In a landmark event, Quaker management at Friends House in London has acted decisively in banning prominent socialist Jeremy Corbyn from delivering the Salter Lecture on ‘War and Peace’ at this year’s Britain Yearly Meeting in July. Although not a Quaker himself, Jeremy would have jointly presented the lecture with the Quaker mediator, Paul Ingram.
Many of us in the Quaker Socialist Society (QSS), and outside, are perplexed by the decision; feelings of confusion, and sadness, continue to radiate outwards as more people catch wind of it. It sets a disturbing precedent that has troubled friends so deeply that it has set our very consciences off-kilter and put our integrity as a Society of Friends into serious question.
Growing up in the 90s, my sharply felt social conscience was entirely divorced from any political motivation whatsoever. In the wake of Thatcher’s ruthless and divisive neoliberal policies, Blair found the rhetoric to unite Right and Left by redefining the Left at a Centre-Right position, calling this ‘New Labour’.
Several popular TV appearances later, Blair dashed hopes for systemic changes in education (“education, education”), and assisted US forces to invade Iraq based on weak intelligence of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in what is deemed to be an unjust war in Iraq, with ongoing devastating consequences for 4.4 million displaced people. The Tories didn’t take long to take the reins, via an embarrassingly ineffective coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and British people like me who were living in privately rented shared houses – and finding it impossible to mobilise ourselves – deserved better.
Sometimes, when you have no capital, you have the closest contact with those at the sharpest ends of injustice; those who are most in need of equitable socialist policies. I worked in a run-down mental health ward, and then with learning disabled young people, all of whom had little in terms of rights and power. Politicians – so distant from us with their privileged backgrounds, education and connections – didn’t speak for us, so we switched off and muddled on.
Enter Jeremy Corbyn in 2015. His resurgence gained rapid momentum on social networking sites like Facebook: swathes of us awoke from apathetic slumbers and got behind this older white man who nevertheless spoke up for us – ‘for the many, not the few!’ What was being denigrated as ‘radical’, Jeremy Corbyn – after the Diggers, or ‘True Levellers’ before him – just called ‘fair’.
Jeremy Corbyn ignited political hope, but his credibility was systematically crushed by the British Establishment, which repeatedly called this democratically elected leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party ‘unelectable’, and subjected him to a sustained smear campaign led by unregulated billionaire-owned British tabloids. After the ‘unelectable’ Corbyn did so well in the 2017 General Election he began to be smeared as an ‘anti-semite’ because he was critical of Israel.
Jeremy Corbyn is not an antisemite; on the contrary, he continuously stands for nuclear disarmament, antifascism, and antiracism, and is at the forefront of our shared campaign for an immediate permanent ceasefire in Gaza. He founded the Peace and Justice Project, and spoke at Friends House itself at the War on Want conference.
QSS invited Jeremy Corbyn as our Salter Lecturer in good faith, for the sake of what we might learn in our shared commitment to peace. It is in this spirit that I write: not to persuade friends to deviate from the calling of your own consciences, but to invite you to be part of this important conversation.
What does this decision mean for the Society of Friends, with its radical roots based in a fearless upholding of truth?
What is to become of a Society of Friends that kowtows to the self-perpetuating capitalist priorities of the New/Blue Labour-cum-Conservative Establishment that sustains social – including climate, economic and migrant – injustice?
Whether or not Friends agree with Jeremy Corbyn, should we not welcome him in acknowledgement of the Light within him?
“MY CHANGED LABOUR PARTY”. Keir Starmer has used that phrase many times in recent months. All parties must evolve – failure to do so means sclerosis and death. But the more boldly inclusive and consensual that process is, the better the health of the party and of our democracy will be.
It is the possessive pronoun which gives rise to concern. That a politician should wish to make a mark on the party which has chosen them as its leader is right and natural. But it is also right that this course should be pursued with some humility and a sense of the manner in which a party’s historic mission should inform its future in a time of rapid, and arguably unprecedented change.
The next general election is at most eight months away. It is very likely that Keir Starmer will be our next prime minister. As the effects of the past few days of electoral excitement bed down, it is beyond doubt that this Conservative administration is in terminal decay and that the country is desperate for change. But Starmer is not the owner of the Labour Party. Like any democratic leader, he is his party’s custodian and to forget that would be to betray his trust.
