We find ourselves mere weeks away from a judicial proceeding in the Royal Court that ought to serve as a profoundly sobering (and deeply unpalatable) awakening for our island.
On the 21st of September, two individuals will appear before the Bailiff; one on trial, and another to be handed a sentence following an abhorrent, prejudice-fueled incident outside our Jersey Islamic Centre on Aquila Road. An altogether unsavoury affair, involving a co-accused in his fifties and a second in her thirties, they are accused of the assault of two adults, and the thirty-six year old has admitted assault upon a child.
When such appalling spectacles occur, we predictably erupt with righteous, short-lived indignation toward the perpetrators. Yet, with a cadence as predictable as the No. 15 Bus, too many of us have managed to completely bypass the core of the issue, retreating into comfortable platitude: “Why do we need a hate crime law in Jersey?” or that masterpiece of willful indignant denial: “Surely such unpleasantness doesn’t happen here!”
Where I once felt a simple irritation at this public naivety, closer observation of our ministers and senior civil servants reveals the true architect of our inertia or lack thereof: a political culture governed strictly by performative optics and election-cycle cowardice. I harbour a sneaking, cynical suspicion that we shall only be graced with statutory protection when an event transpires that is so undeniably catastrophic or ‘close to home’ that even our Council of Ministers can no longer sweep it beneath the ministerial carpet.
The sum total of legislative leadership on this matter has degenerated into a grand, states-sponsored imitation of the humble ostrich…a competitive exercise where first prize is awarded for burying one’s head deepest into the sands of St Aubins Bay, hoping, that should these systemic injustices not dissolve if ignored for long enough, then perhaps at the very least, the Bathing Pool might miraculously repair itself…
As for me, Hate is hardly an abstract, academic parlour game, and dear reader, it ought not to be for you either.
Many of us are acutely aware of what modern standards look like elsewhere, yet Jersey remains resigned to the role of legislative fossilisation. We have all endured the uncomfortable, tired joke that Jersey operates “about 25 years behind the UK,” as if a quarter-century lag in basic Human Rights protections were a charming bit of local folklore…
As someone who is disabled, Out and Proud, and has navigated the varied worlds of finance, hospitality, and retail, I have witnessed horrific, prejudice-laden conduct blithely dismissed as “just a joke” or “playful banter.” But one is forced to ask: at what point does it remain “banter” when only the perpetrator is enjoying the punchline?
As a former candidate for St Helier North holding a Jersey Door Registration Scheme (JDRS) accreditation, and as a student of English law, (with a keen interest in Jersey Law), I can assure you that, by comparison, our legislative cupboards are embarrassingly bare. There is a vast canon of protective framework requiring urgent adaptation, and anti-prejudice legislation is the nonnegotiable bedrock upon which we must begin.
The cold, unembellished evidence reveals a government that treats protected characteristics not as fundamental human rights, but as inconvenient administrative footnotes. During election Hustings, we were treated to the sublime intellectual acrobatics of political figures like Sir Mark Boleat, who declared he saw no pressing rationale for hate crime legislation, offering the spectacularly enlightened observation that “it is the existence of groups that causes the nastiness.”
One can only marvel at such profound sociological insight: Yes Minister… if only the marginalised among us refrained from existing…. Prejudice might simply evaporate, and perhaps, those pesky cabinet meetings might be a tad shorter?
Equally remarkable is the effortless finesse with which successive Home Affairs Ministers have perfected the art of kicking this legislative can down the road.
First came Gregory Guida, who delayed the draft to study Scottish precedent on social media hate speech.
Then, during her first term from 2022 to 2024, (then) Deputy Helen Miles carved the bill in two, fast-tracking statutory powers for public order while quietly banishing prejudice protections back into endless consultation.
Mary Le Hegarat subsequently delivered a crushing blow by shelving the remaining draft entirely, citing a “tragic lack of time and resources” while stripping out sexual harassment protections to avoid an “odd structure of rights”.
Yet upon (now) Senator Miles’ return to the role, she has continued to justify paralysis, under the solemn guise of balancing minority safety against national anxieties over “free speech”.
But lets be clear on the legal facts here: hate crime legislation DOES NOT police offensive opinions or outlaw robust debate, in fact, quite the opposite. Legislation such as this simply draws a clear boundary where expression crosses into criminal harm.
