OPTION A, B, C, D, Z or No change at all?

[simon]

OPTION A, B, C, D, Z or No change at all?


How do you want your Island to be governed? We are under enormous pressure both from internal and external factions to change. We have good advice telling us we are virtually independent and it is entirely our choice and decision on what we do, we do not have to bow down to those who seek to pressurise us into a radical change that may not be in our best interests!

As most of you are fully aware over the past ten years or so there has been much pressure exerted on Sark to reform its constitution on the basis that the current system is not ‘Human Rights’ compliant and should be because Sark is obligated to European Court of Human Rights Treaty (ECHR), by virtue of its relationship with the Crown and UK Government’s obligation to ECHR.

In 2000 Sark formed a committee called the Sark Constitutional Review Committee who’s basic role was to review The Reform (Sark) Law, 1951 and generally the way in which Sark was governed and if it would be ‘Human Rights Compliant’. This Committee was comprised of a good mix of Chief Pleas members (both tenants and deputies) and members of the general public (both indigenous and non-indigenous persons, male and female and leaseholders and Freeholders).

The SCR Committee worked very hard for nearly seven years and sought extensive opinion and advice both externally and internally and concluded by offering the residents of Sark various options, some of these options retained some of Sark’s old ways and traditions and others none. The various options offered were arrived at after being told by parties in Guernsey and the U.K. what they would and would not accept. Finally an option was chosen and voted upon in chief Pleas and was duly sent off to Guernsey for onward transmission to the U.K. for Royal Assent. This option was subject to a petition, which effectively blocked it, it was thrown out on basis, it was not ‘Human Rights’ Compliant. The U.K. & Guernsey then told Sark that it had to come up with something else, and it had to do it quickly and if it did not, then Sark ran the risk of it being done for us! The ‘SCR’ Committee then recommended to Chief Pleas that only ‘Option A’ would be accepted, this option was to have Chief Pleas comprised of only deputies that had to be voted in by the people. Then an additional option known as the Rang/Harris Option or option ‘Z’ was put forward that basically would retain some tenants in Chief Pleas. It was not thought that this option would be ‘Human Rights’ compliant, however a plan was hatched to hold an Opinion Pole where it was thought that if there was a 60% plus turnout (over 90% was achieved) and a 20% majority obtained for either option then that may pass muster with ‘ECHR’.

The Pole was conducted and the results were announced that 50 votes more were received for option ‘A’ which was a 27% majority, so option’A’ it was to be and October 2006 Chief Pleas voted for this option to be sent off for Royal Assent and become the new law for Sark.

At the last Chief Pleas it was discovered that the result of the Pole was actually only a 12% margin and not a 27% one as had previously been reported. Much heated debate ensued from both camps and a vote was taken to rescind the option ‘A’ decision pending further investigation and Constitutional Review. It is interesting to note that both Tenants and Deputies voted both ways, and also interesting to note several members of the house declined to vote at all for some strange reason.

On Saturday 3rd February 2007 two Public Meetings took place, one to hear advice from a collection of very eminent Lawyers and QC’s who specialise in ‘Constitutional Law’ who tell us that we are virtually independent and that Guernsey and U.K. have no legal rights whatsoever to impose their will on us, legislate for us or in simple terms tell us what to do, and threaten us that if we don’t then they can force us to do what they see is best for Sark (or them). Also we were told that Sark is a special and unique Island with different want’s and needs than other places, and what is good and appropriate in and for the U.K. and Guernsey is not necessarily in the interests or best for Sark and its people. The second meeting was organised by Deputy Cole and his co deputies (all excluding one) to hear the views of the public on the issue. There were several very impassioned pro ‘A’speeches from the floor that were meet with loud clapping and cheering from a small number of people. The meeting was chaired by Trevor Kendall who some felt engineered and orchestrated the mood to some extent by denying some people the right to speak and restricting others on what they could say and to whom. Near the close of the meeting Deputy Cole stated (or words to that effect) it was the will of the people to have option ‘A’ and he and all like minded members of Chief Pleas were duty bound to see this through, despite recent legal opinions received. He stated he did not want Chief Pleas to thwart or delay option ‘A’ going through quickly and if that happened again as he saw it, we would have the threat of a constitutional crisis being declared. Some took this as a threat that we could be cast off into the hands of the U.K. and/or Guernsey if we did not tow the line.

In conclusion the reason for this open letter is that recently a very significant number of people have come forward since stating their dissatisfaction and confusion over the issue of Sark’s Constitution. In particular many people have stated that over the years but particularly regarding the ‘option ‘A’ versus option ‘Z’ opinion pole their vote was heavily influenced by extensive ‘Committee’, Media and by Chief Pleas members (and non Chief Pleas) canvassing the idea that really there was not point at all pursuing any other option other than ‘A’ or just maybe ‘Z’ because it would not be tolerated by Guernsey, the U.K. and Europe.

We all now know that we are under no obligation at all to do anything at all that we may consider is not in the best interest of Sark or its people, and that we are not going to be taken out at dawn and shot if we don’t do what we are told to do by outsiders with no legal rights over us.

It is understood by I believe most people that it is prudent to develop and evolve the way Sark is run and the composition of our government and how its members are voted for, but lets not rush into this and run the risk of ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’. We are told that it has been seven long years debating the constitution and potential change and now after this length off time we must do it ‘OR ELSE’. What is seven years to change a very special and unique constitution over 400 years old, some countries have taken 20-30 years or more to write their constitutions.

Finally if you feel that in light of recent information and new advice, you would have not voted for option ‘A’ or option ‘Z’ and if you had been given other options of for example maintaining the status quo (no change at all) would you have voted differently.