Over the decades, the Labour party has been often described as ‘a broad church’ and where it has stumbled to electoral defeat, it is because its various factions have turned upon each other in a way which made ecumenism impossible to sustain. It has always been at its best when socialists and social democrats have managed, in pursuit of common goals, to make creative compromises and see clearly who it is that would divide them into impotence.
Occasions of ugliness are driving away many who desperately need a just, compassionate and redistributive government. Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, sneers at those who do not share his views on private sector involvement in the NHS as “middle-class lefties” – a puerile insult which indicates a damaging ignorance of the nuanced relationships between origins and beliefs. Rachel Reeves, who will be the chancellor in Starmer’s administration, has declared her belief that “Labour is not the party of people on benefits”.
Labour needs to widen its ethical horizons far beyond this. If it is to be the party of equality and justice, it must recognise the many-layered inequalities and injustices which play so large a part in making life wretched for millions. If it is not to be that party, choosing instead to deny just and empathic action for those outside its exclusive demographic of ‘working people’, it can only be a slightly less cruel version of the neo-liberal Tories who have created despair among the very people who have, historically, and in the present, looked to Labour for hope.
My hope is that Labour in government will put equality and justice at the heart of its policy making. This must be the yardstick against which all is measured. It should not fear to take and promote the ‘preferential option for the poor’: for the powerless, sick and disabled, for the old and the young, the in-work, the unemployed and those unable to work.
It must build council houses and spend into public services and benefits. It must develop a foreign policy which prioritises conflict resolution and move to a mindset alert to the seeds of future conflict, realising that foresight and prudence may gradually reduce our dependence on military solutions. It must embrace the internationalism which grew out of the the two global wars of the 20th century and the institutions of the rule-based order which which underpin democracy.
Above all, it must strive for that justice which is the foundation of peace: fear and favour have brought us to some very dark places indeed. This will need the strength to exercise a spirit of courage which is not yet apparent in the tendency to anxious authoritarianism which characterises the present leadership.
If the government is to play its part in sustaining a liveable planet for all people, it will also need to find the courage for an unwavering commitment to green technologies and resistance to the global corporations and fossil fuel giants who have the power to hold vacillating nation states captive.
To do all these things, Labour will need to fight its fear of, and subservience to, much of the media. This will demand a steadfastness in the truth which will not fear to own mistakes, and an end to the equivocation and outright deception which has disfigured politics for too long.
There is a sense that the time may be right for all this to begin. The electorate is becoming both more aware and more cynical. Trust has been badly damaged and repair may initially prove a very rough ride indeed. However, compassion and hope have the power to do far more than does self-serving caution. Build it, and they will come.
Counsels of perfection, you may say. Simplistic, some will sneer. No. Simplicity is never simplistic nor is it easy. And the devil may well be in the detail. But if Keir Starmer can cast off his possessive desire to control the Parliamentary Labour Party in every aspect of its thinking, and permit the growth of a courageous and sometimes disputatious government in a courageous state, then a clear-eyed view of those things which make for equality, peace, truth and simplicity will give the Fiend much less room for manoeuvre.
A really interesting article, measured and thoughtful. Trust needs to replace the cynicism and flagrant ignorance of the truth which pours forth daily from some very loud and very provocative voices. Courage, integrity and radical hope is necessary to truly transform our fractured societies
A really interesting article, measured and thoughtful. Trust needs to replace the cynicism and flagrant ignorance of the truth which pours forth daily from some very loud and very provocative voices. Courage, integrity and radical hope is necessary to truly transform our fractured societies
The Quaker Truth & Integrity Group (QTIG) is concerned about standards in politics, public life and the media. They adopted a statement in 2022. These are a few of the points they made.
‘We seek kinder ground…of tolerance, respect, mutual cooperation and shared ethical and spiritual values’, led by individuals of impartial integrity. To address oppression and seek reconciliation, advocates work ‘between those of opposing views’ towards the shared truth of ‘truly inclusive, participative democracy, where people feel their wishes and needs are truly respected and taken into account’. ‘Where truth and integrity flourish, so too can personal relationships… our democracy and our precious traditions’, besides international relations that ‘completely address the crises that threaten our very existence’.
‘Crises’ hint at another meaning of truth and integrity. When ‘lies, injustice, inequality, deception and entitlement are prevalent it is only the truth – in all its uncomfortable [my emphasis] forms – that will heal us.’1 People who identify their integrity with ‘upright ethics and unbending principles’ may bitterly disagree on what is ‘the truth’, as decades of disputes about anti-slavery showed. Defending the truth can be disruptive and painful not peaceful. Many early Quakers suffered imprisonment and torture when they dared to speak truth to power.
