Lying Cliff le Clercq

Well, well, well.

Cliff le Clercq, Richard Renouf's only opposition for the post of St. Ouen deputy, has been caught lying about his credentials as a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). Despite his membership expiring two years ago, he used their name and logo on his website and claimed membership at the electoral hustings last Tuesday - despite being warned to cease by the Advertising Standards Agency last January, who said they were "concerned" by le Clercq's "apparent disregard" for advertising regulations. le Clercq claimed that the loss of membership was due to issues with his bank account.

Now, as I said the other day, I found le Clercq surprisingly credible at the hustings on Tuesday, seeming to have the right idea on gun rights and the reasons young people feel disenfranchised. I wouldn't vote for him - Renouf, for all his faults, is a pretty reliably progressive and experienced candidate with a record of effective scrutiny, who has also been a very good constituency politician that genuinely makes an effort to represent his parishioners. le Clercq may have the right views on certain issues but I sense in him a strong whiff of the old St. Ouen conservative who will slide straight into bed with the establishment as soon as he gets his bum one of those nice red seats. This latest scandal only raises more concerns - can you really trust someone who can't manage the workings of his own bank account with public finances? The man is, after all, a shrink (sorry, "life coach") - great if you want someone to feel better about their life, but unconvincing compared to Renouf's experienced legal background and former role as a Procureur de Bien Public.

Is this really a man you want representing you in the Assembly - "apparent disregard" for advertising regulations, a man whose lack of response to the rulings of a regulator the ACA found "concerning", and someone who can't seem to even manage his own bank account?   

I'll stick with Renouf, thank you.                                           

Gorst scrambles to defend the indefensible

Those dastardly Brits, trying to make us more transparent!

The Chief Minister has said he will "resist all attempts" from the UK Parliament to create a transparent, public register of beneficial ownership that could reveal who owns assets in companies registered in Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories such as Jersey. The Labour Party and (it is believed) a significant number of Tories are due to vote in favour of an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill by Labour MP Margaret Hodge due to be debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Gorst's response to this attempt to end dodgy secret ownership of companies based in tax havens like Jersey? This is "unconstitutional" and "impossible to force on our island without our consent". His defense of Jersey's system was that we already have a register of beneficial ownership - one that isn't publicly accessible (wouldn't do for the plebs to be able to see where the 1% are hiding their dosh). I find it amazing how shamelessly Gorst hides behind constitutionalism to defend a broken, immoral system that hides the wealth of the rich and helps them avoid their most basic responsibility to society. Our finance industry is a machine that enables the rich and powerful to evade paying into the society that enabled them to become wealthy, actively starving other nations of what's rightfully theirs. Gorst's shameless constitutional defense is pretty disgusting - I'm not usually Mr Pro-Britain, but if there's one thing the UK Gov. should be forcing on us, it's this.

