by Sheila Taylor.
Here is the recent report received by the Quaker Socialist Society Committee from the Salter Lecture Co-Ordinator, Sheila Taylor, explaining the course of events since arrangements were first made for this year’s Salter Lecture back in July 2023.
Quaker Socialist Society Report (01/03/2024)
QSS proposal for Yearly Meeting:
Ever since 1899 there has been a Quaker Socialist lecture at Yearly Meeting, given by a lecturer sympathetic to the Quaker ethos, on a topic of current importance. For 2024 we felt the most crucial issue worldwide was war and how to prevent it. Our vision was that this Salter Lecture would contribute to the Quaker tradition of mediation and peaceful conflict resolution.
We invited two speakers to do a joint presentation:
Jeremy Corbyn, socialist and lifelong campaigner for peace and disarmament. In 1998 he gave the Salter Lecture: Socialism, Injustice and Poverty, with Barry Coates, World Development Movement.
Paul Ingram, Quaker, expert onglobal nuclear disarmament. Led BASIC (British American Security Information Council). Now at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge.
Both are pacifists who believe that genuine security can only come through relationships and trust. Both support the traditional Quaker approach of not taking sides in a conflict. We felt this would be of interest to all Quakers, including those who do not identify with socialist politics.
As 2024 Yearly Meeting is Friday – Tuesday with the Swarthmore Lecture on Saturday evening, we asked the Recording Clerk if it would be possible to hold the Salter Lecture on Monday evening.
Reaction by Britain Yearly Meeting:
Our proposal (made in September) was met with horror. The idea of Jeremy Corbyn appearing during Yearly Meeting caused panic that Quakers might be accused of antisemitism by association. The topic of the lecture was sadly sidelined and completely replaced by a discussion of public perception, antisemitism and the power of the media.
Jeremy Corbyn has never been antisemitic towards Jewish people. He was merely branded ‘antisemitic’ long ago due to his regular criticism of the Israeli state and its treatment of the Palestinian people. This criticism was then weaponised in a campaign to remove him as leader of the Labour Party, although an EHRC report later admitted that Corbyn himself was never personally guilty of antisemitism.
The Present Situation:
Now, nearly five months into the appalling war in Gaza, Israel stands accused at the International Court of Justice of war crimes, collective punishment and genocide towards the Palestinians. And the majority of the global community finds itself in the same situation as Corbyn, labelled ‘antisemitic’ by the Israeli state and its few remaining allies.
Dropping Corbyn would be seen by many communities in the peace and labour movements as giving in to those powerful voices which seek to remove all who challenge oppression or suggest radical departure from the status quo. Quakers have not done this in the past. Our judgements have been based on what is right, not on fear of upsetting the establishment.
Yet some still assume that Corbyn’s presence would inevitably mean ‘antisemitism’ dominating the media narrative of Yearly Meeting. Their thinking seems determined first and foremost by fear of upsetting those who will not accept any criticism of the Israeli state.
A Risk Assessment which was produced focused solely on possible negative reactions to Corbyn, and as a result, Trustees have recommended that the lecture should not be held at Yearly Meeting.
QSS View:
Friends have always stood up against witch-hunts and been guided by our commitment to Truth. Jeremy Corbyn is a leading figure in the British peace movement and has an outstanding record of solidarity with Jewish people. We believe in free speech, and do not want him ‘no-platformed’ by Quakers.
Question for the Quaker community to consider:
Could the Trustees’ recommendation be wrong? Does this recommendation basically succumb to the reactionary establishment, to those not prepared to accept criticism of Israel, and those with an agenda to silence radical voices in Britain?
Sheila Taylor
(Salter Centenary Co-ordinator)
24 responses to “The Arrangements for the Salter Lecture”
-
I have been concerned for some time about the unaccountability of Trustees of British Yearly Meeting. Certainly one influential trustee regarded Quakers as identical to any other charity, with Trustees and a CEO, and major decisions taken on administrative and financial matters by trustees with no consultation. Whereas the organisation has historically been bottom up, with individual quakers taking their concerns forward to their local meetings, then to area meetings and then to Meetings for Sufferings – the most democratic structure imaginable. I am glad that QSS have brought the issue out into the open because without transparency there can be no honest discernment, and we members are left in the dark.