Organisations such as churches, universities and political parties honour their own integrity by encouraging critical debates that search for truth. Yet truth may become too divisive, as in current disputes about anti-Semitism. The priority then may be to defend, not the truth, but each organisation’s integrity in its reputation, unity, closely integrated membership, and unquestioning loyalty to the leaders’ policies. Even neutral bystanders can help the strongest side to win, fairly or not, by their unquestioning loyalty.
For example, since 2019, the Labour Party’s unity has been preserved by over 150,000 dissenting members resigning or being excluded. In another example, the Quaker Trustees aim to safeguard the integrity of Britain Yearly Meeting in July by excluding the annual Quaker Socialist Society Salter Lecture because Jeremy Corbyn will be a speaker. (This was explained by Sheila Taylor on this website on 3/4/24.) Are their fears justified?
Truth
Led by the great and the good, by the BBC and the Guardian, the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn alleged that he ‘presided over “unlawful” anti-Semitic harassment within the party. When he claimed this finding was “dramatically overstated”, he was suspended.’ This accusation, which can seem moral, religious and nonpolitical, was repeated again in Quaker weekly, The Friend (11/4/24 and 25/4/24).
Several books and a film explain these misunderstandings. Public opinion surveys run by universities found that, on average, respondents believed that one third or ‘34 percent of Labour Party members had complaints for anti-Semitism made against them’. There were a horrifying 453 complaints. However, complaints were made against less than 0.1 percent of Labour Party members when there were well over 500,000 of them in the largest political party in Western Europe. The public believed there were 340 times more complaints than were actually made. Jeremy Corbyn commented, ‘One case of anti-Semitism is one too many’ but the public’s estimation is ‘grossly exaggerated’. When Labour leader, he tried to speed up anti-Semitism hearings but was told he should not interfere in Party procedures.
It is often said the 2019 election was ‘catastrophic’ for Labour. Yes, many seats were lost, often by a narrow margin. Yet the table shows that more votes were won by Labour under Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 than under Gordon Brown in 2010.
UK Election Results
Date Political Parties
Conservative
Labour
Lib Dem
2019
13,966,451
10,295,907
3,969,423
2017
13,636,684
12,877,918
2,371,861
2010
10,703,754
8,609,527
6,836,825
One problem in 2019 was documented in the report by Martin Forde KC commissioned by Keir Starmer. Some senior right-wing members of Labour Party staff worked hard to ensure that some left-wing Labour candidates were defeated.
Searching for truth and integrity
Quaker truth and integrity would involve examining Jeremy Corbyn’s lifelong work for antiracism, peace and justice, asking who his powerful opponents are, and what they gain by discrediting him. The books I’ve noted earlier analyse how the most powerful and wealthy groups in the world aim to ensure that no political leaders can stand for peace and justice (and Quaker values). Instead, they must stand for inequality, austerity, war and nuclear arms.
These international powers work through networks and thinktanks, the social and mass media funded by billionaires and the arms, oil, technology and other giant industries, to mislead voters. They persuade voters to fear socialist policies and to support right wing and even fascist governments that will enrich the rich and punish the poor. Their successes are shown in elections around the world. Yet socialist policies are widely supported. Keir Starmer could only become the elected Labour leader in 2019 by saying that he supported ten carefully costed socialist policies. Then he soon reneged on them.
Real anti-Semitism is among the greatest cruelties and tragedies in all history. Yet the word has been redefined to mean anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Zionist Israeli government is seen as criticism of all Jews. But that is like saying to criticise the British government criticises all British people. Many Jews are punished for being anti-Semitic.
Should not Quakers concerned with truth and integrity be protesting more clearly against real anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, against the false accusations and, as Quakers in Britain say, against all wars?
Priscilla Alderson, Member of Dorchester Meeting, 26/4/24
2 On Jeremy Corbyn: The Big Lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TACIA7oSIk; Winstanley, A. 2023. Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn. OR Books.
