Senatorial candidate Ian Le Marquand

[Nick Palmer]

Ian Le Marquand does not come anywhere near that class of person or could have ever possibly been in that situation.
We could do with more people that have actually tasted the real downsides of living in Jersey.
If that makes sense?

It makes sense, but in his position as the Magistrate he saw all sectors of society pass before him and heard their probation and background reports so he must have quite a deep knowledge of the life problems that all sorts of people have and how they got to have them. What is probably more important is whether he applied that knowledge fairly to dole out justice and whether as a politician he will carry over that fairness into the States assembly (assuming he gets voted in!)

[Res Nullius]

I for one would not for Ian Le Marquand.  This is not because of his previous occupation or because he might not be a decent bloke - I am sure he is.

I would not vote for him because he is plain and simple a bible basher. 

As a committed athiest I don't want to vote into power someone who believes in imaginary friends.

Likewise, any other candidate who holds bronze age superstitious beliefs will not get my vote.

[One Jersey 08]

I would like to see some more lower/middle class people getting into politics. 

Me too. The problem for low/ middle earners is that costs restrain them from standing. A rich person can afford to find the money and take time off to concentrate on his/ her campaign.....but if you pay high rent/mortgage and work long hours to make ends meet, the chances are you simply cant afford to stand.... Lack of money is a significant barrier to a political career.

[Conductor]

Does anybody know what his manifesto is?  If he is supposed to be a lay preacher then it will be a step backwards.  No Casino, Pubs will be closed again on a Sunday. Probably bring back a law against gay people.

[Res Nullius]

I do believe his strongly held religious beliefs and, in particular, his very close link to the church to be a serious issue.  He is not just a believer, he is a preacher - he actively seeks to promote his religious viewpoint - to spread the word.

Due to each religion naturally believing that their's is the absolute right one would he be prepared to declare himself conflicted on any proposition which might have any religious impact.  For example, grants for (non-methodist) faith schools, birth, death and marriage legislation.  Is he going to vote in favour of pro-muslim propositions? Sunday trading laws?  If he votes against such things can it be said that his vote was from a completely unbiased, non-religious viewpoint?

For many years it has been said, rightly in my view, that there should be a separation of the church and the state.  I cannot see how he can honestly separate his concrete religious views from his duty to the state.

At least the Dean doesn't get a vote (does he?)

[Conductor]

I agree, I think its dangerous having somebody with views like this in the States.  Unless everybody that votes for him believes in God then who is he representing?

[Res Nullius]

I suppose he sees it that he would be representing god. 

Notably, in the recent past, Cohen has had to declare a conflict on religious grounds.  That kind of sets a precedent doesn't it?

Shouldn't all candidates declare their religion and abstain from voting on issues where they have to decide between what is right and what their concience tells them?

Would Le Marquand seriously vote for a proposition which would go against his religious grain - even if it were right to?

[jez strickland]

Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000

Article 9

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1.      Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2.      Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Now how's that 'Discrimination' Law coming along?

[Res Nullius]

Jez,  not quite sure where you are coming from but your last comment suggests discrimination is an issue in this thread.

No-one is suggesting that Le Marquand should not manifest his beliefs.  I am just suggesting that church and state should be separated, and should be transparent in that respect.

If I, or others, choose not to give our votes to someone with such beliefs, and for such a reason, it is called democracy not discrimination.

[Conductor]

Ian will be getting my vote.

[Eastern correspondent]

I gave this guy a slating when he first announced his intention to stand - but did say I'd await his manifesto - and I am warming towards him!

[Fritz]

He,s not a bad lad, and certainly shouldn,t have to be in it for the money.

[Daniel Wimberley]

in response to 33#

like mysterious I can't stand stereotyping, so here goes.

being a lay preacher, (if he is, I am not sure) does not mean that you are against a casino, or pubs being open on Sunday or gays.

Maybe he is maybe he isn't.

The idea that Chrstians can't see straight on gays arises because the evangelical right makes the running in terms of news coverage.

Daniel (fellow candidate)

[boatyboy]

Sorry if you have read this but I posted in the wrong place.

My personal belief on religion is it's your choice. Certainly at school we had prayers, Religious Instruction in the early years and then in early teens, choices on subjects which would be relevant to our future work, RI was not compulsory at this stage.

Now we have a candidate whom is based in the establishment. Who has handed down judgements to keep citizens on the straight and narrow. He must have seen things from the poor to the wealthy that has given him a wide knowledge regarding human behaviour. It also been mentioned by some posters that " Ian the wig" is a serious bible puncher.

Like you, I will be using my vote. We have to find out more about how the candidates think, motives for standing, experience.

How about this bible thing though ?  not being religious myself. The Establishment is a job, but belief in the bible is part of the conscience. There are stories in the bible that make no sense to me, but there are also some terrifically good parts. Imagine if we all followed the ten commandments. If we all loved our neighbours. There are some crazy parts also, overall it offers much good, in my personal view. So lets see "Ian the wigs" manifesto, should he be asked to tow the party line, as many of the sheep in the States do, I am inclined to think he would seek a higher order.


For some reason this candidate reminds me of the second fight between Mike Tyson and Evander Hollyfield . The first time they met in the ring, The vicious Tyson bite of some of Hollyfield's ear, the fight was stopped.

The re-match was an exciting event, and the feared and brutal bull that is Mike Tyson lost against Hollyfield (a very religious man ).

A commentator later reported that Tyson stood no chance of beating Hollyfield as he was fighting two entities Hollyfield and Hollyfield's inspiration God. 

I don't know this man but certainly an interesting candidate.

[The Rev Peter Sarkey]

He had me in his hands right up until the second he argued the point on overseas aid. Left of house SF says there is no money for Social security, Righ of house McClean says evrything's OK Extreme right PO says that we've done terribly well ( he got the first part of that one right) and then blow me down Le M goes and spoils it all by arguing the toss over giving more away when he hasn'd a flying clue how much is in the Pot.