Birthrights need setting in stone

I know Deputy Roffey has long-held views regarding the numbers of people living on our tiny overcrowded island; even bringing an amendment back, I think in 2007, in an attempt to stabilise population levels. Along with many islanders, including myself, he recognises that there needs to be a balance between the conflicting demands of the business community with the social, environmental and cultural aspects that together make up a living, breathing community.

Taken at face value, the piece by the good deputy makes a ‘comforting’ read if you are local or have concerns regarding the future welfare of indigenous islanders. He makes the point that his views are not universally shared by his colleagues in the Assembly but his readers are reassured that he at least is on their side. He even goes further by suggesting that: ‘We can for the first time in our recent history give rights to those born here.’

I am sure there will be many islanders who will be deeply grateful for this generous offer.

I, however, have a number of issues with that statement. I am forced to contrast his latest pronouncement with the long speech Deputy Roffey made in the Assembly seeking to persuade it to revoke the ‘birthright’ provisions contained in the final population management law. On that occasion he castigated the Policy Council, who he claimed had caved in to demands by a small vocal faction who were demanding special rights for locally born children.

Now he appears to be proposing that children born on the island are given those very rights.

I said I had a number of issues with his piece. In my view, matters such as islanders’ ‘birthright’ should not be within the gift of ‘here today and gone tomorrow’ politicians but enshrined in a proper bill of rights. These rights are certainly not matters to be granted one day and withdrawn the next to suit the needs, prejudices or political imperatives of transient politicians. It was the absence of just such a bill that was the root cause of many of the problems which emerged when the Assembly last tried to restructure a workable population policy, giving rise to the huge outcry that resulted.

So if Deputy Roffey is serious about protecting islanders’ rights perhaps he will demonstrate that intent by bringing forward, during the remaining months of this Assembly, that protection by recognising islanders’ ‘birthright’ within a comprehensive set of safeguards contained in a bill of rights.

Many workable examples of such a bill already exist, so it should not prove an onerous task for such an experienced politician. One might have thought he could expect fulsome support from his fellow deputies, for who among them will wish to be seen dissenting on such an important issue a few months before the ‘landmark’ all-island elections in 2020. With such a bill of rights in place, perhaps for the first time in our island’s history the Guernseyman and woman’s residency rights would be safe, not least from some of the less-considered decisions of their own government.

GRAHAM GUILLE