Setting Bad Examples

Oliver Finegold: Mr Livingstone, "Evening Standard." How did tonight go?
Ken Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: How did tonight go?
Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?
Mr Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.
Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.
Mr Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism

In a previous blog, and on his site, I asked Stuart Syvret to make an apology for his anti-Semitic remark. See:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/apologies-please-stuart.html

Now this is Stuart's response to my call for an apology.

My e-mail exchange with Freddy Cohen, in which I had accused him of gross hypocrisy for his betrayal of an unambiguous election promise to support exempting medical services and supplies from the Goods & Services Tax. He responded by, essentially, arguing that he resiled from his election promise because he was "a team-player". [The "team" being the Council of Ministers] To which I responded that the "need to be a team-player" may well have been used as an excuse by Nazis on trial at Nuremburg. He responded by saying he had never been so insulted in his life - and would never speak to me again (great). What - of course - one won't read in The Rag is the rest of the correspondence. I replied by saying that my remarks were intended to be insulting; as I knew exactly what such things meant. This because my mother's maiden name was Gould, and she was borne in a Nazi internment camp following my grandmother's deportation by the occupying Nazis. So, unsurprisingly, this latter part of the correspondence has still not appeared in The Rag. And people think I'm paranoid about that wretched journal? So, Tony - you want me to apologise to Freddy Cohen?

Yes, how you act gives the lead to others. Behaviour has consequences, and other people may not have what you see as a very nuanced approach to these matters. Look at one effect of Ken Livingstone's comment.

A concerned primary school teacher who, after telling off one of her pupils for who calling a Jewish child "a Nazi", was given the excuse that "The Mayor said it was OK, so why can't I do it

Also part of the exchange with Cohen is now fairly public, and sounds as presented like a general anti-Semitic remark, which must cause offense to members of the Jewish congregation in Jersey. They have good cause to feel touchy about such matters. Neo-Nazi movements are still around, and a recent Channel 4 Dispatches showed London newspaper vendors selling "Mein Kampf" - in Arabic. It doesn't take much to set the ball rolling, and when a culture exists in which remarks like that are taken as acceptable, we have gone a long way back towards the kind of culture which was a fertile soil for anti-Semitism.

Why use an anti-Semitic insult, when Philip Zimbardo, in "The Lucifer Effect" shows how situations shape the way people respond, which is what may well have happened in Cohen's case? A better case - might be to argue that as an outsider, being Jewish, he may have been desperate for acceptance, to the extent of betraying manifesto promises for existential gain, that of being part of the "inner ring".

C.S. Lewis comments on this kind of desire

I believe that in all men's lives at certain periods, and in many men's lives at all periods between infancy and extreme old age, one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside. This desire, in one of its forms, has indeed had ample justice done to it in literature. I mean, in the form of snobbery. Victorian fiction is full of characters who are hag-ridden by the desire to get inside that particular Ring which is, or was, called Society. But it must be clearly understood that "Society," in that sense of the word, is merely one of a hundred Rings and snobbery therefore only one form of the longing to be inside.

This is a slippery slope, and notice how well it fits as a motivation for betraying manifesto promises. It is not to do with illegality but with a moral decay, with the gradual erosion of those ideals for which people enter politics. I think the following passage fits very well the phenomena which we have all observed, of a high minded individual going into politics, with the best of motives, and then - a year or more later - we wonder where those ideals have all gone, and why.

Over a drink or a cup of coffee, disguised as a triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still... the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which is not quite in accordance with the technical rules of fair play: something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which "we"-and at the word "we" you try not to blush for mere pleasure-something "we always do." And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man's face-that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face-turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude: it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

In his reply to my comments, Stuart commented:

Firstly, as explained elsewhere, I have Jewish ancestry myself - and my maternal family suffered internment by the Nazis. So "anti-Semitic"? Sorry - it just won't wash.

That is a nonsense. Some Jews have even set up an anti-Semitic cartoon contest (http://drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-anti-semitic-cartoon-contest/): "Amitai Sandy, the publisher of Tel-Aviv, Israel-based Dimona Comix, and founder of the contest jokes, "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!" So, I'm sorry, your argument won't wash either!

More seriously, consider also the case of the Irène Némirovsky controversy - a Jewish writer, who tried to dissociate herself from other Jews in her life as well as being extremely unpleasant about Jews in her work, at least in the early novels she wrote and which secured her fame. The idea that somebody Jewish cannot be alienated from their roots to the point where they made anti-Semitic remarks about other Jews is quite possible. It has happened before. Look up "internalised oppression", for a good start on Google!

Secondly, "giving offence"? Just what & why should that be any big deal in societal discourse - at least if one comes at things from a post-enlightenment perspective? Sometimes offensive things need to be said - as part of debate - as part just getting at the truth. Indeed one of the banes of Jersey politics is that people attach so much importance to "politeness" - rather than the truth.

If by "post-enlightenment perspective", Stuart means "an excuse to be insulting when I feel like it", then I am sure he can do this very well. Postmodernism - which is what I assume he means by post-enlightenment - is really often little more than rhetorical posturing which avoids argument. In fact, a good deal of debate is conducted today at a shallow and trivial level... We are all used to, and tired of, the heated exchanges which consist simply of name-calling. If one wants an Occupation analogy, debate is avoided because the combatants merely want to dig into worn out positions and lob shells at "the other side" from the safety of their own bunker. I'm not saying that everything Stuart says is like that, but when he descends into insults, it is a case of out with the hand-grenades and mortars, and fire them off in the hope of provoking some response. To paraphrase him, I think he often writes a lot of sense, but it is obscured, because one of the banes of Stuart Syvret's politics is that he attaches so much importance to "insults" rather than the truth. He should consider how Leavis attacked C.P. Snow with a vicious ad hominem attack, and how the dignified way in which Snow responded left Leavis looking almost pathological in his insult.

Thinking about it - how could any sensible person look to politicians as a specie for "moral guidance"? Isn't "morality" and "politicians" an oxymoronic concept?

A good joke, but don't always paint the picture too black. Look at those politicians who have actually made changes which have benefited ordinary people's lives. At random, in no particular order, Nye Bevan, William Wilberforce, Lord Shaftesbury, Phillip Le Feuvre, Norman Le Brocq, Abraham Lincoln - to name a few.

Now let me give you a joke. I've yet to find a local politician apologise - even Stuart resolutely refuses to do so - "Isn't "apology" and "politician" an oxymoronic concept?

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4746016.stm

London's mayor has been suspended from office on full pay for four weeks for comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
The Adjudication Panel for England ruled Ken Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute when he acted in an "unnecessarily insensitive" manner.
The hearing followed a complaint from the Jewish Board of Deputies, which had not called for the mayor to be suspended over the comment he made to the Evening Standard's Oliver Finegold outside a public-funded party. The chairman of the panel, David Laverick, said it had decided on a ban because Mr Livingstone had failed to realise the seriousness of his outburst. He said: "The case tribunal accepts that this is not a situation when it would be appropriate to disqualify the mayor. "The case tribunal is, however, concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of the code (the GLA code of conduct) and did damage to the reputation of his office." Mr Laverick went on to say that the complaint should never have reached the board but did so because of Mr Livingstone's failure to apologise. In a statement, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it regretted the guilty result, but said Mr Livingstone had been "the architect of his own misfortune" by failing to recognise the upset caused. It added it had never sought anything more than an apology and an acknowledgement that his words were inappropriate for the "elected representative of Londoners of all faiths and beliefs".

The Inner Ring, C.S. Lewis
http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

Article on Irène Némirovsky
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/22/secondworldwar.religion

Books:
The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo
The Two Cultures, C.P. Snow

Blaze destroys wooden outbuildings

Breaking news from Channel Report:

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/jerseynews2.aspx?articleid=16033&zoneid=1

Blaze destroys wooden outbuildings

Wooden outbuildings at a light industrial site in Jersey caught fire this evening. At one time a plume of acrid black smoke was blowing over the St Brelade's Bay area. Two units were severely damaged - they contained cars and fishing gear - but a team of 20 firefighters managed to prevent the blaze spreading to other nearby buildings. The fire was in the La Moye Farm area and the cause has yet to be established. Nearby residents were advised to keep their windows closed. The fire was spotted at around 6.45pm and was under control within an hour. But had it not been for the prompt action of the first firefighters at the scene removing acetylene gas bottles, the blaze could have been far worse. Two crews from St Helier and a crew from St Brelade attended the blaze.

I was in the vicinity at the time, and noticed an ambulance also going to and from the scene, so perhaps some firefighters needed to be treated for smoke inhalation. The honorary police turned up promptly and directed traffic away from going towards the area - for some reason fires bring out the voyeur (or vulture?) in people, and the narrow road to Beauport could have easily become blocked for emergency services. Don't people think?

