Jersey Reform Day.
This site is dedicated to the day, now officially recognised annually by the States of Jersey, to mark the anniversary of the events of 28 September 1769.
Jersey's own Independence or Bastille Day.
Click on the images above for a better view - but they are rather feint.
Just to show that old relationships with the UK are still alive in 2012, I post these two decisions from the Privy Council in response to a petition sent on 30 July 2011.
The matters petitioned about were the new Housing and Work (J) Law and the Register of Names and Addresses (J) law which will now be activated after next February.
"Any person" studying the proposed laws would/should be concerned about the possible Human Rights implications of these laws but in an Island where the rights of "outsiders" are secondary to the perceived privileges of so called "locals" such discrimination does not raise many eyebrows. But of course these laws will have profound implications for everybody in the Island who is not already tucked into a comfortable grave.
That it has not attracted much sympathy from the Privy Council is not surprising either since this is hardly a democratically elected body with a sharpened perception of the protection of rights - either in the Channel Islands or the more far flung outposts of the old empire.
Now it is fullspeed ahead to implement these absurd laws and we shall all soon be carrying our very own personal ID cards which will declare our housing and work status and where we live besides all sort of other hidden data no doubt over time.
The Corporate Services Panel under Chair Sen Ferguson has already put a Part 2 review of these proposals on its agenda (which TOR can be seen on their scrutiny.gov.je site) but there is no intention, as yet, to invite public comment or participation.
We should ALL be very concerned. To save anybody actually waking too quickly from their slumbers the other members of the Panel are:
Deputies Reed , Rondel and Power, and Constables Murphy
Why not give them a call and ask for further informtions about the review and how this legislation will affect YOU....on the other hand, what's on telly tonight.
Abraham Jones Le Cras – where are you now? Your Island needs you!
Like so many born outside Jersey, Abraham Le Cras believed in and campaigned for political and social reform in the Bailiwick over many years during the 19th century.
He was probably a spin-off from the very wealthy merchant and naval family (such as Noah Le Cras) which had Jersey links but lived mostly in England in the 18th century - but Abraham personally often struggled to scrape a living.
Abraham was born in Salisbury (Hants) during1798 and died in Jersey in 1869.
The short video above records an attempt to identify for certain his grave in Green Street cemetery this week.
It is somewhat ironic that he lies amongst the graves of many political campaigners and refugees from all over Europe that came to rest in Jersey during the reign of Victoria – but that is another tale that somebody should research and publish on…especially if the proposed new Police HQ is likely to bury any of the evidence…
That there is some uncertainty over his final resting place is typical of the official Jersey attitude towards reformers and we have just passed by 28 September – the anniversary of Jersey’s revolution in 1769 – yet again with no official acknowledgement of its importance.
We know that the official entry for 28 September was officially scribbled out of the official court records in 1769 and this simple act is typical of the controlling of the record and our memory of the history of the Island that continues to this day.
There is still an Island attitude that favours an “official” view of events whether this might be the Occupation or the image of the modern finance industry.
As in 1769 or during Abraham Le Cras’ lifetime, to speak out or to offer a different or challenging point of view is still likely to invite official condemnation or ridicule.
Thus many years after Le Cras had died it was just too painful for Jersey’s celebrated “historian“ (and man of God) the Reverend Balleine to put aside his own prejudices in order to assess Abraham for his volume on “Jersey Bibliographies” wherein Le Cras was dismissed as an AGITATOR.
He was physically attacked on several occasions in the Streets of St Helier and is still dismissed today as a political crank by “the establishment” for his views that rubbished the status of “King John’s Charter” (still the foundation of Jersey’s Constitution according to the Senator Sir Philip Bailhache) or the powers of the States’ claim to be an independent “government”.
Now, there is a great deal posted about him and his career on the Internet – just Google Abraham Le Cras to enter a different world where the bravery of this man during a life-long campaign can be glimpsed.
Don’t expect such information to be offered in oven-ready, easy to swallow format here.
If YOU are interested to discover it is now possible to read on-line his 1839 book on “The Laws, Customs and Privileges and their Administration in the Island of Jersey”. This contains his 52 Articles Petition to the UK Parliament seeking REFORM and be amazed how so much ofthis is bang-on relevant for Jersey TODAY.
It is even possible to purchase on-line a facsimile “print to order” copy of this book (he published others too) which is still a valuable source of relevant information about Jersey and its institutions. Then he wrote that the purpose of his 1839 petition and book was to expose;
“…the scandalous laws of Jersey and the wretched way in which they are administered in the fervent hope that it will provoke enquiry and be the means of causing such abuses as shall be proved to exist, to be forthwith reformed…”
The States of Jersey he decided then "has become a useless body"so just what would he have made of today's shower?
So, don’t just sit there doing nothing in 2012 or wishing for somebody else to complain on YOUR behalf.
If you believe that Jersey government, the courts, legal system and their administration need REFORM it is still possible to petition the Privy Council, or the UK Parliament or have an input in the Jersey Electoral Commission or to lobby States’ Members or join a political or campaigning group….Abraham Le Cras would be amazed at the ease with which we can access information today and the failure of so many to put such a facility to good use.
Just because Abraham is now sleeping is no excuse for YOU to do nothing….
Click on image to reveal eight hundred years of Jersey's existing bicameral government in operation!
And we already have the Westminster Parliament, all the UK Government Departments and institutions, the EU, The Council of Europe, the UN and the High Courts of the UK and the European Court of Human Rights to appeal to in order to check our legislation and any defects in the Jersey administration.
So why on earth do some people want another States Chamber to carry out scrutiny that already takes place? If Jersey was to become "independent" - what would happen to all these existing safeguards?
Really it is my birthday too in a double sense because 30 July was also the date of my Petition to the Privy Council last year objecting to aspects of the absurd Jersey government proposals on Population, Jobs and Housing controls...
Of course nobody reveals what is happening in the corridors of power betwixt St Helier and Westminster but CM Gorst did let slip this week that the delay in implementation is related to the petition...
so cause for celebration on several counts and so I publish the petition here again approaching its first anniversary...don't send me a card or buy expensive presents please, just read and enjoy xxx
The Clerk of the Council
Privy Council Office
2 CarltonGardens
London SW1Y 5AA30 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 andemployment 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 universallyand 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 theIsland andthose 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, OverseasBritishTerritories 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 centraldata 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.