-
Many years ago, there was concern that charitable status would lead to conflict with Quaker testimony, in exactly the way described so clearly here (thank you). Charitable law was not yet as rigorous, most Friends knew little of it, and trustees behaved in a Quakerly way. Most people said we would never allow this to happen. Well, now it is happening, in one area after another. And Friends are being silenced, so it is difficult to unite to deal with it. At least Quaker Socialists have a website, and cannot be silenced there. What are we going to do?
LikeLike
-
-
But the concern is reported to have come from Management Committee. This is a group of Friends House staff, with no relation to Trustees. There is no indication that Trustees have had any involvement in this.
And Meeting for Sufferings will not be discussing the YM agenda tomorrow other than for an item about structural options. In any case, it has no responsibility for the Salter Lecture. I do question the decision by QSS to put out such a misleading statement.Robin Waterston
LikeLike
-
Robin, I think Management Committee refers to running Friends House, as opposed to Quakers in Britain. I may be wrong. The phrase used in the article was ‘management team’, which I assumed to be the ad hoc support group that Paul Parker uses to discuss anything he’s doubtful about – the recording clerks’ staff, heads of the Quaker departments in Friends House, and then bringing in trustees and clerks of Sufferings and Central Committees if necessary. Again, I may be wrong. It has taken me much questionning to get that far.
I would expect Sufferings to be concerned that Friends House has attempted to veto a speaker chosen by QSS.
Anne Wade
-
This is me again, OK for the sake of transparency, Nicola Grove. Sorry all you people who think Trustees were not involved – but if you look at the papers for MFS this weekend https://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/mfs-2024-03-calling-letter-agenda-papers you will find the following MinuteConfidential. BYMT/24/02/10 which is the one relating to this discussion. I am not clear what would have happened had the Quaker Socialists not brought the issue into the open. Would members of MfS been asked not to divulge this information in their reports to their Area Meetings? why are members not permitted to know what is being discussed? I don’t necessarily disagree that asking Jeremy Corbyn to give the lecture is a brave/controversial decision. If there is a threat to the EAPPI programme we need to know about it so that we can campaign on their behalf, make arguments to our representatives and so on, so please provide us with the necessary information.
Speaking personally I am holding Members of MfS and Trustees in the Light this weekend because this is a vital discussion relating to freedom of speech, the ways in which antisemitism is conceptualised (I gather Oliver Robertson is about to report on the issue) and the whole question of how we put into practice the process of discernment which is absolutely fundamental to our Quaker identity. See here for a discussion that I was totally unaware of until I started looking in more depth into this question. https://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/mfs-2022-12-agenda–papers-package MFS22 12 11
In other words, Friends, the question is not actually about Mr. Corbyn. The question is how should these decisions be made. How transparent can we afford to be? Are trustees (yes, trustees) and management correct in preserving a silence over the decision making process because of their fear of reputational damage, and to a valued programme? what are members allowed to know and when are they allowed to know it? What are MfS representatives allowed to know and openly discuss?
On a related issue, the Quaker Truth and Integrity Group are calling for nominations for their 2024 award. The 2023 award was given to Carol Cadwallader of Cambridge Analytica fame (remember that expose, 2018? except that her work was challenged and effectively refuted https://thegrayzone.com/2022/11/21/journalist-intelligence-british-pandemic-policy/ by the Information Commissioners office (https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/investigation-into-data-analytics-for-political-purposes/)
There are reports regarding her associations which should have been taken into account when considering her for an award (see https://thegrayzone.com/2022/11/21/journalist-intelligence-british-pandemic-policy/). She was also found by the Court of Appeal to have defamed Aaron Banks with unsubstantiated allegations, and ordered to pay him over £1 million in damages and costs.
Cadwalladr is actually a highly contentious recipient from several perspectives. however, the QTIG (correctly IMHO) were left free to make their own choices.
If they are concerned about repetitional damage to RSoF, management, trustees and MfS need to make sure that their decisions are made with full cognisance of what this means from all points of the political spectrum.
There needs to be a discussion with members about the extent to which Trustees and Management should be censoring the decisions of Quaker related groups, and the principles guiding these bans should be discerned by all of us.