I spoke to a chap (a retired States' Chief Officer) who lives along the start of the road, and he told me that he had complained several times to States departments about how this light industrial estate was not properly monitored, and was a health and safety hazard. The same seems to have been true of the Broadland's area, which was also described as "a disaster waiting to happen". I do wonder how well regulated business like this are, and how often health and safety go to inspect them. Where acetylene gas bottles are concerned, regulation needs to be tight, and it appears to be extremely lax.

The Health and Safety Inspectorate enforces wide-ranging and effective legislation which sets standards for health and safety at work. It forms part of the Social Security department, and is already looking into the fairground accident which happened despite inspections.

The Minister for Social Security is Senator Paul Routier, standing again for election. The Assistant Minister is Deputy Peter Troy, hoping to try for Senator. Perhaps the forthcoming elections will help them to see that the Health and Safety Inspectorate ensures that fires like this are minimised, and ramshackle businesses, especially those who leave acetylene gas bottles on the premises, are properly monitored, and closed down if they pose a significant risk.

They do issue prohibition notices at:

http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/HSI/Whats+New/Noticedetails.htm

but there are not a great many, and you have to go back to 2004 to find "inappropriate storage of highly flammable liquids".

I've also - out at St Martin, near the chiropractor on the road down to St Catherine - seen people digging up the road with hammer drills, with no protective clothing, not even eye masks. That was only last year.

Please post any incidents where health and safety is definitely flouted on the comments area. Perhaps we can see the scale of the problem.

Apologies Please, Stuart

It appears Stuart Syvret has sent an email in which he made some rather foolish comparisons. The JEP has it that "he compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST", but in fact what he has done is to compare the excuse made by the Nazis at Nuremburg - they were only "obeying orders" - as an interpretation of what Freddie Cohen means by being a "team player". This is what is called the "Nuremberg defense, and is often used as a shorthand - as for example in this newspaper cutting from 2004

A split opened up between Manchester fire chief Barry Dixon and councillor Fred Walker about who was responsible for the decision to suspend staff. Barry Dixon has adopted the Nuremberg defence and told the union and reporters that he is only obeying the orders of the fire authority councillors.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=123400

In fact, this is widely accepted as a shorthand because of its historical antecedence, see for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

In fact, it goes back much further than that. Samuel Pepys notes that Colonel Daniel Axtell (1622-1660), Captain of the Parliamentary Guard at the trial of King Charles I at Westminster Hall in 1649 used this defense. After the Restoration he was hanged, drawn and quartered on 19 October 1660 for his part in the Regicide. His defence at his trial as a Regicide, that he was only obeying orders!

What is clear is that given the sensitive nature of the phrase in these circumstances - Freddie Cohen being Jewish - this was an appalling misjudgment on the part of Stuart Syvret, even if idea behind it was accurate, as it obviously carries anti-Semitic overtones. I think Stuart should do what Frank Walker has been unable to do (after the "shafted" incident), and show how he can apologise unreservedly and admit he made a gross mistake and should have taken more care. He should also apologise for to the Jewish congregation for any upset publicity of this sort has caused. A gracious apology I am certain would be acceptable.

There have been swastikas daubed on the Synagogue at Tabor, and I know (from eyewitness sources) that Freddie Cohen certainly would have been in a culture at Victoria College where schoolboys made anti-Semitic jokes, although anti-German ones were more common. But the stock Jew in jokes of the time, like that of the Scotsman, or even the Jersey born individual, was that of a very greedy and selfish individual. Freddie would have also not attended the School Assemblies - in those days certainly very Church of England - Catholics were also excused, and this did mark out these individuals as different. Schoolboys can be very cruel in such circumstances, and it is not surprising that Freddie's antenna for any kind of discrimination is very fine - note he was the only States member to come out in support - on the Facebook site - of the Havana club protest.

So I hope Stuart does apologise, and show he is not above admitting he can make mistakes. It is people who cannot admit mistakes - the so-called "strong men" - who actually demonstrate their own insecurities in their posturing, all the time deludedly thinking that other people see them as strong.

If you want to know how Stuart replied to this, see my blog entry at:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/setting-bad-examples.html



http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/08/senator-sparks-nazi-e-mail-row/

Senator sparks 'Nazi' e-mail row

SENATOR Stuart Syvret has compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST.

Attacking Senator Freddie Cohen over his changing position on sales tax exemptions, Senator Syvret ridiculed the Environment Minister for saying that he was 'a team player' and that he had only backed GST on food after ministers agreed to exempt medical supplies.

Senator Syvret wrote: 'So, you are a "team player", eh? I expect that's exactly what Nazis on trial at Nuremburg would have said by way of mitigation.'

Senator Cohen has made a formal complaint about the e-mails to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, who are responsible for States Members' conduct. The committee do not have the power to discipline Members themselves - they can only recommend a censure or suspension to the States. The e-mails were copied to the Council of Ministers, some States Members and States chief executive Bill Ogley.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/11/jewish-communitys-distress-at-nazi-jibe/

Jewish community's distress at 'Nazi' jibe
August 11, 2008 - 3:00 pm
From Stephen Regal.

I AM writing to you in my capacity as president of the Jersey Jewish Congregation and particularly in respect of the article in the JEP headed 'Senator sparks Nazi e-mail row'.

Commentary on the issues underlying the report are not within my remit. However, I feel that it is necessary to write to you to express both my and my community's distress at the reported comment made by Senator Syvret.

I find it difficult to consider that any individual as apparently erudite and educated as Senator Syvret could have innocently used such emotive phraseology in comparing the action of any Jew to that of a Nazi.

A more offensive or odious comment would be difficult to find. Irrespective of the context, the term Nazi is abhorrent to any Jew.

Unfortunately, memories of the Holocaust are still fresh in every Jewish mind and such intemperate comments from our democratically elected representatives can only cause tension and uncertainty in our minds.

Regrettably, anti-Semitism is on the increase around the world and negative comparisons tend to aid stereotypical visions that individuals who wish to interpret remarks in other than the context they have been made.

My plea, therefore, to all is please consider our words on all sections of the community. This should be particularly emphasised when committing oneself to print.

Armon,
Rue de La Croix,
St Ouen.

A Crown Intervention in the Islands

The idea that the Crown (or the equivalent - the U.K. Government) cannot interfere in internal Island affairs is widespread, and is being especially promulgated at the moment both by figures like William Bailhache, or the Jersey Evening Post's own feature on the possibilities of complete independence. The general picture given is that the Crown leans on the Jersey authorities, who then comply by passing the relevant laws in Jersey - so that although the pressure is from the UK, the actual lawmaking is done in Jersey, and the UK does not interfere in local laws.

Two example I have been furnished with by Ed Le Quesne demonstrate how this works.

Jersey retained the death penalty for murder for quite a few years after it was abolished in UK, and expected the Home secretary to commute Jersey death sentences to life imprisonment. Eventually the States abolished the death penalty.

Jersey kept homosexual acts illegal for a long time after it was legal between consenting adults in private in UK Edgar Becquet, a Methodist, the responsible States member was leaned on pretty heavily by London before taking the law to the States making it legal in Jersey too.

As Ed comments: "We do need the UK to drag our social attitudes into the current century from time to time!". Indeed, if the Island was independent, it would be difficult to see how that would be accomplished.

As an example of dragging its heels, the UK has a Civil Partnerships Law, but Jersey has no similar legislation A green paper has been around since 2006, and in May 2007 it was announced that a law would be drafted due for introduction in fourth quarter of 2008! Don't hold your breath!

In fact, the Crown has acted to nullify an existing law passed by the States. This was not the States agreeing to pass a law under pressure so that the appearance of independence could be maintained, as in the above examples, but this was a case of making a law passed by the States - on the orders of the Privy council in England - made null and void. A recent letter in the Jersey Evening Post commented on this.

WITH respect to a recent comment by the Attorney General, William Bailhache, that 'if there is some grave or serious breakdown of civil order, the Crown has power to step in' and his comment: 'It's not happened in 800 years, so why should it happen now?', that is historically inaccurate.

In 1774 fifty-two men refused to drill in the Jersey Militia on Sundays because of their religious principles, these men being Methodists.


Fines and imprisonment, often with solitary confinement, were brought against many of their number, but in the autumn of 1798 the States, losing patience, in a decision of egregious folly, decided to pass an Act to the effect that every man refusing to serve personally in the Island Militia in accordance with its military establishment, and persisting in such refusal, should be condemned to banishment by the Royal Court.

