Rose Colley Senatorial speech Jersey elections September 2011

Missing ex-Bailiff on immigration and work permit controls...

Immigration and work permit controls - the suppressed Jersey agenda

Tony’s Musings for 6 July 2011 (tonymusings.blogspot.com) published an excellent account of recent attempts to control immigration into Jersey using work permits.

Since 1999 Paul Le Claire has led several attempts with propositions to firm-up the legislation but the Protection of Employment (J) Law 1986 is presumably still in force. It was intended as a “work permit” control to be enacted when needed - most likely when unemployment in Jersey reached a “high” though not prescribed level.

Here four of the 13 Senatorial candidates (Forskitt, Gorst, Le Gresley and Bailhache) express their responses to a questioner at the St Ouen’s Hustings on 28 September 2011 in between electrical failures.

The views expressed are quite typical. There is no BNP rhetoric nor any great contrary concern for human rights safeguards but the almost inevitable desire for repressive controls of one sort or another seem to be ingrained into the Jersey political agenda.

The Control of Housing and Work (J) Law and Names and Addresses Register (J) Law currently awaiting Privy Council approval should satisfy the repressive aspirations of most. Nobody in this election seems to be very critical and the lone petition of Michael Dun to the Privy Council (published on this blog elsewhere) has attracted no comment or interest…

Francis Le Gresley's Dark Forces at Jersey election 28 September 2011

28 September 1769 - 2011 the Jersey States and Reform Day

1769 AND ALL THAT….

REVOLUTION was in the air in the1760s.

All the Western Empires were creaking following the latest European war and old values were being tested. Religion, politics, scientific knowledge and the social order were all being subjected to examination and reform.

Even in little Jersey, there were brave people prepared to put their lives at risk in order to challenge the established order. Then, all economic, social, political and religious life in Jersey was dominated by the all - powerful court.
This was a wholly corrupted body dominated by the Bailiff, and a dozen each of Jurats, Parish Constables and Rectors.

The same few privileged families controlled almost everything and the Island was divided up into hundreds of feudal fiefs which had to pay rentes to the seigniorial overlords. Most of the Island’s 22,000 or so population lived in precarious poverty.

Then, as now, the Crown Appointed Officers, reigned supreme. The office of Bailiff had degenerated into a hereditary sinecure of the UK based De Carteret family, who hardly ever even visited Jersey. In their place, over three centuries, substitute Lieutenant Bailiffs were appointed.

During much of the 18^th century, it was the Lempriere family and their cronies who dominated the court, the

government and so much of Jersey economic and social life. It was against this group that the poorer people of Jersey rose up and rebelled on 28 September 1769 – but there is no memorial built to their memory.

Their leader Thomas Gruchy still lies in an unmarked Trinity grave.

Officially, these brave people did not exist. The record of their rebellion was even erased from the contemporary archive.
Then as now, dissent against the “Crown Officers” was treated as some sort of treason or sedition. The oppressive Lemprieres dismissed the dissenters as “some factions of jealous persons of a spirit of disrespect in some of the lower classes towards their superiors.”

The Lemprieres planned to hang as many as possible or to deport even more of the rebels, appealing to the King in London to send over troops together with authority to suppress the troublemakers.

In fact, the London government did not give the Lemprieres the authority sought and nobody was hanged or deported. Instead, the brave Island rebels drew up petitions expressing their many grievances and these were sent to London.

As was so often the case, the London government protected the inhabitants of Jersey against the worst oppressions of the local tyrants. It was the ancient responsibility of the London Parliament for the good government of Jersey – even though there were no elected representatives from Jersey in Parliament.

The immediate outcome was that some of the abusive powers were taken away from the court, and
more authority was confirmed for the States of Jersey.

It was the start of a democratic government in Jersey although very short of what the dissenters actually wanted.

In addition, a “Code of Laws “ was agreed and published by authority of the Privy Council in 1771 which was an attempt at providing a clear statement of the laws that applied in Jersey.

The Code was totally inadequate (to this day, clear commentaries on the obscure laws of Jersey are still needed), but it was very significant in the 18^th century. It did make clear that neither the court nor the evolving States could pass new laws or amend existing ones, without prior Privy Council approval.

Following this mini- revolution, Philip Lempriere H.M. Attorney “resigned” and left the Island. A new H.M. Lieutenant-Governor was appointed following representations in London against the local oppressors.

The suggestion that Jersey people have enjoyed a democratic paradise since 1204 is just nonsense.

The true history of Jersey has not been recorded or written.

Islanders and the outside-world audience have been fed an official Pro-Royalist ( PR) diet of misinformation for centuries. The Inquiry (under Lord Carswell’s chairmanship) into the Roles of The Crown Officers brought out the queues of apologists for an official version of history and preservation of the status quo.