3 Philo G, et al., Bad News for Labour. Pluto Press, 2019.
Last January the Quaker Socialist Society (QSS) suffered a historic loss with the death of Grace Crookall-Greening. Grace had been a founder member of QSS in 1975, Convenor of QSS from 1976, and was still on the Committee in 2018. It was largely through her hard work, dedication, and quirky stubbornness that QSS flourished over five decades, and it was largely through her that the achievements of QSS – the Social Testimony, the Salter Lectures, the working co-operatives – were brought about. The QSS had been founded by the charismatic Ben Vincent – Classicist, Bible scholar, and a veteran of the old Socialist Quaker Society founded in 1898 – but by 1975 Ben was elderly, and it was Grace who did most of the work.
Grace Greening came from a working-class background. Her father was a cabinetmaker who worked for Co-operative Wholesale and he was also a Baptist lay preacher. At Baptist Sunday School she won certificates for memorising chapters in the Bible, and all seemed well. Unfortunately, a generous member of the congregation, impressed by her talent, paid for her to attend a private school, and she hated it. She played truant and cycled off into the Cheshire countryside to read ‘pagan’ (secular) books disapproved of by her father, the church and the school. From this act of juvenile rebellion she gained her life-long love of nature, as well as an encyclopaedic knowledge of trees, flowers and birds.
In 1943 she escaped the dreaded private school and entered a commercial college. She then further shocked her parents by becoming a junior reporter on the Manchester City News, instead of getting a ‘proper job’. She was a rebel by nature; she trusted implicitly in her own instincts; and she was stubborn as a mule.
Her future development seems to have been prefigured by these events of her youth. Her revulsion against private school prefigured her socialism; her father’s work prefigured her love of co-operatives; and trust in her own instincts prefigured her Quaker trust in following the Inner Light, regardless of whom it might offend.
In 1957 she married John Crookall, a scientist, at St Giles in the Fields, Holborn, an Anglican Church. After the disaster at the nuclear power plant now called Sellafield, John began studying radioactive fallout. His horror at the threat from nuclear radiation drew them to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Their participation in the Aldermaston marches organised by CND then led them to become pacifists and Quakers, and this led them to other peace campaigns, in particular for Vietnam. By 1972 Grace was supporting a daily vigil for Peace in Vietnam outside the American Embassy.
There remained the outstanding question of her self-disrupted education but, while living in Crawley, Surrey, now with two children, Olwen and Chris, Grace studied at Labour’s newly founded Open University. She was awarded a Social Science degree, followed by a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE). According to Olwen, Grace’s daughter, she did teach for a while at a Catholic school and enjoyed it but then perhaps inevitable tensions emerged after she had a discussion with her class about birth control. Grace and schools did not seem to mix.
Everything was easier after she used her journalistic experience with the Manchester City News to get a Quaker job at Friends House, as Publications Officer. She became editor of Labour Action for Peace, and formed friendships with trade union leaders such as Quaker Ron Huzzard, with Labour MPs such as Tony Benn, and with Methodist preacher, Donald Soper – sitting for political reasons in the House of Lords, an institution he deplored.
It was from the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM) led by Soper that in 1975 the Quaker Socialist Society emerged. In the summer Ben Vincent had raised the idea of a Socialist Society and by November Grace was reporting in the Friend that the CSM had convened a meeting of Quakers “to form a new Quaker socialist group”. The Quaker Socialist Society formed that December was backed not only by Soper but by two Labour MPs, Guy Barnett and Fred Willey; by the trade unionist, Ron Huzzard; and also by the Quaker Nobel Prize-winner, Philip Noel-Baker. Grace was made ‘Convenor’ of the QSS, although Ben Vincent was clearly the leading light.
In 1977 Grace caused a minor storm in Quakers when a letter by her was published in The Times and signed “Grace CG, Convenor of the Quaker Socialist Society”. Posh Quakers, it seems from the response, were appalled that readers of The Times would think Quakers were connected in any way with ‘socialists’. Ben Vincent thought it was hilarious – Are the readers of The Times really imagining a lot of Red Quakers donning “red ties as they go off at six in the morning to their chocolate factories?”, he asked. Grace did fail to consult the QSS Committee, yes, but that was no great sin – “well, all right then, we’ll tick dear Grace off.”
Grace was characteristically unrepentant. She had acted from the best of intentions: “I’m sure my letter will have done the readers of The Times, and the Quaker Conservatives, a power of good.” Her son, Chris, said at her memorial service earlier this year that her “magnificent stubbornness” was “always unrepentant”. She would never take instruction from anybody – not even from recipes in a cookery book. Some of her meals were “shocking”.