After the adoption of this Bill by the States, Jerseyman Peter Le Sueur managed to gain an audience with George III to speak against it, and the result was an intervention by the Crown, whereupon an Order in Council was obtained, registered in the States' records on 28 January 1799, stating that His Majesty, with the advice of the Privy Council, disapproved of the Act in question, declaring the same 'to be void and of none effect'.


It is perhaps of interest that William Wilberforce, the great reformer, helped Peter Le Sueur to gain access to Royal circles.


This clearly establishes a fairly good precedent for Crown intervention in Island affairs, on the basis of one single individual raising a matter in which he accused the States of Jersey of perpetrating an injustice against some of its citizens. A little over 200 years is far more recent than the 800 years mistakenly mentioned by Mr Bailhache.

I have found a fuller account in ""Methodism in the Channel Islands" by R.D. Moore (1952), Pages 60-69, which mentions this. Here are a few extracts:

The Methodist attitude appeared unpatriotic, and became highly unpopular. The 'authorities' determined to subdue these troublesome consciences and settle the matter once and for all. It was in Jersey that the struggle was most severe and prolonged.

Charles Blampied of Trinity was the first victim. He was repeatedly fined and imprisoned. (It was a typical eighteenth-century prison with underground dungeons, dark and damp, in the neighbourhood of the present Charing Cross.) The Jersey Methodists presented a petition to the States in which they offered yet again to fulfil the required service on any other day (though to their own disadvantage) and declared their willingness to fight in defence of their Island at any time. They asked for nothing more than respect of their conscientious objections to the Sunday drills. The twenty-eight signatories deserve grateful remembrance:

Charles Bishop, P. T. Le Gros, Clement Guilleaume, Frs. Gaudin, Thomas Anthoine, Philippe Vivian, John Hepburn, John Sinel, Philippe Picot, Thomas Giffard, Frs. Jeune, Elie Le Blanc, Phil. Norman, Nicholas Bailhache, Wm. Howard, Charles Blampied, Thomas Le Riche, Phil. Le Ruez, Ed. Le Caudais, Phil. Hardelay, John Langlois, John Renon, Abm. Renault, J. Frs. Montbrun, P. Le Sueur, Sen., P. Le Sueur, Jun., John Ahier, Abraham Giffard.

Dean Le Breton was the only clergyman who spoke in their favour and the petition was dismissed with contempt. Jean Lucas of St Ouen's (afterwards a capable local preacher), Pierre Le Sueur, Jun., Clement Guilleaume, John Sinel, Thomas Baudains, Philippe Perchard, and Francois Jeune were also of the 'martyr host' who 'followed in their train'. The details of their conflicts, though too long to be related here, are all worthily preserved.

Realising their failure to suppress these determined Methodists by fines and imprisonment, the Jersey Court tried other methods. In 1797 the preacher appointed by Conference, Thomas Simmonite, was expelled from the Island. The following year his successor, Joseph Brookhouse, shared the same fate and until a ship was available was sent to prison. In August 1799 the Court arbitrarily closed' the Methodist place of worship at St Helier.

In October of the same year a further expedient was devised. A Law was passed by the States imposing banishment on all Jerseymen who refused to conform with the laws and usages of the Militia Act. This required Royal Consent in Privy Council, but it was so drawn as to suggest that it was aimed only at the most obdurate offenders. There was no mention of the Methodists nor of their petition.

Adam Clarke and his colleagues in London had already, in 1797. written to William Wilberforce. M.P.. acquainting him with the facts, and had received a sympathetic reply. Wilberforce saw the Secretary of State on the subject, but the Government were unwilling to oppose the Jersey Authorities on such an issue in the prevailing tensions of the period.

The Jersey Methodists determined to send two of their number as a delegation. Philippe Vivian and Pierre Le Sueur, Jun., went first to Portland to interview Brackenbury. Vivian returned to Jersey and Le Sueur went on to London with a letter of introduction to Wilberforce and to the Methodist Ministers in London. Dr Coke was hastily recalled from Manchester, Wilberforce was interviewed, and a petition to the King drawn up. Dr Coke meanwhile wrote personally to several of the Ministers of the Crown.

The Governor of Jersey, being consulted by one of these, replied: 'The rejection of the Act could not but create a very painful discord between himself and the authorities of the Island.' In communicating this reply to Dr Coke the Minister said he would not be justified in bringing about such a result, and that it would be ill-advised to proceed with the petition.

On 12th December 1798 the Privy Council was held. Dr Coke and Le Sueur were supported by the Revs. John Pawson and Alexander Mather. Le Sueur had the opportunity of stating clearly that Methodists were not refusing to serve but only to drill on Sundays. They were willing to drill on week-days and to pay any extra expense involved. George the Third turned to the Duke of Portland and said outright: 'Portland, I must not have my subjects oppressed in this way.' The Committee of the Privy. Council reported in the same spirit.

The wording of the final note to the States of Jersey is quite significant in the force in which it is stated!

His Majesty having taken the said report into consideration, is hereby pleased, with the advice of His Privy Council, to disapprove the said Act and doth hereby declare the same to be void and of no effect. Whereof the Governor or Commander-in-Chief, Bailiff and Jurats, and all other. His Majesty's officers in the said Island, for the time being, and all other persons whom it may concern, are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.


Links

"Methodism in the Channel Islands" by R.D. Moore (1952), Pages 60-69

A Popular History of Jersey", A.E. Ragg, 1896

Civil Partnerships - Green Paper
http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/ChiefMinister/2007/civilpartnershipsgreenpaper.htm

The Politics of Critical Realism

It is interesting that the majority of Channel Island blogs that I've come across seem to be commenting on politics in Jersey, in one form or another, and usually from a critical point of view.

I do this myself, and this is by way of note to those anonymous posters who think that everyone who criticises the States in any way is either (1) wishing for Jersey to become part of the United Kingdom, or (2) are somehow socialists, or as one blogger put it "you poor socialist tool" (which sounds like a sound bite from a sitcom!). In fact, my politics derives largely from my scientific background, and philosophy, and might be better described as a politics of critical realism.

So to (a): I am Jersey born, and can on the maternal side, at any rate, trace my ancestry back probably to well before anonymous' descendants came to the Island. I do not think the United Kingdom always gets it right, but when they do (or any other place does, including Guernsey), the old phrase - "why reinvent the wheel" comes to mind. Certainly the Jersey Law Drafting department seems to think so, because realms of new Jersey laws borrow extensively from United Kingdom legislation, even if sometimes it is slightly adapted to fit local circumstances. If they can look elsewhere for ideas, why can't I! It doesn't mean I want Jersey to be like the United Kingdom at all, rather that I want to look for the best ideas wherever they occur, and see how well they fit in a Jersey context. Freedom of Information would be one good matter, Identity Cards would not (especially for Islanders with long memories of the last time they were used).

On that score, of looking elsewhere for innovation, and not being totally insular, Guernsey's bus system has "smart cards" for bus fares, rechargeable at the depot or on getting on a bus, which replace the old problem of cash, and unlike Jersey's commuter fares (use only twice a day) and like structures, can be used as required, as little or often, and topped up when required. Ideal for commuters, visitors and the occasional bus user. I've mentioned it to Guy de Faye, but while he did give a polite reply, he has proceeded to ignore the idea.

That deals with the first point, of wanting Jersey to resemble the UK. I don't, except where it would improve the lot of the average Jersey citizen.

As far as (b) the "socialist tool" criticism goes, I tend to Pericles Funeral Oration, in which it is said:

We consider a man who takes no interest in the state not as harmless, but as useless; and although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it. We do not look upon discussion as a stumbling block in the way of political action, but as an indispensable preliminary to acting wisely....

The philosopher Karl Popper certainly applied this when writing his two books critiquing both Fascism and Marxism - the "Open Society and Its Enemies", and this tied in with his theory of science, that the logic (not the history) of scientific discovery works by the criticism and modification of theories. As Popper notes:

The Western rationalist tradition, which derives from the Greeks, is the tradition of critical discussion of of examining and testing propositions or theories by attempting to refute them. This critical rational method must not be mistaken for a method of proof, that is to say for a method of finally establishing truth; nor is it a method which always secures agreement. Its value lies, rather, in the fact that participants in a discussion will, to some extent, change their minds, and part as wiser men.

But the tradition of rational discussion creates in the political field, the tradition of government by discussion, and with it the habit of listening to another point of view; the growth of a sense of justice; and the readiness to compromise.

Criticism of the status quo, then is not necessarily a "socialist" matter, and with the best will in the world, the States are going to make mistakes. The larger the scale of change, the greater the possibility of a really large mess at the end of the day. That is why Popper argues in "The Poverty of Historicism" for what he calls "piecemeal change", because the more any change approaches the "utopian" kind of change - wipe out everything and start with a blank slate - the more likely it is to go wrong. When designing a complex machine, like an aircraft, the blueprints of necessity draw upon experimental work, previous history of aircraft design etc, and to design a blueprint, from scratch, is a recipe for ending up with something like Concordski, the ill-fated Soviet Tupolev TU-144, withdrawn after several crashes.