A legion of lawyers, Jurats, Honorary Parish officers, politicians past and present (and even H.M. Dean) presented a parrot-like recitation of wonderment in support of seven centuries of supposedly enlightened government, administrative excellence and judicial brilliance. Historically supported fact or evidence was noticeably absent from their written or oral contributions to the Inquiry Panel of five persons (unimaginatively composed of three lawyers, a Jersey lawyer’s wife and a nurse).

Most of all, it was the Crown Officers themselves, the Bailiffs, Deputy Bailiffs, Attorneys and Solicitors General who felt the greatest need to sing their own praises,  protect their own interests and resist any notions of reform or change.

Thus, the same 18th century style of Crown Officers’ resistance against reform continues to this day.

Deputy Bob Hill’s successful call for an examination of the Role of the Crown Officers was just a continuation of the same call for reform that inspired the events of 28 September 1769.

It is the same voice of the people against oppressive or undemocratic institutions.

For the Royalists, it was all hands to the pump trying to maintain the Crown Officers’ ship afloat. Even the Crown Officers from Guernsey were encouraged to give support in an effort to keep the progressive standards of the twenty-first century, at bay.

There seemed to be a desperate but concerted attempt to hang on to perverse powers that their Channel Islands ancestors enjoyed over past centuries.

Jersey’s 1769 mini-revolution pre-dated the American 1775 break with Britain. Yet, when the American colonists’ French allies mounted an expedition against Jersey’s “nest of pirates” on 6 January 1781, Charles Lempriere, the outrageous Lieutenant-Bailiff, was finally forced to resign from office. His slightly less unpleasant son was appointed in his place and H.M. Lieutenant-Governor Corbett (Charles Lempriere’s father-in-law) was court-martialled and dismissed, for failing to adequately defend the colonial outpost.

As always, such disciplinary decisions were made in London because the Island never had an adequate administration, or the powers, to deal with such matters.

It was the Channel Islands’ role as bases for smugglers, privateers and pirates that attracted so much critical attention in the 18^th century - as does the finance centre business today.

Inevitably, the Islands based smuggling, privateering and “piracy” activities were defended as being beneficial to the British Imperial interest.

The business was a great training ground for navy recruits and many national and local heroes served on the vessels but they also incurred the wrath of others.

Invasions, such as that of 1781, were constantly threatened by foreign powers and so too were the calls on the British Government to curtail the abuses by imposing English Customs or other regulations.

Similar threats and pressures continue to this day from Britain the EU, the OECD, the IMF, the UN the USA and elsewhere. Now, the Crown Officers continue to defend their own privileged and anachronistic positions within a system of government and administration which must surely be condemned before an international tribunal soon.

The Crown Officers also continue to defend the finance industry - the 21st century equivalent of the nefarious smuggling and privateering – and seek to give credence to the myth of 800 years of democratic government and benign administration under their own or ancestors’ authority.

During the 18^th century there were just six Jersey advocates (appointed by authority of the Bailiff of course). Now, there are over 250 (mostly within huge international partnerships) – yet, just a couple dared to express any dissenting views before Lord Carswell’s Inquiry on the Roles of the Crown Officers.

Jersey lawyers are the central and essential professional core of the whole Island based finance business and predictably, the Crown Officers are recruited exclusively from among them.

As in 1769, this is the latest manifestation of the great divide in Jersey between the general population and the non-elected elite who still retain such a stranglehold as lawyers and Crown Officers over Island life.

We in Jersey should remember the brave heroes of 28 September 1769 with pride every year, celebrate their achievements and continue to demand further reforms.

David Charap on Editing the image and information

David Charap a film editor was in Jersey to address a master class at The Branchage festival this week and he is a very experienced and well travelled professional.

For the class he was in the company of colleague and director Mark Isaacs and he showed clips from their joint documentary work.

With just a ten minutes slot before flying back to London in true cinema style he gave this short, instant interview. If there was more time we could have developed some themes – but enough here to indicate that what we see is always modified and controlled by some means or other. Everybody has a point of view – there is no such thing as impartiality and we all have baggage (my thoughts and words).

Those who cannot wait for the JEP to be wound up should consider what is said here. If documentary making is doomed too – where shall we obtain reliable information about anything?

This interview will also be posted on the Jersey Camcorder Club website where other locally made videos are accessible.

www.jerseycamcorder.org

PRIVY COUNCIL PETITION from MICHAEL DUN submitted 30 July 2011

The Clerk of the Council                                                                                 

 Privy Council Office

2 Carlton Gardens

London SW1Y 5AA                                                        30 July 2011 Jersey

Dear Madam,

PETITION

The States of Jersey Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Names and Address Register (Jersey) Law

I the undersigned resident of the Island of Jersey hereby petitions the Committee of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey not to recommend to Her Majesty in Council that Royal Assent be granted to the Laws entitled the States of Jersey Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- and the Names and Address Register (Jersey) Law 201-, without due consideration of the reasons stated in this petition.

