and a government acceptable to all Jamaicans is my fondest hope."

Voter apathy all around

Not having done any national polls, I am forced to go with the conflicting poll results being published in addition to my own forays at street level.

It is still my belief that the JLP has the edge, even though I cannot see it garnering the 'safe' number of seats it desires in order for Holness to make the changes that are needed in the Cabinet.

What I am encountering is diehards from all colours with one thing in common -- 'Who, dem haffi pay me fi my vote. All dem do is use people!'

Our people have had ample time to do a review of both political parties. One reader/letter writer took me to task when I suggested in a column that the late Michael Manley had the best chance of making radical change in this country.

According to the letter writer, Seaga had the best chance at that because the PNP did not contest the snap 1983 general election, and from that period on, to 1989, the JLP had all 60 seats in the House.

My suggestion on Manley having the best chance (he instituted many social changes) was that no other leader before or after had the people's trust as Manley did. At almost every step, the people of this country walked with him.

It has always been my belief that a leader is only as strong as his ability to get the people to fall into some semblance of an equilibrium with him. Apart from 1980 and 1981 when Seaga was king, by 1982, his JLP was behind in the Carl Stone polls.

Michael Manley was the darling of the Jamaican people from 1972 until his death. Eddie Seaga cannot make any such claim.

The people had ample time to watch the PNP's Manley in the 1970s, the JLP's Seaga in the 1980s, a little bit of the PNP's Manley again in the early 1990s, the PNP's PJ Patterson and Portia Simpson Miller to 2007, the JLP's Bruce Golding and a touch of the JLP's Andrew Holness to the present time.

What have the people seen in terms of items radically changing their lives? Little to show.

So the voter apathy is expected, because both parties are being lumped in the same ball of dough.

Much of what the JLP and the PNP should be doing now is trying to grab that 10 per cent of the expected turnout who are issues voters. But that is not happening at the speed both parties would like.

Why is that so? Well, both parties are still unsure of their 2007 vote. They have to get as close to 100 per cent of that vote or die at the polls!

It seems to me that the JLP has the better shot of getting the new voter and a bigger percentage of the issues voter in the middle class, while the PNP has the better chance of attracting the perennially unemployed (even in PNP time).

And again I say, this election will be won, as all elections are, on election day, but by the organisation that the parties will deploy to get out the voters, many of whom have made up their minds to stay at home.

To all, have an enjoyable Christmas.

observemark@gmail.com

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  11 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  23 comments

  0 comments

  2 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  1 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  1 comments