The other reason for a piecemeal approach is because any changes always generate unexpected consequences, side-effects that could not have been anticipated (although the critical thinker should always be on the look out for these). This "unplanned planning" is always worse if the change is greater, on a Utopian or grand scale, because plans then have to be changed to accommodate the problems that arise, and in fact, you end up with something very much like piecemeal change, but a lot messier, because the blueprint has to be amended after all!

Recent changes that seem to demonstrate this clearly are:

a) The Proposals for Jersey Independence
b) The Hopkins Masterplan, with its sunken road

Both of these are Utopian in sheer scale, and both assume that nothing nasty will upset the applecart, that they have set out to produce a plan, and it will work. There is no evidence of much planning for unexpected contingencies, and what might go wrong, although one consequence of the Hopkins Plan that has already arisen is a road network that will cost - in today's prices - half a million per annum to maintain in perpetuity.

The problem with Utopian planning, as Popper pointed out, is not only the costly mistakes on the way, but also that they of necessity involve a degree of long term control. Such planning,

is a big undertaking which must cause considerable inconvenience to many, and for a considerable span of time. Accordingly, the Utopian engineer will have to be deaf to many complaints; in fact, it will be part of his business to suppress unreasonable objections. (He will say, like Lenin, 'You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.') But with it, he must invariably suppress reasonable criticism also.





Books of the Post:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl R. Popper
The Open Society and its Enemies, Karl R. Popper
The Poverty of Historicism, Karl R. Popper

Religious fruitcake

This time of year, when politicians take a summer break, is traditionally known as the "silly season".

In view of that, I've decided to put a few lighter and more lunatic entries on this blog. This one is actually completely genuine, and not a hoax - I'm not making it up!

It is what is termed "religious fruitcake". Read it, and you will see why!

http://www.yo-god.com/


How many times have we heard it said, "Oh, Lord, give me a sign!" Alas, too often the reply is vague and ambiguous: the phone rings at an opportune time, a feather falls from out of the blue, a water stain appears that resembles a religious image. We all want to know if God exists; maybe He just needs a reliable method to let us know He's here.


The "Yo-God" God Detector gives God a way to send a simple, unambiguous message of His presence. If we join together, perhaps God will hear our request and respond. Just take these simple steps:

- Purchase and register a Yo-God God Detector.
- Set out your God Detector anywhere in your home, church, or office.
- Offer a simple request or prayer that God reveal Himself through the detector.
- Check your God Detector daily or weekly for any indication of movement.
- Report any movement of the detector at this web site.

Popular broadcaster dies

Just heard the sad death of John Uphoff , read the full BBC Radio Jersey article and tribute here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2008/08/05/john_uphoff_tribute_feature.shtml

John was a quirky and fun radio presenter, who always enlivened the mornings on BBC Radio Jersey. I met him only once, when he interviewed me in 2004, on the publication of my book on Jersey, and he instantly made me (a radio novice) feel at ease, and spent extra time afterwards showing me the complex electronics by which he organised his playlist of songs. He will be sadly missed.

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/cinews2.aspx?articleid=15921&zoneid=1

Channel TV had this story:

One of Jersey's most popular broadcasters has died after battling an illness in hospital.

John Uphoff was flown to the UK two weeks ago after developing abdominal pains early in July.

The BBC Radio host was suffering from meningitis, encephalitis and listerial blood poisoning and had been in a coma. He died in the care of the staff of the Neurological Intensive Care Unit in Southampton.

The 46 year old was born in Bradford and began his broadcasting career in 1978 on student radio. Over the years he worked for Pennine Radio and The Pulse in West Yorkshire, Viking Radio in Hull and Channel 103 in Jersey.

He moved to the BBC in 2002 and for the last year presented the Radio Jersey Breakfast Programme alongside Roger Barra.

He leaves his wife Jan who has been at his bedside throughout his illness. His funeral will be held in the island at a date to be confirmed.

The Genius of Charles Darwin: A Review

I watched Richard Dawkins' latest offering, "The Genius of Charles Darwin", which was a high speed whistle-stop tour of Darwinism - as understood by Richard Dawkins; at times, I did wonder if "The Genius of Richard Dawkins" might not be a better description. According to Dawkins, you would be forgiven for thinking that Darwin's theory of evolution explained all there is to know about how life came to be on earth. He neatly avoided Darwin's own significant omission - the beginning of life from inanimate matter. Darwin knew full well the limits of his theory, and avoided areas where there was insufficient evidence. Indeed, he wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species:

As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-namely at the close of the Introduction-the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.

Dawkins, alas, was not so modest. Evolution, he proclaimed, was the greatest scientific idea of all time, as if one could somehow take scientific ideas and weigh them in some kind of balance for brilliance. Newton and Einstein were somehow sidelined, as well as the plethora of times we have "Days the universe changed" that James Burke is always so fond of reminding us. Inventions such a printing, which enabled ideas to spread, or advances in optics, which enabled Dawkins to see clearly were not important. It was that James Burke kind of connectivity that was somehow missing from his picture of Darwinism, that for instance ideas about evolution - in terms of change and progress - had become so part of the word itself, that Darwin deliberately chose to write Origin of Species without once using the term that has become synonymous with his ideas. Alfred Russell Wallace also had short shift, just as someone "who had similar ideas".

"Nature red in tooth and claw" quoted Dawkins from Tennyson's "In Memoriam", after which we were treated to night shots and sounds of hunts on the African plains, punctuated by a rather ghoulish green visage of Dawkins himself. In fact, Tennyson was drawing not upon Darwin, but upon Robert Chambers "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" (1844) which had quite different ideas about evolutionary mechanisms, although it did propose - before Darwin - the transmutation of species over time by what its author called evolution. But as I noted, ideas about "evolution" were everywhere at the time. Dawkins mentions Darwin's book selling out at once but in fact Vestiges outsold The Origin of Species up until the early 20th century.

This was one of the weaknesses of the presentation, explaining exactly what Darwin understood by "natural selection". An average viewer would assume it was a fight for survival against competition for limited food resources, and it is true that this element, drawing on the economic ideas of Malthus, plays a significant part, but it is not always such an individualistic struggle as Dawkins makes out. David Attenborough, in "The Living Planet", observes numbers of cases when groups of predators work together co-operatively to hunt their prey. Group selection was not mentioned, and most of the focus was on carnivores hunting ""The total amount of suffering in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation" - herbivores and plant life barely got a mention. Moreover, the random element, as with the Cambrian extinction, or the end of the dinosaurs, in which the changing environment plays a hugely significant part, barely got a mention. Symbiosis had not mention, and yet we (and all mammals) are colonized by multitudes of symbiotic bacteria

Along with the presentation of predation, was mention of "escalation", where predator and prey both evolve in an "arms race". This is a local predictability, and Stephen Jay Gould notes that this is "documented in increasing strength of both crab claws and shells of their gastropod prey through time). But laws of nature do not tell us why we have crabs and snails at all, why insects rule the multicellular world and why vertebrates rather than persistent algal mats exist as the most complex forms of life on the earth." The way in which historical accident plays a role was minimised, and instead evolution was presented as a universal explanation far beyond its capacity.

Dawkins, on the beach with schoolchildren mentioned invertebrates evolving from bacteria, fish evolving from lesser creatures, land animals evolving from them, and human beings evolving from them. This was the worst part of the presentation, giving the impression of a progressive sequence of change, and while Dawkins noted that mankind was like the last string on a piano, in terms of the age of the earth, he did little to alter this image.

Yet, as Gould points out, when this is presented in this way, as a series of pictures: "We never stop to recognize the almost absurd biases coded into this.. No scene ever shows another invertebrate after fishes evolved but invertebrates did not go away or stop evolving! After terrestrial reptiles emerge, no subsequent scene ever shows a fish (later oceanic tableaux depict only such returning reptiles as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs)". The differences are striking: Dawkins in this programme, presents life as a branching tree - Stephen Jay Gould, as a low bush, because as he notes: "The most salient feature of life has been the stability of its bacterial mode from the beginning of the fossil record until today and, with little doubt, into all future time so long as the earth endures. This is truly the "age of bacteria" - as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be."