Thank you for bearing with me (if you have)
-
-
-
This is what I would post.
As a Trustee I do not recognise the description of our motivation in discerning the way forward. In our discernment we were particularly concerned about the EAPPI (Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme Palestine Israel) programme, currently in a delicate state, which we manage on behalf of a number of churches. Through the outreach done by returning EAPPIs thousands of Friends have heard first hand testimony of the treatment of the Palestinian people and many will have been moved to action. We ask Friends to consider whether protecting this programme is not more important than the lecture taking place on this particular day and place.Carolyn Hayman BYM Trustee
LikeLike
-
Having read/seen the Trustees’ statements on this, it seems clear that, firstly trustees don’t make decisions on these matters so there is no benefit at all in side-tracking this important conversation about Peace with the ongoing debate on charity governance.
Secondly, and much more relevantly, it seems clear that no one has suggested that Jeremy Corbyn should not speak at a Quaker Socialist Society event, or not speak at Friends House. He did in fact speak in a successful Friends House event just last week.
The only request seems to be for his talk not to be part of, and hence potentially distracting from, Yearly Meeting itself on that date, particularly due to EAPPI concerns. It seems it would be fine on any other date, so why not just hold it on another date? That a distraction was likely has been demonstrated by the conversation above, without even having to go outside the Quaker community!
LikeLike
-
Trustees did make a decision on this matter – to recommend to YMAC that Jeremy Corbyn not be allowed to speak at YM. They made this decision after receiving a detailed recommendation from the management team. Unfortunately this contained several inaccuracies and did not include the opposing arguments from QSS, so no legitimate discernment was possible.
Secondly, they could not legally have banned him from a QSS event or from a War on Want event at Friends House. What has caused outrage is that Quakers want to ban him from a Quaker event. Yet Quakers used to be the champions of free speech.
Thirdly, it could not be another date. Paul Ingram and Jeremy Corbyn had already been invited to deliver the Quaker Socialist Lecture, which since 1899 has been delivered at the time of Yearly Meeting. They had already been invited.
LikeLike
-
-
At present thousands of Palestinians are being killed. We don’t need Accompaniers to give us “first hand testimony of the treatment of Palestinian people”. We see it now, every day. And what is being asserted? That if Jeremy spoke in July at YM the Israeli government would block the visas of the next two Accompaniers? They have already done that to the Norwegians, but Norway has taken it as a badge of honour. Are we really to have the agenda of our YM dictated by the Israeli government?
LikeLike
-
-
-
I would be in favour of holding the lecture at a different venue / outside but definitely during yearly meeting so those travelling to the meeting can easily attend
I have never attended a salter lecture but god willing will be at this one
in friendship
richard hawkins
Carlton hill Quaker meeting,
Leeds Area Meeting
LikeLike
-
-
-
I feel that there is an issue about antisemitism on the Left in British Politics. I do not feel that the Labour Party is immune to this. I think that there is a tendency for those on the Left (including Quakers) to see the Jewish community as part of the establishment and therefore there is sometimes a blind spot in relationship to antisemitism, due to unconscious bias.
Having said that I am troubled by the suggestion that the invitation to Jeremy Corbyn to speak at the Salter Lecture at the start of Yearly Meeting should be withdrawn. I feel that we as Quakers would be allowing ourselves to be intimidated if the invitation is not allowed to stand. Surely there the risk posed by aggressors increases if they are placated.
What is the evidence for the assertion that the Middle East Accompanied Programme would be vulnerable if it goes ahead?
I feel that our trustee’s suggestion that allowing the Salter Lecture to take place at Friends House at the start of YM “could move attention away from other issues we should be discussing” shows a lack of confidence in the capacity of Yearly Meeting to engage with the disciplines associated with the Quaker business method.
In Friendship
Richard Pashley
Bull St Meeting
LikeLike
-
-
I hope that Quakers decide to go ahead with the original plan to include Jeremy Corbyn as a speaker for the Salter lecture 2024 on the subject of the war and the prevention of war. He has clearly demonstrated that he speaks strongly to our Quaker vision of working to finding a peaceful solution to situations of conflict. The recently released expressions of concern about inviting Jeremy Corbyn to speak at this important lecture need to be properly considered, however we need to stand strong with clarity and courage when speaking truth to power wherever that ‘power’ may lie. I hope that we will shine a light in the places that seek to silence us.
