William
RE: Human Rights Seminar for States Members
I would like to thank you very much for your invitation to come and listen to what you think are human rights. Before I attend your lesson, I wish to come prepared, and subsequently, I have a few questions I would like answered first in relation to the 39A Public Elections (Jersey) Law:
• Why has the Attorney General not pursued the election candidate, of St Helier No 2, who breached the 39A of the Public Elections Law in 2008, offences of which Deputy Southern was about to be charged with, had he not discovered that they were on his charge sheet before going to court?
• Why has the Attorney General not pursued another candidate or candidate’s agent, of St Helier No 2, possibly called ‘Reg’, who had a beard? I can recall that there was a candidate at least who had a beard and a name beginning with an R (coincidentally, one of two supported by the good Senator, Terry Le Main currently trying desperately to misrepresent Deputy Southern and I).
• Why has the Attorney General not pursued the election candidate in St Helier District No 1, who committed actual election fraud in attempting to get a postal vote for a person no longer even living in the Island?
• Why has the Attorney General not pursued a successful candidate of St Helier No 3, who a complainant states effectively undertook to assist an elector with their errands to secure a vote? A far worse ‘crime’ than helping somebody, who’d asked for help to fill in a mere postal vote application form (and whom otherwise would not have voted)don’t you think?
Indeed, this really does all stink of discrimination and favouritism on the part of the AG, when considering that he has vehemently pursued both Deputy Southern and I, who have openly criticized his brother (the Bailiff) and, of course, I brought a ‘vote of no confidence’ in him last year, in his decision as Attorney General, to knowingly continue to allow a convicted paedophile a position within the Honorary Police Force (who subsequently went onto offend as an Honorary Policeman)? A decision with, by far, more serious implications, than an election candidate helping somebody who’d asked for help to fill in a mere postal vote application form (and whom otherwise would not have voted) don’t you think?
Notwithstanding that, I have broken the law and thus expect to be treated the same as anyone else who has breached Article 39A (even if we did get more people involved in the election process as a result – people who quite possibly didn’t even vote for us)! But that’s the beauty of postal votes – nobody knows who people vote for. Clearly, however, this is not the case and it appears that the AG is actually a law unto himself.
So serious is my offence (even more than a man committing violent abuse against his partner – dealt with in the Magistrates Court, as I recall from my last visit) that it is going to the Royal Court! How then is it compatible with Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the Human Rights Law, that a Law Officer of the States will be the Prosecutor of a States Member’s offence?
I would also like to inform you, because the Police didn’t ask me, that I did not at any time go back to these postal voters four or five days later to pressurize them into voting for me and I or indeed any of my party comrades did not set any pillar box on fire, where I knew ballot papers had been posted for another candidate. I only mention this as I understand these were the justifications given by the proposer of Article 39A, during the States debate last June. Yes, a piece of legislation brought in with zero evidence to back it up!
Lastly, as an individual who chances to have a Masters Degree in Peace Studies, a discipline based on Human Rights and Conflict Resolution; having considered all of the above at length I think I might wager that I have a far better understanding of what constitutes real Human Rights than you, William. So on second thoughts I think I might just give your little briefing a miss.
Kindest regards.
Deputy Shona Pitman