Dawkins's story on the survival of an HIV woman in Africa, and others like her, is an outcome of evolutionary forces. Her offspring carry the gene, and survive, so over time, those Africans who succumb to HIV will die out, and given long enough (around 1,000 years), mostly the genetic population with the survival gene will predominate. He compares this with survival genes for the Black Death. This was extremely weak - a kind of evolutionary fairy story, which does not take into account either the random factor or the time it takes to breed. For instance those who survived the Black Death may have had a gene which helped their survival, or equally, it could have been luck (a word he is not too keen on), because it had swept through Europe like a bush fire, and those behind the fire zone were simply too few in number and number of contacts for it to continue. What he does not consider is that the HIV population may happily breed before they die, or that the HIV virus may mutate. Historical contingency is not high on his agenda, and yet if he was looking for viral infections, he might note that the influenza outbreak of 1919 did not confer much immunity on those who survived. As Gould notes: "The history of life is not necessarily progressive; it is certainly not predictable. The earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events."

When Dawkins was talking to the school children - and where did he find such a devout lot, because there are
none like that at any schools my sons have attended in Jersey - he noted with amazement that four out of 10 Britons still believe, in some form or another, that God created the world. That (and where is that survey, I've not found it?) is the Dawkins method of "pulling a fast one", and by presenting first people who believe in a literal rendering of Genesis - which Augustine and Jerome did not, for example - he then presents this statistic as a way of saying that this is what the people surveyed thought, which may or may not be true.

As a way of looking at "God created the world", which does not involve any conflict with cosmology or evolution, consider this presentation by C.S. Lewis

"Looking for God -- or Heaven -- by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth, nor is he diffused through the play like a gas. If there were someone who thought plays exist on their own, without an author..., our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them.....To some, God is discoverable everywhere; to others, nowhere. Those who do not find him on earth are unlikely to find him in space. (Hang it all, we're in space already; every year we go a huge circular tour in space.) But send up a saint in a spaceship and he'll find God in space as he found God on earth. Much depends on the seeing eye."

How Dawkins fits committed evolutionists and theists like Kenneth Miller (author of "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution") who have fought against creationists and proponents of intelligent design in debates and in the law courts of America into his picture is unclear; I suspect he hopes they would go away because they don't fit his very literal ideas about what belief should be. But then Miller (like Lewis and Augustine) operates with a very different idea of "creation" than the literalists who are Dawkins' bête noire. "Can a Darwinian be a Christian" asked the philosopher and atheist Michael Ruse, and concluded that while some aspects of Christianity - looking at it in all its diversity - caused problems, these need not always be insuperable.

My main gripe is that Dawkins presents evolution as (a) all embracing, which Darwin said it was not (b) extremely simplistically, which may lead people to reject it because it is presented in a flawed manner.

In my opinion, Stephen Jay Gould have a much more nuanced presentation of evolution, and its limits, when he wrote these words:

Natural selection is an immensely powerful yet beautifully simple theory that has held up remarkably well, under intense and unrelenting scrutiny and testing, for 135 years. In essence, natural selection locates the mechanism of evolutionary change in a "struggle" among organisms for reproductive success, leading to improved fit of populations to changing environments. ( Struggle is often a metaphorical description and need not be viewed as overt combat, guns blazing. Tactics for reproductive success include a variety of non-martial activities such as earlier and more frequent mating or better cooperation with partners in raising offspring.) Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress.

Yet powerful though the principle may be, natural selection is not the only cause of evolutionary change (and may, in many cases, be overshadowed by other forces). This point needs emphasis because the standard misapplication of evolutionary theory assumes that biological explanation may be equated with devising accounts, often speculative and conjectural in practice, about the adaptive value of any given feature in its original environment (human aggression as good for hunting, music and religion as good for tribal cohesion, for example). Darwin himself strongly emphasized the multifactorial nature of evolutionary change and warned against too exclusive a reliance on natural selection, by placing the following statement in a maximally conspicuous place at the very end of his introduction: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."


References:

"The Seeing Eye" , C.S. Lewis (1963)

Can a Darwinian be a Christian, Michael Ruse
http://www.amazon.com/Can-Darwinian-Christian-Relationship-Religion/dp/0521631440

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, Kenneth Miller
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/3079/Default.aspx
A review of Finding Darwin's God by Michael Ruse

A gut issue: Bacterial symbiosis shapes a healthy immune response
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/edsumm/e080529-01.html


The Evolution of Life, Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/gould.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151

The Bottle of Memories

It was an old shop, paint fading worn
Unwashed windows, cobwebs adorn
And I wandered in by creaking door
Into that ancient shop of nevermore
Where time stood still, and did not pass
I chanced upon odd bottle of glass
Inside blue vapours caught my glance.
I asked the shop keeper its provenance
And he told me it was a strange tale
That inside the bottle could unveil
Time past, one hundred years before
And by opening it, unlock the door
To memory past, yet also time alive
In which two lovers then did thrive.
He invited me to try, and lifted
The glass stopper. Vapours drifted
Out towards me, and then suddenly
I was elsewhere, and I could see
The sun, feel its warmth on my face,
Feel the flow as two lovers embrace,
Hear the wind, outside this enclave,
The touch of lips as a kiss he gave;
Such joy in her face, such beauty
By dappled sunlight through a tree
And in the distance, cry of birdsong;
Feeling that this moment did belong
In eternity, wind in trees passing by
Whisper sweet caresses with a sigh;
Then it was gone, the bottle closed,
Secrets again hidden, undisclosed;
As I left the shop, I thought again
Of how no past is lost, that when
In eternity, broken time is healed
Again their love will be revealed
Again hear birdsong, come alive
Moments lost will then arrive.

Concerns over identity document

Last night there was a detailed history of the relationship of the crown and government of Jersey, which while very full, was flawed historically; I'll post on that later in the week. The leader article also asked:

"WHY disturb Jersey's relationship with Britain, which was established eight centuries ago and has been robust and satisfactory enough to survive not only massive social and political change but also the English Civil War and occupation by Nazi Germany?"

The relationship has come up with the document signed in May, which is very short, and clearly does redefine Jersey's relationship with Britain - or not - depending on whose comments you read! Item (1) is the interesting one, especially the first sentence in relation to, for instance, calls for UK Judges in the historical abuse inquiry. Most of the document, I suspect, relates to independence in taxation matters.

In case you missed it - it slipped by rather quietly - here it is:

1. The UK has no democratic accountability in and for Jersey which is governed by its own democratically elected assembly. In the context of the UK's responsibility for Jersey's international relations it is understood that -

· The UK will not act internationally on behalf of Jersey without prior consultation.

· The UK recognises that the interests of Jersey may differ from those of the UK, and the UK will seek to represent any differing interests when acting in an international capacity. This is particularly evident in respect of the relationship with the European Union where the UK interests can be expected to be those of an EU member state and the interests of Jersey can be expected to reflect the fact that the UK's membership of the EU only extends to Jersey in certain circumstances as set out in Protocol 3 of the UK's Treaty of Accession.

2. Jersey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK.

3. The UK recognises that Jersey is a long-standing, small democracy and supports the principle of Jersey further developing its international identity.

4. The UK has a role to play in assisting the development of Jersey's international identity. The role is one of support not interference.

5. Jersey and the UK commit themselves to open, effective and meaningful dialogue with each other on any issue that may come to affect the constitutional relationship.

6. International identity is developed effectively through meeting international standards and obligations which are important components of Jersey's international identity.

7. The UK will clearly identify its priorities for delivery of its international obligations and agreements so that these are understood, and can be taken into account, by Jersey in developing its own position.

8. The activities of the UK in the international arena need to have regard to Jersey's international relations, policies and responsibilities.

9. The UK and Jersey will work together to resolve or clarify any differences which may arise between their respective interests.

10. Jersey and the UK will work jointly to promote the legitimate status of Jersey as a responsible, stable and mature democracy with its own broad policy interests and which is willing to engage positively with the international community across a wide range of issues

Change "Jersey" to "Guernsey", or "Isle of Man", and you have the same agreement for the other Crown Dependencies. In Jersey, it went through "on the nod", but in Guernsey, Lyndon Trott has been forced into a debate upon the matter, after criticism by the lawyer Mr St John Robillard, and calls for debate by a large number of Island deputies. Evidently Guernsey is going to scrutinise this document in some depth, and it begs the question: why did it slip by in the States of Jersey virtually without comment? Especially as their Guernsey counterparts, and the Guernsey Press have raised some important concerns about the document.

The Chief Minister said that: "Although the document does not, and is not intended to, affect the constitutional arrangements of the Islands in any sense, I believe that it is a positive and helpful expression of political support from the DCA for Guernsey's stated objective of developing its international identity".