le Clercq vs Renouf

Regular readers will know that I'm a resident of the parish of St. Ouen, and tonight, we had our deputy hustings! There are two candidates for the seat: Richard Renouf, the sitting deputy since 2014, and Cliff le Clercq, a failed senatorial candidate from 2008 and professional psychotherapist. I must admit, first of all, that prior to his surprise stand for deputy (announced and arranged at the nominations meeting, with more than a hint of "token opposition" about it), I had never heard of him. That in mind, I was genuinely fairly taken aback with how credible he sounded. Renouf, with the exception of one question relating to mental health that he stumbled over and failed to recover, was his usual calm, collected and credible self - having run the Health and Social Services Scrutiny Panel over the last term, he has an impressive grasp of a range of issues. Interesting points were made on several issues; both candidates took a position in support of the Bailiff being removed as President of the States and in support of an elected speaker, which I found somewhat surprising for a parish which is - as noted by Renouf - one of the Island's more traditional. Both candidates expressed their approval for St. Ouen's shooting culture - Renouf supported further restrictions on firearms that would "keep them out of the hands of criminals", which I found slightly concerning as possibly giving gun owners even more red tape to fill out. Owning a firearm in Jersey is cumbersome enough - criminals, as a rule, don't carry weapons, and incidents are very rare - there is no reason for any change to the current laws (although apparently our favorite Assistant Home Affairs minister Deidre Mezbourian (one of Gorst's more obedient pets) disagreed). Happily, le Clercq was quite categorical in his support for the status quo. Another interesting topic covered was electoral reform and "superconstituencies", which Renouf seemed to show support for. le Clercq, slightly irritatingly, ignored the thrust of the question ("what are the candidates' views on electoral reform") and launched into a tirade about the committee system (although I didn't disagree with what he is saying - the man is in favour of abolishing ministerial government and returning to a consensus-based system). The prize for "most accurate point of the evening", however, must go to le Clercq for his bang-on point about disengagement from younger voters; his point, essentially, was that young people don't feel like they have a stake in society, and therefore, they don't vote. This, depressingly, is very true - people feel that the Jersey system isn't worth their time. They plan to leave at the earliest opportunity, and in many cases, never come back. Why? Because the Island is too expensive for many people to afford to live here.

The most concerning point, however, will be a joint award. Both candidates expressed an "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" approach to the introduction of ID cards. Sorry, but I find it difficult to support anyone in favour of these things. The idea that a citizen should have to carry around an ID card at all times for presentation on demand for any agent of the state is simply an appalling breach of personal liberty. I should not be expected, in my own country, to provide proof in the street that I am a legitimate citizen of this country. ID cards are a deeply dangerous and fascistic intrusion into people's personal lives and I find it deeply worrying that both of St. Ouen's candidates condone them.

John Davis's reactionary smears

Jersey reactionaries really are a fascinating breed.

This letter really encapsulates the absurdity that is politics in Jersey. Reform, a painstakingly moderate social-democratic party (you know, the sort that's perfectly normal in pretty much every Western jurisdiction except Jersey), being described as communist is, frankly, utterly hilarious. RJ are so far from any communist party that has ever existed - even more moderate, "Eurocommunist" strains in parties such as the former Italian Communist Party, that there's simply no comparison. One interesting point that this John Davis makes is that he was a candidate for the Australian Labor Party, which he describes as "progressive socialist". Ignoring the fact that Reform is social-democratic - an ideology usually placed to the right of socialism - I thought it'd be interesting to compare and contrast the two parties. As can be seen in ALP's policy document, "Practical Policies That Put People First", the party stands for - among other things - higher taxes on the rich, no increase in regressive taxes such as GST, funding for students to go to university and investment in renewable energy. A bit like, er, almost exactly like the what's in Reform's manifesto, something I'm sure Mr Davis would've noticed if he had actually taken an unprejudiced look at the party's manifesto. Unless, of course, Mr Davis willingly stood in Australia for a party whose policies, by his own standards, are communist? Is Mr Davis a communist? I mean - many would call me communist - I wouldn't hold it against him if Mr Davis was a communist. But it's just a wee bit hypocritical for him to call a party with policies identical to his own "communist" - wouldn't you say?

Oh, god, not again

Apparently, a decade and a half of rejection isn't enough for some people to take the hint.

Gino "put all employment laws in the dustbin!" Risoli, local greasy spoon owner and living evidence that you can tell some people as many times as you like and they still won't get it, has announced his candidacy for Senator in the upcoming elections. Risoli is a familiar face in this regard - this is his fourth election, having stood in at the 2005, 2011 and 2014 generals, as well as a 2010 Senatorial by-election. 2005: bottom of the poll. 2010: third from the bottom out of nine candidates, receiving 76 votes. 2011: standing in St. Helier No.1, he once again came bottom of the poll. 2014: yet again, bottom of the poll. One would think that, unable as he is to even win a deputy seat in town (you know, the sort of seat that's notoriously good for newcomers or outsiders), he would choose not to embarrass himself again. Apparently not.