Grace pursued a different agenda from Ben and maybe a different agenda from the rest of QSS. In 1973 she had been inspired by reading a new book, Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered by E.F. Schumacher, which objected to mega-companies and mega-capitalism destroying nature and destroying working-class communities. This environmentalism fitted in with her love of nature and with the QSS idea that the ‘socialism’ they stood for was not one dominated by the state but one such as Keir Hardie wanted: a countrywide network of co-operatives. Impressed by the Bader family in Northamptonshire, who had handed over their chemical factory to their employees to be run as a co-op, she joined the Scott Bader Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM) and was even made a director. It was quite a success, and led to the formation of hundreds of small or medium-sized co-operative businesses across the country.
Inside Quakers Grace’s major achievement was to bring about, with Jonathan Dale, the formal recognition of a Quaker ‘Social Testimony’. George Fox, who founded Quakerism in the 17th century, had pursued equality from the start of the Quaker movement, and peace was added only later. Grace believed it was necessary to restore that original emphasis and make equality as important as peace. She thought it was from the inequality between regions and countries that war derived.
In 1982, at Yearly Meeting in Warwick, Grace delivered the QSS lecture that is now known as the Salter Lecture. Her title was Capitalism – A Cause of Social Unrest, Injustice and Fear. In this she argued that Christianity and capitalism were incompatible and the ‘ethical socialism’ of QSS was the modern political expression of early Quaker beliefs. Capitalism was so destructive it would destroy itself, or the world, and the socialism that would replace capitalism had to be a network of co-operatives, run by workers and managers along the lines of Scott Bader. A minute was sent to the Clerk of YM asking British Quakers to adopt a Social Testimony based on the Quaker ethical value of equality.
Jonathan Dale wrote after hearing of Grace’s death: “Grace had a burning conviction that we needed to create a new Social Testimony, to build on the 1918 Eight Foundations of a True Social Order. Her steadfast commitment to this vision certainly fed into my work as Clerk of Quaker Social Responsibility and Education… Between 1990 and 2005 I think we can say that Grace’s vision of a transformed British Quaker movement was achieved.”
To Grace’s astonishment her lecture created not only discussion within British Quakers but evoked an international response, in particular from New York and Moscow. In New York Quaker Socialists had long wanted to found a QSS but it was not possible in America to use the word ‘Socialist’ without provoking immediate hostility. Now, seizing on Grace’s idea of an ethical socialism based on Bader’s worker co-operatives, they invited Grace to New York to deliver her famous lecture over there. Grace flew to New York in June 1983. After hearing Grace, New York Quakers founded the Quaker Society for Economic Democracy (QSED), the first branch of QSS in America. The QSS paid her expenses for the trip: £810 (7 nights in New York plus the flight).
In Russia the problem was the exact opposite to that in America: the word ‘socialism’ was accepted but anything religious was regarded with suspicion. Russian Quakers had long been struggling to find common ground with Soviet socialism but lacked the right words. For them Grace’s lecture, published as a pamphlet, was a life-line. Her lecture was also greeted enthusiastically in the GDR (East Germany) but that was easier. In the GDR the Quakers, highly regarded for their relief work in 1919 and for the Kindertransport, had always been treated with respect.
Grace’s lecture may not have made any impact on Russia except that in 1985 Gorbachev came to power and started to liberalise Russian politics. Grace was working in the Peace Department of Friends House, as Assistant Peace Secretary to Ron Huzzard, and she discussed with Eleanor Barden, who was on the Peace Committee, the idea of sending Quaker tourist groups to Russia. In July 1986 Grace and Eleanor flew to Moscow with Quaker diplomat William Barton (fluent in Russian and with contacts in Moscow at the highest level). She explained worker co-operatives to the Russian Communists, and they listened politely. This cleared the ground for Quaker tourism across the ‘Iron Curtain’ and in 1986 she and Eleanor launched a company, advertised as ‘Meet the Russians: Goodwill Holidays in the Soviet Union’. As usual with Grace, there were no half-measures. By the end of 1986 she had set up a dozen ‘Meet the Russians’ tours for 1987.
On one trip Grace met Tatiana Pavlova, a Russian historian who had written about John Bellers, a 17th century Quaker identified by Grace (and by Marx) as a pioneer of Quaker Socialism. Tatiana was enthused by Grace’s Quaker Socialist initiative, and later set up a Moscow Quaker Centre, which is still active to this day.