The Reasons for this Petition.

The Assembly of the States of Jersey has recently voted to replace existing legislation including the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 and the Regulations of Undertaking and Development (Jersey) Law 1973 with the above named Laws.

It has been argued in the States that the new Laws will provide less complicated control over access to housing and  employment besides providing access to better information with regard to making decisions relating to migration and populations policy in Jersey.

However, the petitioner considers that the proposed Laws are intended to perpetuate existing policies that are already discriminatory and divisive and to impose yet further unreasonable limitations on the rights and freedoms of many residents or potential residents, in Jersey.

Furthermore, that the powers sought under these new laws are neither necessary nor desirable in a modern, affluent and democratic society but are rather designed to be oppressive, to create disharmony within this community and infringe universally  and internationally agreed and accepted standards.

Furthermore, since it was repeatedly argued by the proposers of these laws in the States, that they were only the beginning, and that further measures might follow, your petitioner believes very strongly that these should have been fully declared and discussed at the outset.

Also, that this legislation should, in fact, be considered to be a disguised immigration and population controlling device because such measures cannot be enacted openly within constitutional constraints existing between the peoples of the  Island and  those of the United Kingdom and other territories.

Your petitioner has been a campaigner on “human rights” issues in Jersey over many decades and notes with concern that there is still no anti-discrimination legislation in place in this Island (although it has been frequently promised locally and at Westminster) and, furthermore, there are many important international conventions and such-like that have not even been ratified for this Island.

Whilst the proposers of these Laws were required to give a statement of compatibility so far as the European Convention of Human Rights is concerned, the details of the legal advice supporting this statement were not made available (either to States Members or the public). Virtually no other discussion took place of the human rights implications of these Laws among Jersey’s tiny legal profession (which is mostly otherwise engaged in finance industry matters). As a result, neither States Members nor the electorate were enabled to discover or understand what the human rights implications of these proposals might have been.

As has been demonstrated in recent UK court cases regarding (for example), the Chagos Islanders and those of Sark, the liability for the upholding of human rights standards in such places as Jersey is not just a matter for the Islands own governments and administrations. That liability now clearly runs through UK institutions such as the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and possibly beyond.

Such liabilities can therefore be raised and challenged in UK courts.

Not only does this, by itself, raise profound constitutional issues so far as the residents of Jersey and other places are concerned but it must also be considered that the UK government has ratified many international conventions and treaties which have not been ratified for Jersey. Thus the implications for those seeking redress against a grievance arising under the proposed Laws are much wider than just those protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.

There may also be specific implications so far as the European Union is concerned - since the discriminatory measures enacted under these Laws apply to citizens of the Union who might otherwise have full rights of settlement and abode in British territories elsewhere. EU citizens, in this context might be from the UK, as well as any of the other nations within this organisation and there are different – possibly discriminatory – standards that apply to citizens of other Crown Dependencies, Overseas British Territories or from foreign countries.

The complexities that might arise from the application of these Laws have not been adequately discussed in Jersey and are too numerous to describe in this submission. However, it is evident that many existing residents of Jersey might be subject to retrospective decision making and that existing and future residents might be liable to have important licences or permits revoked or changed. Such decisions might also be taken in accordance with policies that are not clearly defined under these Laws but rely on some vague “aspiration” to control population numbers or immigration.

In this context it must be emphasised that Jersey’s government has operated since 1945 with a central policy based upon economic and population growth. Thus, although existing laws such at the Housing (J) Law 1949 and the Regulations and Undertakings  (J) Laws have included powers to restrict the ownership and occupation of housing accommodation or employment opportunities – the population has been deliberately increased from about 50,000 to the current 92,000 (winter) residents. It is currently proposed to increase the population to 100,000 residents – yet the Laws proposed are deliberately designed to restrict the occupation of proper housing accommodation or to deny employment for many in equity with others.

Thus, the proposed Laws perpetuate discrimination as a deliberate part of the economic and social policies of the Island and there is no plan to ever adequately house the entire population (whether that might be 92,000 or 100,000) or to ensure that all residents enjoy equal employment rights or opportunities.

The application of Island Planning (building) policies, Taxation and Social Security benefits policies need also to be considered in this context because they are also designed to favour certain groups over others on the basis of age, periods of residence, employment or wealth (for example) and add-to, rather than inhibit discriminatory behaviour towards many residents of Jersey, both by government bodies and private organisations or individuals. They are inevitably to be applied in conjunction with other discriminatory laws and policies and with those now currently proposed.