To be fair, he's not for want of trying. Risoli has been involved with failed political ventures before - in 2005-2010, he was involved with Progress Jersey, a pressure group that was active for a few years but has since dropped off the radar - one can only conclude that Gino and his fellow pressurer, laissez-faire Tory and anti-tax activist Darius J. Pearce (principally known for his dud attempt to organise a Jersey Conservative Party, as well as lying about the supposed insertion of ex-Senator Frank Walker into a photo of him with former PM Gordon Brown and Northern Irish evangelical hate preacher, Protestant fundamentalist and wannabe terrorist Ian Paisley) got bored.

At least his ranting Facebook posts can be a good laugh.

Bryans in the clear?

Is Rod Bryans in the clear?

After a short investigation, the Deputy for St. Helier No.2 has been cleared of all the allegations leveled against him by Health Minister Andrew Green. According to the investigation's report, there were three central allegations:
1. That an anonymous letter sent to Education director Justin Donovan’s house in 2017 alleged that Deputy Bryans was ‘overly familiar’ with female members of staff.
2. A specific incident in which Deputy Bryans was alleged to have unzipped Social Security Minister Susie Pinel’s dress to bra level and commented on its colour.
3.‘General disquiet’ about his attitude and interactions with female members of staff. However, Commissioner for Standards Paul Kernaghan couldn't find a single person to testify against Bryans or who made any complaints about his behavior whatsoever, so the investigation has concluded with Bryans being exonerated.

Is it just me, or does this all come off as slightly sketchy? Let's see: Green, a minister - therefore, Bryans' political ally - with no discernible reason to wish to get Bryans sacked, makes a complaint accusing Bryans of seriously inappropriate behavior. On investigation, the CfS finds a load of blank faces, with no-one willing to say a word. Pinel initially refuses to co-operate with the investigation, and then when she does, she mysteriously has no detailed memory of the incident, along with Senators Maclean and Routier, who apparently were in the room at the time. Now, I'm not saying that Bryans is guilty of anything, but Green has no reason to simply have made those allegations up - what does he gain from a government minister being stitched up in a fake sexual harassment scandal? Pinel's initial refusal to co-operate and subsequent convenient bout of amnesia also raises issues - if there was nothing to hide, why would she refuse to co-operate? And then, what's to blame for her sudden change of heart?

Again - I'm certainly not implying that Bryans is guilty of wrongdoing. However, it's clear to see that there are some crater-sized holes in the official story.

Surely this warrants further investigation?

Reform's big plans

Reform Jersey have launched their manifesto! At a launch event yesterday evening, RJ Chairman Sam Mézec presented the document to the general public for the first time, setting out the party's position on all the key issues.

I don't plan on writing a lengthy dissection of the whole manifesto - if you're interested then you can read it here - but I thought I'd discuss a few points which really caught my eye.

First and foremost, RJ's plan to reform the way St. Helier's parish democracy works is, I think, one of the most exciting parts of the entire manifesto. Currently, the local administration in St. Helier is, frankly, utterly archaic. The words RJ themselves use in their manifesto put it better than I ever could: "The democratic structure of the Parish administration in town is based on laws which are hundreds of years out of date and do not reflect the level of service provision which has been taken up by the Town Hall. The current system of electing two Procureurs du Bien Public and a Roads Committee is unnecessarily complicated and is not understood or valued by most St Helier residents". This is as true in other parishes as it is in St. Helier - I live in St. Ouen, for example, and virtually nobody outside of the usual parish grandees ever engage in or even understand the parish's local administration. Municipal elections are almost a covert affair - not publicised, not understood by the vast majority, they are barely elections at all, in the style of some 18th century rotten borough with perhaps 10 voters who invariably and unanimously back the incumbent. To counter this arcane and undemocratic system, RJ are proposing the establishment of a 'Conseil Municipal de St. Helier', a directly elected local council of unpaid 'Conseillers', with the power to make by-laws and "enhanced powers on local infrastructure, business licenses, planning and public entertainment".  This sort of radical reform is exactly what the parish system that we all take pride in requires to stay valued and relevant in the modern age - real, easy-to-understand local democracy which means that municipal services can be delivered with transparency and accountability.