In 1997, though a Labour government led by Tony Blair was elected, it was not as radical as Grace wanted and in 1998 she resigned as ‘Convenor’ of the QSS. To be clear: only she called the role ‘Convenor’, and not ‘Clerk’. QSS had been founded in 1975 to take the Quaker message out to trade unionists and peace campaigners. They understood what a ‘Convenor’ was, but not a ‘Clerk’. It therefore made no sense to say ‘Clerk’ if that would defeat the objective of QSS, so Grace would not say it. Following her resignation she was replaced almost overnight by Barbara Forbes not only to general surprise but to Barbara’s surprise. Barbara later explained: “What actually happened was that Grace sent round a notice to everybody saying that I had agreed to take over from her as ‘Convenor’ – except that she hadn’t actually asked me!” Everyone smiled – this was ‘typical Grace’.
Grace used her extra time to combat the Conservative Quakers who opposed the Social Testimony. She unleashed a strong attack on the 2001 Swarthmore Lecture, delivered by the leading light of the Conservative faction, Tony Stoller. She was also refining her own position. At her final AGM the speaker had been Labour MP, Clare Short, and in her AGM report Grace quoted Clare’s words: “When people talk about the death of socialism they mean either the end of communism or the end of Keynesian economics. But socialism is an ethic which recognises the full value of every human being.” This was Grace’s Quaker Socialism. This was what Grace herself believed.
After her husband, John, died in 2009, Grace produced a late flurry of Quaker Socialist writings, promulgating her ethical socialism. In 2011 she co-authored Labouring for Peace with Rosalie Huzzard – a history of Labour Action for Peace, and its long struggle for peace policies inside the Labour Party. She wrote a dozen essays and booklets in a few years: on Bader and worker co-operatives; on the 17th century Quaker, John Bellers, praised by Marx and Owen; and on radical Quaker economics, derived from Schumacher but updated by John’s scientific concern for climate change.
In January Grace’s funeral was held in Corsham, Wiltshire. A passage by Isaac Penington was read, taken from Quaker Faith and Practice, and Bach’s Concerto for Two Violins in D minor was played. Grace had always loved music. When she was a 19-year-old reporter, she had interviewed a young concert pianist from Manchester, Joan Burns. They remained friends – as lovers of Bach, Chopin, Vaughan Williams – and in 2014 it was Grace who had written Joan’s obituary in the Guardian.
In February there was a memorial event for Grace at her Bedford Quaker Meeting-House. It was mainly her non-stop campaigning for peace that was recalled: handling out leaflets in the centre of Bedford every week against the Iraq War, just as she had done against the Vietnam War – bringing peace closer, shortening the war, saving lives, being vindicated by history. In this connection her son, Chris, read out a tribute to Grace from the former leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. He had worked with Grace in CND, when she was editor of Labour Action for Peace, and about her tireless work he had kind words to say.
Many at the event recalled with a smile her stubborn and uncompromising character but also what fun she could be in her eccentric pertinacity, full of laughter. She was authentic, everyone said; she acted from the heart and at the bidding of her Quaker conscience; she was “hands-on” even at work, walking out of Friends House to collect money for the Kent miners on the picket lines outside Euston Station, and attending to homeless people on the pavement, doing whatever could practically be done…
In Memoriam: Grace Crookall-Greening (1928 Nov 13 – 2024 Jan 11).
An organisation allied to the Quaker Socialists is Independent Labour Publications (ILP). This is not the same as the old Independent Labour Party of Keir Hardie, George Lansbury, Ramsay MacDonald, Isabella Ford and the Salters but a successor organisation established in 1975 called Independent Labour Publications. They publish books and articles about ethical socialism on their website at independentlabour.org.uk, and it is well worth a read. You can also find them on Twitter (X) at @IndLP. This article of theirs by Chris Wilson reviews ‘Keir Hardie’s Creed’ by Rev Neil Johnson.
A new book on the ILP’s founder and first leader explores the religious underpinnings of his socialist faith. It contains important lessons for the left today, says CHRIS WILSON.
Methodist minister Reverend Neil Johnson offers a valuable contribution to the historiography of Keir Hardie in this fascinating booklet. While many have written about Hardie’s life and politics, here focus is trained on the Christian underpinning of his developing activism.