The UK Ministry of Justice said the international identity document did not change the existing constitutional boundaries. Mr St John Robillard said more explanation was needed. "If it makes no change, then really it's for someone to explain where it came from and why the people who drafted it want someone to sign it on Guernsey's behalf," he told BBC News. "As I see it in Guernsey, either there must be an express law that authorises someone like a chief minister to speak on behalf of the States generally, or else the States have to deal with this on an ad hoc basis," he said. Advocate St John Robillard said he believed the terms were too vague and deputies should be given the opportunity to ask questions about the agreement.

There is also a very strong leader article explaining why this needs to be debated.

IN TODAY'S Guernsey Press, we reproduce in full a letter from the chief minister explaining why we were wrong in our editorial on Thursday to suggest that an international identity framework document he is to sign with Lord Chancellor Jack Straw was a worsening of the existing position. This newspaper's concern is that the framework implicitly states that the UK can act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior agreement, a weakening of previous statements where it says: 'The UK will not act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior consultation.' Yet in today's explanation, the chief minister says: 'There is, therefore, no question of Guernsey having relinquished the ability to opt out of international agreements. Guernsey only has the option to opt in.' If that is the case, we asked him on Friday, would it not be more accurate for the framework to say something like, 'The UK cannot act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior agreement? The response was: 'Your suggested words would not be an accurate statement because they perpetuate the misunderstanding in relation to what happens throughout the entire process of negotiating, concluding and possibly subsequently extending international agreements.' Yet if the only option is to opt in, why would Guernsey sign an agreement suggesting otherwise? While islanders might be tempted to regard this as nit-picking, it is of fundamental importance to this island's future. Jersey, for example, which has signed the potentially misleading wording, has also invested a great deal of time into looking at how it might become independent from the UK should it, as the framework suggests it can, impose international agreements, on taxation for example, without agreement. And it is now clear that more than half of States members are unhappy with the framework and are likely to prevent the chief minister from signing it. There is much that could be said about this, but one thing is inescapable. This island's long and happy links with the Crown are the result of custom and tradition and are largely unwritten. Trying to put it into words merely means that UK civil servants play safe, hence the dispute over the phrase we raise here. And if, as the chief minister claims, the framework changes nothing, why on earth are we bothering to sign it?

and another letter comments on the matter:

IN HIS letter of Monday, the chief minister claims authority to sign a document setting out Guernsey's constitutional position with the UK. Has the present Policy Council given him this authority? That the current States of Guernsey has not is evident from a letter signed by over half its members. The electorate most certainly has not. The matter was not raised at election time and no decision of a previous States can bind a present one. Some senior advocates have expressed reservations about entering into such a written agreement. Their voice should be heeded. The States must ask whether the Law Officers can give them appropriate advice.

These are appointed by the Crown and are answerable neither to the States nor the electorate. Without questioning their competence or integrity, one must ask where their loyalties lie in a matter involving a relationship between the States and the Crown. If the chief minister goes it alone and signs a document with the Lord Chancellor, I hope that he knows what he is doing. In September 1938 the British prime minister returned from meeting the German chancellor in Munich and, waving a piece of paper to the crowds, proclaimed peace in our time. Less than a year later, the Second World War broke out and less than two years later Guernsey was invaded. I am sure that our chief minister will not wish to go down in history as Guernsey's Neville Chamberlain.

DR N. LE POIDEVIN.

GP Editor's footnote: Deputy Lyndon Trott has since said he will not sign the framework pending a States debate in October.

and here is a letter from the Deputies:

Chief Minister Lyndon Trott feels ready to sign Guernsey up to a constitutional framework agreement. Some members of the States do not. Here the petitioners explain why in an open letter

Dear chief minister,

IN AN article published in the Guernsey Press on Thursday, you were quoted in the following terms:

'I was able to advise Mr Wills (Minister of State, UK Ministry of Justice) that the Policy Council was happy for me to sign the international identity agreement with the UK and, in the coming days, Jack Straw and myself will exchange signatures.'

Furthermore, in a letter addressed to the editor of the Guernsey Press and copied to States members on Friday, you confirmed that it was your intention to commit Guernsey to the international identity agreement without any reference whatsoever to the States of Deliberation.

In the strongest possible terms, we the undersigned, should like to invite you to urgently reconsider your position on this matter.

In no way do we wish to comment at this stage on the advantages or disadvantages of signing the international identity agreement. However, we are firmly of the opinion that you must not commit the island to the agreement without the express approval of States members after a full debate in the States of Deliberation. Failure to bring this matter to the assembly would totally undermine the integrity and authority of the States of Deliberation.

We are pleased briefly to set out below some of the many reasons for writing to you in these terms.

First, we are concerned that the international identity agreement may effect material change in the relationship between Guernsey and the UK, especially in the field of international relations.

Your aforementioned letter to the editor confirms that since 1951, in relation to international agreements signed by the UK, there has been a practice of the UK formally asking Guernsey whether it wishes such agreements to be extended to it.

However, the international identity agreement to which you intend to commit Guernsey obliges the UK merely to consult the island before acting on its behalf in the field of international relations.

You will be aware that there has been much debate about whether the proposed form of words weakens Guernsey's position.

Whether or not that is the case, it is clear that there is a difference between the historic practice of the UK being required to seek Guernsey's approval before extending international agreements and the notion that the UK need only consult before doing so.

Second, we believe you would be acting injudiciously were you to commit the island to an important constitutional agreement with a third party without the prior consent of the States of Deliberation.

We note the mandate of the Policy Council, which states, inter alia:

'To advise the States on matters relating to the island's constitutional position, including its relationships with the United Kingdom, European Union and other Crown Dependencies, international relations and matters relating to the parishes and the other islands of the Bailiwick.

'And to be responsible for representing the island and negotiating on international matters and considering international agreements in which the insular authorities have an interest or are invited to acquiesce and making appropriate recommendations thereon.'

We note that the Policy Council is able to negotiate on international matters. However, we do not accept that the responsibility to negotiate on international matters confers upon the Policy Council, or upon any sub-group or minister acting on its behalf, the right to sign international agreements.

Indeed, the relevant section of Policy Council's mandate states unequivocally that council shall advise the States on constitutional matters and in respect of international agreements shall make appropriate recommendations, presumably to the States of Deliberation.

Third, in a letter dated 7 June 2007 in response to questions raised by Deputy Al Brouard about the international identity agreement to which this letter refers, the then - chief minister, Mike Torode, stated: 'I am advised that a resolution of the States is required to approve the document.'

We are not aware that the States has resolved to confer upon the Policy Council or the chief minister any additional executive authority since Deputy Torode wrote in those terms.

We have every reason to believe that a resolution of the States is still required before anyone is able to commit Guernsey to the document.

In view of the above, we propose in the strongest possible terms that this matter be placed for debate before the States of Deliberation as expeditiously as possible, and that Guernsey's signature on the international identity agreement be withheld until such time as the States of Deliberation has determined whether to approve its extension to Guernsey.

Signed by the following members of the States of Deliberation, deputies:

Matt Fallaize, Mary Lowe, Tony Spruce, Scott Ogier, Barry Brehaut, John Gollop, Mike Collins, Barry Paint, Mike Garrett, Jane Stephens, David De Lisle, Al Brouard, Roger Domaille, Rhoderick Matthews, Mike Hadley, Andrew Le Lievre, Jenny M. Tasker, Robert W. Sillars, Martin J. Storey, Tom Le Pelley, Marc Laine, Gloria Dudley-Owen, Sam Maindonald, Janine Le Sauvage, and Sean McManus.

* Deputy Ivan Rihoy was unable to sign the letter but requested that his name be added to it.

Links

http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/International+Relations/JerseyandUKagreeframeworkfordevelopingJerseysinternationalidentity.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7531065.stm

http://www.gov.gg/ccm/policy-and-hr/press-release/2007/may-2007/a-draft-framework-for-developing-guernseys-international-identity.en;jsessionid=C552511CDD58EFA4570F08306578F118

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7531065.stm

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/07/28/no-change-why-bother-to-sign-it/

http://www.thisisguernsey.co.uk/discus/messages/11779/12320.html?1217423495

Data Protection Note: any names mentioned are in the public domain, as evidenced by the linking documents.

Weekend Musings

A brief note that the JEP again makes a mistake, or was it a deliberate error, by calling the Senators up for re-election this year as the "class of 2005". Not unless they've shortened the period for elections! Doesn't anyone proof-read articles any more?

At least they get the page for the weather forecast right at weekends now, although the "light rain" promised earlier was somewhat heaver than expected, and caused flooding. Still that is the Met Office, not the JEP, who really should be paid by results - last week and the week before "heavy rain" was significantly absent from the skies, though not the forecasts. I met some unlucky tourists on Sunday evening, and tried to think of places to visit when raining. A section in the Tourism brochures and website for "rainy days" would be helpful.

On Sunday lunchtime, I visited the most tourism unfriendly cafe in the Island - unless you know otherwise?