When we begin to consider that comparable democracies such as, Scotland, Isle of Man, Malta etc. Have successfully balanced these exact principles for decades, this sudden political panic over free speech feels remarkably disingenuous.
Consider further then dear reader, the sheer convenience of hiding behind a fabricated constitutional dilemma.
In other words, Pull the other one, Helen!
The unvarnished reality is that prejudice has the absolute; and at present, unadulterated temerity to flourish across our fair isle on a daily basis.
We know prejudice continues to thrive in our pubs, clubs and a certain number of our organisations, on our roads, and across a finance sector where casual ageism and subtle bigotry are accepted as a mere ‘cost-of-doing-business’ taxation on island life.
By tolerating this baseline of ‘quiet hostility’, we willingly hand our politicians a perpetual licence for complacency.
To grasp the sheer scale of our deficit, one need only look across the water. Under the UK
Equality Act 2010, nine characteristics enjoy comprehensive legal shelter. In contrast, our Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 stubbornly excludes protection for religion or belief systems along without marriage and civil partnerships.
That an islander or a group of islanders could be forced to rely upon a savvy advocate and a costly team of solicitors simply to argue their right to basic human dignity before the Royal Court, or ultimately the Privy Council is appalling.
Given the current political climate and the rising hostilities directed toward our growing minority communities (a useful political tool and scapegoat), I fear deeply for those who lack the financial war chest, legal stamina, or emotional reserves needed to fight for rights that their government should have had the sense to have codified years ago.
The uninitiated frequently counter: “Ah, but do we not have civil discrimination laws? Did the Assembly not recently pass the Crime (Public Order) Law 2024? Surely our legal arsenal is sufficiently stocked?”
Here’s the illusion. The Discrimination Law carries exactly zero weight in a criminal court. Meanwhile, the Crime (Public Order) Law 2024 empowers the police regarding breaches of public peace, but does nothing to address targeted hatred, particularly ironic, given that hate crime provisions were originally attached to that very draft before a certain minister conveniently severed them.
This, dear reader, is precisely why a standalone statutory Hate Crime Law is imperative.
At present, our fundamental safety relies on a fragile, administrative patchwork:
- The police log “hate incidents” under an internal operational policy now over a decade old; and
- The judiciary relies on Magistrate’s Court sentencing guidelines, where a judge may, at their sole discretion, apply an “aggravator” if hostility ‘can be demonstrated’.
Without explicit, statutory offences, our judicial architecture is built upon shifting sand.
Defence counsel are ethically bound to exploit every millimetre of legal ambiguity in their clients’ favour. Unless prosecutors possess pristine, cinematic-quality audio-visual evidence, proving a prejudice multiplier under mere sentencing guidelines becomes a monumental uphill battle.
The prosecution is left wielding a plastic spork in a fight that demands a robust sabre, resulting in perpetrators walking away with wrist-slap fines for truly atrocious conduct.
Our political establishment routinely shelves legislation meant to protect us under the tired refrain of “competing priorities” or the noble desire to “align with external taskforces”.
But misogyny, homophobia, and racism do not queue neatly in line; delaying one protection to construct another is the legislative equivalent of our local adage, “every road leads back to town.” By that glacial logic, my great-nephew will be bouncing grandchildren on his knee before Jersey enacts a complete framework.
When those lawyers assemble in the Royal Court later this month, they will certainly be defending and prosecuting the specific facts of the case. But implicitly, they will also be probing a far more uncomfortable question: does this islands Government actually care enough to defend the human rights of its Electorate?
Jersey prides itself on being a moral, hospitable, and welcoming island, virtues held in equal esteem by our local Muslim community.
It should be utterly unthinkable that any islander would raise a hand in violence against another simply because of their faith or their identity.
Yet here we stand.
So I put these simple questions to you today:
1.Would you intentionally target a community whose defining cultural hallmark is warmth and hospitality?
2. Do you possess the right to inflict harm upon another human being simply because you harbour prejudice against who they are?
If your answer is (as any civilised conscience demands) a resounding no, then the time for quiet tolerance of political lethargy is over.
We must demand that our elected representatives deliver comprehensive statutory protections for every single one of us, without further delay or bureaucratic waffle.
By continuously shunting anti-prejudice legislation to the back of the queue, our leaders aren’t just failing in their duty…they are actively presiding over a broken promise.
All the best,
Kev
Leave a Reply