Keir Hardie’s Creed deserves consideration by all those interested in the formative years of the British Labour movement or in the development of Hardie’s political thinking. Johnson draws an interesting distinction between Christian socialist and socialist Christian thought, placing early pioneers such as FD Maurice in the former camp, as one whose ecclesiastical position and theological reflection led to socialist advocacy; and Hardie in the latter, drawing inspiration more from the person of Jesus than from some doctrinal system.
He has a point. Christ’s life certainly resonated with Hardie’s own. Johnson points to Caroline Benn’s observation that Christ and Hardie were both born to unmarried parents, had fathers who were carpenters and mothers called Mary. No wonder then that Hardie saw in Christ’s life some expression of his own.
Hardie’s Christianity was certainly of the dissenting variety, with strong congregational influences, and shaped by the emerging Labour Churches. For Hardie, Jesus became the working man of his time, excluded and marginalised yet expressing in and through his life the struggle for brotherhood and peace, where the ends never justified the means (Christ rejected the Zealots of his day), and with his disciples holding all things in common.
Here then is an embryonic, deeply ethical and democratic socialism.
Johnson also offers a valuable summary of those other influences on Hardie’s life, from John Ruskin to Robert Burns to Thomas Carlyle to John Stuart Mill. This I found convincing, although I am less sure about the impact of Walt Whitman or Ralph Waldo Emerson as that risks recasting Hardie as a Unitarian Christian, deeply devoted to the person of Christ but not accepting his privileged position as saviour of humanity. This might have been true of Ramsay McDonald but Hardie’s later wish to have preached the gospel suggests otherwise in his case.
On the other hand, Johnson is surely right to see Hardie’s embrace of socialism in religious terms. The argument that his socialism was no more than the religion of Jesus (as opposed to religion about Jesus) recast as political activism in his own time is compelling. Hardie’s creed was neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism but something else, something more like a religious revival based on a political outworking of Hardie’s personal commitment to Christ.
Gospel of Labour
I also liked the author’s attempt to summarise Hardie’s creed: “Socialism is the Christianity of today … the gospel of the whole labour movement … based on love, fraternity and service.”
There is much here that needs to be rediscovered today – the idea that we should be changing capitalism not accommodating it, and that change must not just be a revolution of structures but also of the heart. Hardie’s socialism was never of the Leninist insurrectionist variety, notwithstanding his nod to Marx in his book From Serfdom to Socialism.
Johnson also explores Hardie’s commitment to temperance, and this deserves further unpacking – that his politics was also shaped by the wider fraternities to which he belonged. There was the miners’ union, of course, but also the temperance of the Independent Order of Good Templars (still going today, and still pointing out the damage of alcohol to people and societies).
Hardie remains a deeply compelling figure. Johnson has reminded us that he cannot be simplistically located even within the (or should that be ‘a’?) Christian tradition, but rather is someone who stands apart, a dissenter amongst dissenters, a prophet standing alone. There is indeed, something of the Old Testament prophet in Hardie – speaking truth to power, seeking the common good, praised then vilified in his own lifetime.
What then can we learn from this book and from Hardie?
That socialism has to be visionary, certainly; ethical too, with deeps roots in the culture of the day; and fed in Hardie’s case from the ecosystem of radical dissent, trade unionism, friendly societies, temperance causes and a growing working class confidence. We learn that hearts as well as minds, behaviours as well as structures need to change if the New Jerusalem, or the Kingdom of God, or the socialist utopia is ever to arrive.
But there’s also a strong warning against naivety. Hardie’s pacifism was swept away by the blood of the trenches and its relevance today is questionable when confronted with our current world and its authoritarian leaders.
Still, when facing a world of injustice, inspiration can still be drawn from Keir Hardie’s creed, just as, in turn, the great man drew inspiration from that radical Galilean peasant, Jesus Christ. As Johnson notes, in the words of James Keir Hardie himself, “Socialism is a sacred cause.” And Christ’s ‘Sermon on the Mount’ from Matthew 5 is a pretty good place to start.
In this article Nicola Grove reflects on how rarely these days do we hear from the people actually involved in the issues of the day. In between stand commentators, presenters, pundits, opponents and supporters.Quakers too sometimes do this, excluding the voices of those marginalised by mainstream media.
I was in an online meeting about how to enable the stories of marginalised people to be told; in this case focusing on disability. Family members were prominent, sharing moving and often uplifting accounts of personal connections. But because my work focuses on participation, I was struck by the absence of the individuals themselves. We were hearing the stories of their allies, but were these the stories that they themselves would want to tell?