The toilets are locked and there is a notice on them - in English only (of course!) - telling you that they are for patrons only, and to ask at the food counter - which is way back at the other end of the cafe. If you are lucky, not desperate, and there is no queue for food (so you can get noticed without shouting), the man there will press a button, which releases the electronic lock on the toilets, and you can walk up there and open the door. Yes, this is La Fregate Cafe, with a policy that would not have been out of place in the dark days of the Occupation - they also close at five!

If you are thinking of eating at the cafe, but old and infirm and have slow mobility and poor bladder control , or have young children (who often need to go in a hurry), or cannot read English (hard luck to those pesky foreigners), I suggest you give the cafe a miss, and go to the Sailor's Rest, which serves cheaper food, and had an open toilet policy.

In fact I can't think of another beach cafe in Jersey which operates that kind of policy. I'm sure some people will anonymously comment that it is up to the proprietors how they run their cafe, and that is true. It is also true that I am free by word of mouth to tell people why I think it is run partly on the lines of a prison service than a people service. It reminds me of "Panicos", the toy shop which called itself the "Toy Mecca in the West" at Quennevais, whose owners viewed children with such suspicion I always wondered why they bothered to sell toys if they evidently disliked children that much. La Fregate treats its clientele more like prison inmates than customers.

They also have a notice saying they only serve chips with meals (around £6.80), so don't go there if you are a young adult and looking for a cheap snack.

As an added disincentive, I think the dreaded smell of rotten seaweed is starting to creep in from the beach.

But Rosemary Geller would be pleased in the removal of chips alone for young people. I heard her on the radio this morning commenting on how to tackle obesity in young people, and suggesting they need some incentive to get them into allotments.

I didn't know there were enough allotments in Jersey, or that they came at the rental prices that the poorer people, who probably would benefit from fresh food, could afford. I do think it is actually a good idea, and a States subsidised allotment scheme (maybe using tax breaks as an incentive rather than funding) would be better for greenfield sites than rezoning and building on them. Or perhaps new social housing could incorporate not just parking, but allotments if in the countryside as well? G.K. Chesterton and the Distributists suggested that allotments could act as a counter-culture to the prevailing standardisation of fast food (in their day, in tin cans, in ours of frozen ready meals). The revival of allotments are testament to people's frustration with supermarket standardisation, and the demand for fresh, local food. Perhaps as farms close with declining agriculture, this would be a good way to manage the land, and feed the Island?

On the fat front, from CTV:

A protest group several hundred strong showed their support for the banned ladies outside the venue in Halkett Street last night despite a midweek apology from Mr Sayers. News of the ban has gone around the world and in just a week a fledgling anti-discrimination organisation has gained support from more than fifteen hundred outraged individuals - some from as far afield as America. They're now turning their attention to politicians who have been slow to push through discrimination law. A petition is being drawn up and has so far been signed by hundreds of people.

Who is responsible? Step forward the Council of Ministers!

The Council endorsed the draft Discrimination Law and recommended that the Minister for Home Affairs forward the draft Law to Scrutiny for possible review and with the provisional aim of lodging the draft 'au Greffe' no later than May 2008. The Council also recommended that the Minister for Home Affairs should publish a consultation report seeking comments on the draft Law.

Elsewhere, Rod Liddle, commenting in the Sunday Times on the Lambeth Conference, had a wonderfully choice piece of invective:" I had intended to take advice and guidance from the 2008 Lambeth Conference, that convocation of extravagantly bearded men in purple dresses, but it was like soliciting advice from a tub of margarine. When an issue of principle hove into view, the prelates ducked and pretended it hadn't been raised at all. "

Replace Lambeth Conference, with Council of Ministers on Draft Discrimination Laws, and you wouldn't be too far off the mark in the decision making ability on this law! When an issue of principle hove into view, the Ministers ducked and pretended it hadn't been raised at all.

Links

CTV report on Havana Protest
http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/jerseynews2.aspx?articleid=15871&zoneid=1


Draft Discrimination (Jersey) Law 200- (MD-HA-2008-0013)
http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/HomeAffairs/2008/Draft+Discrimination.htm


Rod Liddle in Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article4449315.ece


David Boyle on the Distributists
http://www.david-boyle.co.uk/history/goodlives.html

Chief Minister in misconduct row

This is not Jersey in the News! Time for our neighbours in Guernsey to have problems with their Chief Minister.

By the sound of it, the language used makes Frank Walker's words that Stuart Syvret was trying to "shaft Jersey internationally" look like something out of Enid Blyton. Expletives were used, and it seems that fists may have been shaken in a threatening manner, although that is not totally clear - certainly violence seems to have been threatened, in what Deputy Trott calls "a robust exchange", but what appears to have been more like the kind of language that would have Mary Whitehouse spinning in her grave.

Another related, and curious matter - "Deputy Trott has been talking to the UK government about a statement defining Guernsey's international identity. He had been due to sign the agreement without referring it to the States and some Deputies aren't happy about that." I'll be posting more on that later as it applies to Jersey as well!

---

Chief Minister in misconduct row

Guernsey's Chief Minister is facing an investigation into his alleged misconduct. Deputy Trott had an argument with Deputy Barry Brehaut last week during which its claimed he threatened violence.

All smiles as Deputy Trott takes on arguably the toughest job in Guernsey: trying to restrain the independent wills of forty-five States members. But the honey moon is undoubtedly over now with leaked news of a fracas with Deputy Barry Brehaut.

The two men are alleged to have disagreed over Deputy Trott's intervention in the public sector pay row. They then spoke in a corridor at Frossard House where it's claimed that Deputy Trott said in response to a conciliatory hand gesture from Deputy Brehaut: "Raise your hand to me would you, I'll knock your [expletive deleted] teeth out." Deputy Trott then turned to move away and it's claimed he said in a parting shot "Show me some [expletive deleted] respect." Deputy Brehaut's referred this whole matter to the Conduct Panel which will investigate what really happened in the light of rule nine.

Rule nine states: "Members shall at all times treat other members, civil servants and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process."

This row isn't just undignified. It also raises serious questions about the way that government works. Lyndon Trott doesn't have prime ministerial powers so he has to rely heavily on force of personality to carry him through. And inevitably that will sometimes go wrong. But the bust up makes Deputy Trott's promise while speaking on Channel Report at the time of his election of a new style of government look like wishful thinking.

"The style has to be light on the tiller, it has to be a persuasive style but I am fortunate because I have worked with two very able chief ministers who have if you like contrasting styles in the past and Deputy Laurie Morgan and Deputy Mike Torode. I have learnt from their styles and I think that mine will come somewhere in between."

Ultimately if Barry Brehaut's complaint is upheld, the Chief Minister could be cautioned, suspended or expelled. But even if the official punishment were minor, the damage to his reputation is already undeniable.

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/guernseynews2.aspx?articleid=15790&zoneid=1

Chief Minister's statement on misconduct claim

Guernsey Chief Minister has made a statement on the allegation of misconduct made against him by Deputy Barry Brehaut which is being investigated by the States Conduct Panel. The statement was leaked to Channel Online:

"I can confirm that a robust exchange took place [last] week between myself and Deputy Brehaut following a fundamental difference of opinion on an important principle discussed in a meeting. I understand that this exchange may now form the subject of a formal complaint under the Code of Conduct which governs States Members. I welcome this impartial process which will consider all the facts, which will listen to the viewpoints of both side and above all will put the incident and the actions undertaken in context.

I intend to co-operate fully with any inquiry that may take place. In the meantime, I believe it would be quite improper for either myself, Deputy Brehaut or others to discuss any matters relating to it until the process has run its course."

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/guernseynews2.aspx?articleid=15791&zoneid=1

The Dictator's Charter

Suspension threat for ministers

Ministers in Jersey facing a dismissal vote could be suspended until it takes place, under new rules suggested by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. If the proposals are approved, a minister could not continue working between the vote being lodged and it being held. The chief minister or another minister would take on their duties in the meantime, the committee said. The plans are to be considered by the island's Council of Ministers. Committee chairman Constable Derek Grey said the fear was that a disgruntled minister could cause problems in any interim period between a vote being lodged and it being held. He said: "Are they in a position to give loads of orders to upset the department completely? "If you think about business, it's quite normal, if somebody is suspended, that they have to leave the building. "Quite often they are escorted out, so I think it's no different to what would happen in a normal business."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7533564.stm

For "a disgruntled minister" read "Stuart Syvret"!

