2

Margaret Le Page

If it is at all possible, please everyone read a book called THE CHANNEL ISLANDS written by Edith F. Carey and illustrated and beautifully painted by H. B. Wimbush. Sarks’ history from way way back up to 1904 is thoroughly laid out. Including Sark! and the Fiefdom of Haubert.

Report abuse

4

Local and proud

So Edrick is not a diehard Local then.

Report abuse

6

A Resident

Edric Baker finally admits the true agenda – much sooner than I thought – behind all the changes that have been happening to Sark over the past few years, starting with the constitutional “democratic” reforms (the Reform (Sark) Law, 2008) and now the inevitable follow-on of “land reform” (i.e. the expropriation of land from the landowners and its redistribution to those who live on it).

The Bakers, together with Reg Guille, the Seneschal, were – assisted with the Labour establishment in London – key proponents of Option A, a.k.a. “democratic” constitutional reform, as a result of which the Seneschal became the unelected autocrat of Sark for life and the Seigneur and his principal crony Edric Baker became the main power behind the throne which governs Sark.

The reforms, you will recall, were imposed by Jack Straw, on the grounds that the Crown cannot tolerate any breach of human rights in any of its realms, and we were supposed to have been in breach of Article 3 of the Protocol to the ECHR. Except that this claim was tenuous and never proven in a court of law (and never would have successfully been proven in a court of law, had we stood our ground and been challenged). Simultaneously, the UK was, in fact, convicted of a breach of the same article by the Strassbourg court for not granting prisoners the right to vote, but now it is our very same old friend Mr Jack Straw who has tabled the motion in the House of Commons to defy the court’s ruling. On the grounds, apparently, that the Crown can, after all, tolerate human rights abuses in its main realm, and the Strassbourg court, actually, has neither any teeth nor any power to impose any effective sanctions, as some of us had been pointing out at the time Sark was being bullied to reform and we were being told by our resident Chicken Littles, including Edric Baker, that the sky would fall on us if we stood our ground. One wonders why.

The REAL agenda – which is as antithetical to the protection of human rights and democracy as can be – is political and ideological. It is easily understood if one reads Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (the first two points of which were to expropriate land from the landowners and to introduce punitive rates of taxation) or observes what the Bolsheviks did in Soviet Russia following the October revolution:

1) first, feudalism was abolished and the nobles shot, and a nominal “democratic” government was established, but the real power was put in the hands of an unelected socialist autocrat. The “democratic” government was called the Supreme Soviet, which was an elected parliament, very similar in powers and similarly toothless as the EU Parliament (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU for more).

2) next, land was expropriated from the kulaks (the landowners) and redistributed to those who lived on it.

3) next, freedom of speech was circumscribed and those who continued to exercise it were persecuted.

4) next, high and punitive rates of taxation were introduced.

5) next, people were thrown into the gulags, and finally,

6) political opponents were “purged”.

It is interesting to observe Sark proceeding down the first three steps of the Bolshevik agenda, in order. It is all a part of the bigger picture, however. Sark has to be absorbed into Guernsey, Guernsey has to be more properly subordinated to the UK and the UK must be fully absorbed into the European Union. The bigger agenda is co-ordinated at the global level by the cultural Marxists who have regrouped following the collapse of the First Communist Empire (the USSR) and are now – more subtly, more cleverly, less brutally – recreating the Second Communist Empire (initially the EU, and eventually, they hope, the whole world). The communists always believed that Communism could only survive if we had a World Communist Revolution (it is true that as long as a ray of freedom exists in this world, the free world will outcompete communism, but what the communists don’t realize is that their system is inherently built to fail, and the free world only exposes, and does not cause, its failures).

A major part of this agenda, and the main purpose of our elected Chief Pleas spending more and more money every year (when every other government is cutting expenditure), increasing taxes, and now proposing to be absorbed into Guernsey, of course is the abolition of Sark’s low tax status and eventually the harmonization of taxes across the EU – which by that point shall include the whole of the Bailiwick, i.e. the implementation of the 4th point of the Bolshevik agenda.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that Sark’s constitutional reform had a deadline which coincided with the signing of the EU Lisbon Treaty, that there was a tremendous rush to sign both of them (when there was no real rush in fact), that in both cases people were forced to vote (in the old communist style) on the same question repeatedly until they gave the right answer (7 times in the cases of Chief Pleas voting on Option A, twice in the case of the Irish voting on the Lisbon Treaty) and that the Seneschal (our own parliamentary speaker) was given the same sort of powers as the EU parliament gave to its own speaker at about the same time? And do you really think it is a coincidence that there has been such a large amount of immigration into Sark by cultural Marxists, where the recent arrivals have been the driving factor behind the trademark cultural Marxist changes such as (i) constitutional “democratic” reform, (ii) land reform, (iii) environmentalist reforms (such as tidal power and the Dark Skies initiattive), etc. – most of which the traditional Sark population is either suspicious of, or actively hostile to? Is this more likely to be a coincidence or a consequence of cultural Marxists’ design?

Report abuse

8

newcomer

To a poor helpless little victim. A resident. The last sentence of your ,again, very lengthy letter leds me to think that you must live on Brecqou where there is no democracy. Maybe what the real Sark person is trying to say is “bettter under Guernsey than the Barclays .

Report abuse

10

A Resident

@Edric Baker: I am ever so sorry if I have I hit a raw nerve.

I abide by the same rules of what name I choose to use in this forum as everyone else. When the rules have changed (for everyone equally) I will likewise abide by the new rules, or cease to comment if I don’t like them. Are you asking everyone to use their names or just those who are to be the next targets to be picked on, perhaps through personally tailored legislation, a fate suffered by Kevin Delaney, Andy Leaman, Simon Couldridge, and others?

You say the amount of my comment is disproportionate to yours. But you see, you and I are not equal. I am merely a resident with no power and no influence, and you are a powerful politician. Your words may have been brief, but their gravity, the weight they carry, coming from someone of your influence, and the significance of their consequences, is enormous. What you say is usually (indeed, invariably) what happens. The signing away of one’s independence certainly merits the airing of all the issues and considerable debate – much more than the little “rant” I have started. When other leaders have signed away or proposed to sign away their country’s independence, history has generally been considerably less kind to them than I have been to you. Grave words (hint: they start with a “t”) have often been used. How would Guernseymen like it if their politicians seriously proposed handing over their independence to the UK?

Your “do you beat your wife also on Sundays or on weekdays only”-style “question”, which is something of your trademark, is not, of course, a question, so it neither expects nor deserves an answer. Let me just put it to you in your own words: do you accuse everyone who doesn’t toe the Party Line of being on the Barclays’ payroll, or just those who really hit the nerve?

Report abuse