Underlying the whole package of new laws and policies is the centralised data collection and identity card system that will be applied to all residents of Jersey. This raises particular concerns about privacy, confidentiality and use since the information may be freely collected and viewed between different departments, including the Police initially and perhaps all government departments, eventually. It may also be transmitted out of the Island.

Since the Jersey Identity card was only originally agreed in conjunction with the UK card system that has now been abandoned on cost and human rights grounds, the reasons in favour in this Island have not been adequately promoted or examined. This is all the more of concern since the smallness of the Jersey population and the overlapping of so many institutions will ensure that abuse through access to the central  data banks is inevitable.

Your petitioner believes that these proposed laws have not been adequately considered by the States of Jersey or the public of the Island and that their application will be harmful to the interests of the people of Jersey as well of British people and others generally.

Yours faithfully

MICHAEL DUN                    

GINO RISOLI catering for voters in St Helier No 1 District?

GINO RISOLI is one of eight candidates for the three vacancies as Deputy in DISTRICT No 1 St Helier.

“Community First” is the theme for his campaign and he explains here his views on accountability and transparency, the reviving of the tourism industry with a Minister for Tourism and other matters.

Watch the video and meet Gino at La Petite Baguette,

Queen Street

(next to Snow Hill) if you want to discuss matters further,

OR email GINO at ; designfood@newtelsurf.com

OR phone him on 07829 733337

District No 1 Hustings is on 12 October at St Helier Town Hall and starts with a Folk Band at 6.30pm.

The Election for all St Helier Deputies and 4 Senators is on 19 October.

13 Applicants - 4 chosen = 9 Losers but who really wins an election?

At long last they are under orders for the first ever Jersey general election.

13 candidates lined up at a packed St Clement Parish Hall tonight for the first of the Senatorial “all Island” contest - with just 4 seats to be won in the States Assembly.

One candidate – Chris Whitworth – did not actually line up since he was only on the stage in the form of a paper cut-out. This was especially curious since he was visibly on the premises in living form and Darius Pearce declined the opportunity to deliver his introductory speech although he answered some of the questions from the electorate later.

Here 3/13ths of the candidates are shown making their introductory speeches of four minutes each more or less. Other speeches will be shown here as the campaign progresses but these were probably the best efforts of the evening. Honest Nev might have to revise whatever odds he has offered for Stuart Syvret, Sir Philip Bailhache and Dr Mark Forksitt  on this showing.

This blog cannot attempt to show interviews with all the candidates in this first ever Jersey general election but invitations have been offered and it is hoped that more extensive discussions with some candidates will be offered over the next few weeks.

ELECTION DAY is 19 October.

Senator Ian Le Marquand - Jerseys' next Chief Minister?

Senator Ian Le Marquand is half way through his elected term and not required to be re-elected during the current election to take place on 19 October.

He has declared that he intends to put forward his name to be Chief Minister when the new States assembly is formed and if successful would give up his current office as Minister for Home Affairs which administers Police, Prison, Fire/Emergency, Immigration and Customs matters.

Unlike current Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, who maintains a “Trappist Monk” like refusal to communicate, Senator Le Marquand has generally been approachable and has always allowed video recording by the public or bloggers of his appearances before scrutiny panels. Most other Ministers and all civil servants refuse such permission.

To date, Senator Le Marquand is the only certain candidate for the Chief Minister’s job although Senator Ozouf is almost certain to run if he survives the current critical examination of his role, as Treasury Minister, in the Lime Grove House transaction failure.

It is significant that Lime Grove House was to be purchased as new Police HQ accommodation and that Senator Ozouf is not Senator Le Marquand’s favourite political person.

Here, in 70 minutes or so of video interview, Senator Le Marquand is afforded the chance to explain how he has performed in three years as Home Affairs Minister, of his views and policies on many matters and his aspirations to be Chief Minister.

As always, it is hoped that the interview will stimulate discussion at this particularly important time in the political calendar and inform candidates and voters during the election proceedings.

The interview is split into 6 parts:

1 - Achievements at Home Affairs review. Lime Grove House. Prison and repatriation of prisoners etc

2 - Sex Offenders register, Vetting & Barring, Information gathering and Data protection, Chief Minister’s role and oversight of police, Curtis Warren

3 - Police funding, corrupt police, Police law and Authority, Stuart Syvret, political interference

4 - Finance industry, Faith, money laundering

5 - Chief Ministerial role cont’d, Jersey Independence, Non-Discrimination and Human Rights

6 - Child abuse/HDLG, Children’s Rights, Ministerial role, Verita.