THE government had no authority to tell a UK minister that a “majority” of Islanders supported its position on the war in Gaza, says a campaigner following a freedom of information request.
JEP columnist and citizen activist Ollie Taylor has accused the government of “cynicism” over its response to a question about the External Relations Minister’s letter to the UK government on a ceasefire in Gaza.
Mr Taylor asked what supporting information was available to substantiate Deputy Ian Gorst’s assertion that his amendments to the States Gaza proposition – debated in February – “better [reflected] the views of a majority of the community in Jersey”.
Responding to a freedom-of-information request made by Mr Taylor, the government said the comment acknowledged “there is no single ‘majority view of the Jersey population’… on this complex issue, and that [Deputy Gorst’s] amendments – which removed reference to “potential acts of genocide in Gaza” – “sought to reflect the diversity of opinions presented”.
But Mr Taylor said it was clear that Deputy Gorst had no mandate to state that the changes to the proposition reflected the views of a majority of the community.
“It’s now been cynically argued that he meant diversity of opinions, but [Deputy] Gorst openly admitted during the Gaza debate that he amended the proposition because it could not be supported by the leaders of the Jewish community in Jersey. A minority group whose leader also called for the withholding of aid to the Gazan people.”
The FoI response read: “The Minister for External Relations’ reference, in his correspondence to Minister Freer, to better reflecting the ‘views of a majority of the community in Jersey’ acknowledges that there is no single ‘majority view of the Jersey population’ (as described in the request) on this complex issue, and that his amendments sought to reflect the diversity of opinions presented throughout his discussions.
“The democratically elected States Assembly, whose Members represent the views of their constituents, debated and subsequently voted to approve the proposition as amended.”
Mr Taylor said it was clear why there had been initial reluctance to release Deputy Gorst’s letter.
“If the External Relations Minister was indeed trying to reflect the diversity of opinions in the community with his amendments, then his letter to the UK Minister would have stated it was to “better reflect the majority of views” rather than, “better reflect the views of a majority” as stated.
“This diplomatic letter was regarding an internationally sensitive and emotive topic, so there’s no way that a fair amount of thought had not gone into the words chosen and used for it,” he said.