This becomes clear if one looks at the wording of the proposition:

The sub-committee did not believe it was satisfactory that a Minister should be able to continue performing his duties after the Chief Minister had decided to lodge a proposition for his or her dismissal, and this view was shared by the Council of Ministers during the consultation that followed the publication of R.105/2007. Once the relationship between a Minister and his or her ministerial colleagues has broken down to the extent that the Chief Minister is seeking the dismissal of the Minister concerned, it seems inappropriate that the Minister, who may have extensive statutory powers and duties, should continue to carry out his duties; but should instead be suspended until the States make a decision on his/her dismissal.

Does this mean (if it got through) that if someone lodged a dismissal vote against the Chief Minister that he would be suspended until the outcome of the vote took place? Alas, no, the wording only covers the Chief Minister dismissing a Minister. In fact, it is clearly increasing the power of the Chief Minister to keep his colleagues in line. Note that when Syvret went, the moment the vote was passed, he was out, despite his offer to act as caretaker until a new minister would be found, and his inter-departmental emails access was immediately canceled. They couldn't get him out quickly enough. This would now happen as soon as a proposition was lodged.

It seems a suitably ridiculous idea by the Committee responsible for the fiasco over election expenses, but it may well get through if enough people have been upset by Stuart Syvret. In fairness, I think it should apply to the Chief Minister too - what if he goes mad, or gaga? Shouldn't it be in the interests of justice that if the States are seeking the dismissal of the Chief Minister, he gets suspended as well?

Chesterton pointed out how this government works: "our representatives accept designs and desires almost entirely from the Cabinet class above them; and practically not at all from the constituents below them. I say the people does not wield a Parliament which wields a Cabinet. I say the Cabinet bullies a timid Parliament which bullies a bewildered people".

This proposition is clearly a vote to make the Chief Minister into the top bully, with extra powers to cane those people he disagrees with. It is an extra stick to beat politicians in the Council of Ministers to keep them in line. It may, of course, not be needed to be used, but the cane will be there hanging on the wall, for all to see.

Where it is so wrong also is that it denies a Minister under threat the proper time to prepare a defense, by putting him on his own, away from any chance of going over his own internal records. What is likely is that it will lead to a culture by which Ministers will ensure they have - in a safe place - copies of records sufficient to mount a defense of any decisions they take, which they would otherwise not have access to in their defense, and which the Chief Minister will have available to him. That will be a likely outcome, and despite the best political will in the world, one that in these days of instant scanning to PDF, one that will be impossible to monitor.

Incidentally, the opposite applies, and in a weird looking glass manner, the Chief Minister retains his post until a successor is appointed, even when he is not a States member, so Frank Walker will be Chief Minister for a short time after the Deputies elections, even when he is not in the States!

Somehow Derek Gray thinks that piece of lunacy is needed for good government!


Links:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/11113-28855-2972008.htm

Havana Worldwide and Legal Aspects

Following the JEP's coverage, the Mirror was the first to pick up on the story, followed by the Daily Mail, and now the Times. It has also reached as far afield as India! Mr Sayers has apologied saying it was a "moment of madness". Personally, I think the protestors should accept this apology - what more can the poor man do?

Some of the comments I've seen (including some on my blog) supporting Mr Sayers say he had a right to refuse entry to whoever he liked. Actually, that is false, if he started turning away people because they were Jewish, Asian, coloured, etc, he would soon find himself in bigger trouble, certainly in the UK, where such practices come up against the law, see, for instance (from 2007):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/713639.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6335541.stm

The Sonia Deol Show on the BBC Asian Network is looking into reports of racist door policies operating at UK nightclubs. Listeners have been contacting the show with stories of how they've been refused entry to clubs simply because of the colour of their skin.

http://www.fearandlothian.com/underground/main/articles/regulars.htm

Guardian investigation carried out this week has revealed evidence of racist door policies at some of Glasgow's most high profile nightclubs. In controlled tests, adhering to the requirements of the Commission for Racial Equality, a small group of Sikh students wearing microphones were filmed attempting to gain entry to a series of clubs. Two of the clubs, which cannot be named for legal reasons, rejected the Sikh group with the excuse that the club was full or only admitting regulars, while a control group of white students directly behind them were admitted.

The second one is directly pertinent, because it was noted by witnesses at the Havana that the policy was of barring larger women while letting in men of similar size, so in fact it was a form of sex discrimination. Again in the UK, that sort of thing is banned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507012/Europe-blasts-away-traditional-sex-discrimination-at-golf-clubs.html

The European Union says clubs that admit both men and women but then discriminate against one sex will be outlawed by the end of 2007.

Now not all these laws may yet apply in Jersey, but some of the comments which have said "club owners can do what they like" are based in the UK, where clearly posters do not know their own laws! It doesn't surprise me in the least, as Ian Le Marquand has shown a similar ineptitude with regard to human rights legislation and the possibility of refusing bail. I've not had a chance to dig deep into the law on discrimination, but I notice that if it is not yet on the statute, it will be, and certainly the draft law says:

The Committee recommends that the authorities complete the current process of enacting legislation outlawing all racial discrimination. In accordance with Article 26, the authorities should also promulgate legislation which prohibits any discrimination and guarantees to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

The Discrimination Law is designed to establish the areas in which discrimination should not be tolerated. It will protect anyone who suffers a detriment as a result of discrimination or a range of prohibited acts such as victimisation, unlawful advertising, harassment and other discriminatory practices in certain conditions, and will provide an enforcement mechanism for complaints brought under the Law.

It is proposed that the scope of the law should extend to employment, including selection for employment, treatment of employees, contract workers, partnerships, professional or trade organisations, professional bodies and vocational training, and also discrimination in education, provision of goods, facilities and services, access to and use of public premises, disposal or management of premises and membership of clubs.

UK News:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=239642&in_page_id=34
http://www.the-latest.com/club-owner-bars-women-for-being-too-fat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7531553.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/07/29/jersey-nightclub-bans-girls-for-being-too-fat-115875-20675280/

and in India:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/nightclub-refuses-entry-to-too-fat-girls_10077317.html
http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2008/nightclub-overweight-girls-300708.html
http://www.newstrackindia.com/printnews/8952


http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4425915.ece


A nightclub that barred fat women has backed down after international protests and claims that it was guilty of discrimination. The Havana nightclub in St Helier, Jersey, was accused of barring larger women while letting in men of similar size. Almost 1,000 people have joined an internet-based campaign calling for a boycott of the club and a protest on Friday night. More than 20 women are reported to be preparing to give statements to police claiming that they suffered discrimination. Police were called to the club on Saturday night to prevent public disorder after Martin Sayers, the club's manager, and his door staff started turning away larger women.


Georgina Mason, 23, one of the women refused entry, told the Jersey Evening Post: "About five or six or us got to Havana at about 11.30pm and the bouncers said we were not allowed in because we were too big." Miss Mason, a bank worker, said: "I told them not to be ridiculous and asked to speak to the manager. When the manager came out he would not look at me directly but said that they had received many complaints about fat people and he told me, 'Go and lose some weight before you can come in - fat people are bad for business'."

Jemma Warner, who saw larger women being turned away, said: "The man himself was far, far away from what we might call male perfection, making the situation somewhat ironic. Boycott the Havana club because this kind of discrimination is way more ugly then any kind of body shape."


Kierra Myles, who was also at the club, said: "Does this mean larger people can't go out and have a good time? Should they hide away because they might be overweight? As if there is not enough pressure on young girls to be thin and have the - in my opinion, disgusting - size-zero look. Then you have narrow-minded people like that stopping people that are perfectly happy within themselves from going out and having a good time."

Jersey's chief medical officer highlighted obesity as a key challenge in her recent annual report. However, the island has a relatively low level of obesity, with about half of adults classified as overweight or obese, compared with about two thirds in mainland Britain.

Mr Sayers, who has run the club, which has a capacity of 380, since 1992, defended his actions initially, saying: "We got a lot of people that I'd classify as morbidly obese and we were getting complaints. I am deeply apologetic but business is not good at the minute and I was trying to protect my business."


Last night, however, he said that the ban had been dropped and he appealed for those who had been offended to come back. Mr Sayers, who admitted being overweight himself and on a diet, said: "There was an error of judgment and I would like to apologise wholeheartedly to these people and say they are welcome back to the club. The vast majority of our customers are overweight. There should not be discrimination against people for any reason and if this incident highlights that then I guess something useful has come out of it." He denied that fat women were less attractive, adding: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7531553.stm


Martin Sayers said he made "a wrong decision" by refusing entry to about 25 women at the Havana Club in Bath Street, St Helier, on Saturday night. "I'm just deeply sorry that people have been offended. It was a poor decision made," he said. He was highly embarrassed over a "moment of madness" which would not be repeated, he told BBC News."Anyone who was turned away will be very welcome in the future - there will be no restrictions," he said. "I don't like upsetting people. I just offer my apologies unreservedly.