The other position I found interesting was their policy on reducing the costs of GP visits. RJ's immediate policy on curbing the frankly outrageous costs charged by certain GPs (sometimes more than £40 to see your GP for a ten-minute checkup) is to reduce the prices for lower-income people, but they also commit to eventually reducing and eliminating these charges for everyone. This paragraph precedes their section on health: “Reform Jersey believes in the principle of a universal health service, free at the point of need. We believe that every Islander in need of treatment should receive it in a timely manner and without incurring costs". However, what was noted last night is that this objective to eliminate GP charges isn't a pledge - not because they don't believe in it, but because it might not be achievable in the short-term and they don't want to promise the electorate something they know they might not be able to achieve. Isn't it refreshing to see someone standing up and actually being honest, as opposed to the vague platitudes and impossible pledges usually spewed out by independent candidates?

Jersey Friends of Israel's hate preacher

As anyone who follows them on Facebook will know, the Jersey Friends of Israel don't really do nuance. As little more than a propaganda arm of the Israeli embassy and their fundamentalist Christian allies, they spend most of their time regurgitating articles from various pro-Israel sources and articulating such tired old arguments as "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" and "the IDF are the most moral army in the world".

However, in previous times they've tried to maintain at least an image of respectability - remember, these are a bunch whose launch was attended by the Chief Minister, Ian Gorst. With the endorsement of Stephen Regal, the head of Jersey's Jewish congregation, they've attempted to present themselves as a sort of voice of reason against a (non-existent) "rising tide of anti-semitism".

No longer. JFOI have announced that on the 29th of April, they will be hosting American pro-Israel, anti-Islam activist Avi Lipkin.

Lipkin is what you might call a wee bit divisive. Born in Queens, New York in 1949, he spent 29 years as an officer in the Israeli Defense Forces (responsible for military policing in the occupied Palestinian territories, the IDF have a shocking history of systematic, violent human rights abuses), first in an artillery unit and then in the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the propaganda unit of the Israeli army. In 1988, he worked in the election campaign of the ultra-right-wing Likud party (well-known for their flirting with out-and-out racists and European neo-fascists). So far, so controversial. Don't worry, though - the really nasty stuff is still to come. Lipkin has since the early Nineties been a full-time anti-Islam activist, and it's in this stage of his life that his true madness has really come to the fore. Lipkin has previously called Islam "not a religion, it is a criminal psychosis", and has accused former US President Barack Obama of a plot to import "50-100 million" Muslims with the co-operation of the Muslim Brotherhood (an Egyptian Islamist organisation with links to Islamist political parties across the Islamic world) in order to make America a Muslim-majority nation and institute Shari'ah law - according to Lipkin, all these imported Muslims will be housed in national parks seized by the federal government. Apparently, this is all possible because "you have a lot of useful idiots in the Democratic party, including many Jewish people, not realising the big mistake they're making, thinking that the Muslims are the good guys and the blacks are the good guys", blaming the "black agenda" for being linked with "this fanatical Islam". Lipkin also claims that he and his wife knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred and that they were aware of a secret Islamic plot to capture the US government because "my wife listens to them" (Muslims).

Jersey has an Islamic community of approx. 600 people. How do the folks over at JFOI suppose that they feel about a man being invited over, at the request of an organisation endorsed by our Chief Minister, who has not only spent two-and-a-half decades as a professional Islamophobe, but has also been involved with Islamophobic organisations and believes their religion is a "criminal psychosis" - a man who has called for a total ban on Islam?

This issue is about far more than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that is JFOI's usual focus. By inviting this man over, they have given Islamophobia and Islamophobic conspiracy theories a ringing endorsement.