Sheila Mosley, Leicester
-
I am shocked that whoever-it-is within the decision-making structure at Friends’ House is kowtowing to the right-wing UK media and the right-wing Israeli government in this way. They appear to be saying that the Society of Friends should collude with the unjust treatnment of a man of peace, for fear of being slandered themselves, by association. Really??
LikeLike
-
I am following Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter and I have not seen him make any antisemitic remarks. He does criticise Israeli policies, but then so do many of the peace movements within Israel. Rabbis for human rights are concerned that the IHRA definition is silencing any criticism of Israel, including the Israeli peace and human rights groups. Catherine Margham
LikeLike
-
-
As a Friend, I find it disturbing that the Quaker Socialist Society should invite Jeremy Corbyn in the first place. In 2020 the Equality & Human Rights Commission investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party, found the party, under Mr Corbyns leadership, had committed unlawful acts of discrimination & harassment. The ECHR also stated “The equality body’s analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it”. As Friends would we really invite any other leader or former party leader to speak if the EHRC made similar findings of racism against any other group. Of course not!
Clearly, another speaker with a genuine interest in peace and more aligned with Quaker values could have been found. The Quaker Socialist Society are of course, free to invite anyone they like, but the Society of Friends should not be in anyway associated with anyone whose values & actions are so remote from our testimony.
As Friends, we are for non violence and peacemaking. Our faith calls us to speak out against injustice and aggression wherever it happens, and to work together, sometimes with governments and groups we very much dislike, to achieve peace. Unlike, Mr Corbin we do not as a corporate body take sides. To be associated directly or indirectly with Mr Corbyn does not help us achieve our aims and actually assist the people of Israel/Palestine live peacefully together.
LikeLike
-
I think there is an issue in all this about whether we as Quakers have always had our own house in order in respect of racism. If the answer is “no” then perhaps we are judging Jeremy Corbyn by standards we have not always observed ourselves. Would it not have been better to have allowed the Salter Lecture to go ahead as originally planned and to for Britain Yearly Meeting to issue a public statement beforehand stating that Jeremy Corbyn’s views are not necessarily representative of Quakers as a whole?
Richard Pashley
Bull St Meeting.
LikeLike
-
In reply to anonymous who on 26/04 said they were disturbed that Jeremy Corbyn had been invited by QSS in the first place. I would like to note the following:
The EHRC report was a flawed report. Please watch the three part Al Jazeera documentary The Labour Files. Also the meticulously researched book Weaponising Antisemitism by the investigative journalist Asa Winstanley.
Jeremy Corbyn is a well known pacifist. In 2013 he was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award. What evidence therefore do you have that he has not got a genuine interest in peace making or that his views are not aligned with Quaker values, other than the mainly right wing mainstream media which has always been biased against him?
Jeremy Corbyn has clearly stated himself on a number of occasions that in order to achieve peace we need to discuss/negotiate with groups with whom we profoundly disagree.
As an attender at my local M for W I do have a real issue with the not taking sides stance with regard to this current conflict. In conflict resolution taking a neutral stance is the only way forward to achieve harmony and get all sides talking with each other. However the conflict in Gaza is very different and is not a normal conflict resolution situation: we are talking about a state sanctioned plausible genocide, to date nearly 35,000 killed including 15,000 children, genocidal statements made by senior figures in the Israeli government etc etc.
The Reverend Munther Isaac, Pastor of the Lutheran Evangelical Church in Bethlehem has clearly stated that it is his view that we have to take sides in this conflict. He regards taking a neutral stance as naive peace making. We all need to be active in bringing to an end this awful conflict. I am on the side of justice and it is justice that the Palestinian people need urgently: therefore I am on their side, despite the view of BYM.
Once we have a full ceasefire and a full and proper process leading to self determination for the Palestinian people and the right of all people to live in peace on that contested land then and only then-in my opinion-do we then start to take a more neutral stance.
Thank you
Jeremy Lax
Attender: Inverness Meeting.
LikeLike
-
Quaker Socialist Society 
Leave a comment