Cut to a wonderful exhibition about displacement. As well as contemporary images and installations, there were powerful art works dating back to the Spanish civil war and World War II. The curator had added her comments – that one disturbing charcoal sketch of refugees risked dehumanising them by presenting a faceless mass. (For the record, I didn’t agree, I could easily discern individuals amongst the trudging crowd). But what would displaced people themselves think? We don’t know, because nobody had thought to ask them.
How do people want to be represented? How do they feel about being seen as vulnerable victims? What do they think about the programmes we run, that we are certain are vital to their survival? What do they want us to do? Have we asked them?
Quakers are not immune to this trend. I have been reading through Quaker responses to the unfolding genocide in Palestine. Strong statements and letters are written in our name by the various bodies in British Yearly Meeting. The letter pages of the Quakers’ Friend magazine have provided contrasting views over many years about whether criticism of Israel is de facto antisemitism. In the body of the magazine we have read recently that perhaps war crimes are not something we should focus on, since all war is a violation. The inferences are clear – we need to question our “progressive” stance on, say, settler colonialism, on self determination, on any ideas that Hamas might be an evolving, complex, multifaceted organisation. Similarly, a book is reviewed that exhorts us to adopt the concept of Israelophobia, whilst distorting (to put it mildly) the history of Palestine and Palestinians. We are now told that to invite Jeremy Corbyn, a leading campaigner and politician who has spent his life working for peace and justice to give a public lecture at the same time as the Quaker Yearly Meeting would be to risk accusations of antisemitism and “damage the reputation” of Quakers.
Do you notice any absent voices here? Where are the Palestinian voices? Where is the voice of the banned speaker, Jeremy Corbyn?
Absent Voices: Jeremy Corbyn MP and Stella Assange at Conway Hall with David Davies MP
I will leave the final words to Pastor Isaac Munther from Bethlehem, another absent voice. Astonishingly, no Quaker outlets publicised his metanoiac Christmas sermon “Christ under the Rubble”, nor covered his visit to London in February, apart from a link in a recent newsletter to one minute of a candlelit vigil. Perhaps his words are too dangerous for Friends to hear, because they challenge our comfortable thinking that as Quakers we are principled, impartial, peace-loving. And that this stance is enough, quite enough, to prove how much we are suffering on behalf of others.
Absent Voice: Pastor Munther Isaac from Bethlehem welcomed at the Bloomsbury Baptist Church this year at the same time as Archbishop Welby refused to meet him.
What did Pastor Munther actually say about us? He said: “This is not about “praying for peace” “raising concern” or “sending support”. Piety, religiosity, true spirituality means the active participation in loosing the bonds of injustice, undoing the straps of the yoke, letting the oppressed go free, and breaking every yoke. This is active solidarity, this is action.”
Nicola Grove, 23 March 2024.
[Another version of this article later appeared in the Friend magazine on 05 April 2024.]
[Phil Laurie at the Monument before the Quaker silence]
In 1670 persecution of Quakers by the Puritan government was in full flood. Meeting Houses were being closed, or totally destroyed, and Quakers imprisoned. Yet Quakers did not falter but insisted on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly . Unlike most at the time, they not only insisted on free speech for Protestant sects but asked that Catholics , Jews and Muslims be allowed freedom of speech as well. Their reward after the Revolution of 1688 was the Toleration Act which, although it granted freedoms only to Protestants, nonetheless is still one of the foundation-stones for the civil liberties we enjoy today.
The persecution was severe. In August of that year soldiers closed down their Meeting House in Gracechurch St, in the City of London, but Quakers pursued their customary tactic of meeting and speaking as close as possible to the building where they are forbidden to speak. This tactic is still practised even today. The organisers in 1670 were William Penn and William Mead, both leading Quakers, and after they refused to end the meeting they called in the street outside, they were arrested and charged with unlawful assembly. Presiding at their trial in September was Samuel Starling, the Lord Mayor of London, acting in his role of Sheriff. The trial showed that Starling was no fan of free speech and no fan of Quakers.
There was conflict at the trial from the beginning but at first it was rather comic . Starling knew that one well-known aspect of Quaker egalitarianism was that they refused to remove their hats to their ‘social superiors’. When they did that, he had planned to fine them for contempt of court, but to his evident annoyance Penn and Mead appeared before him without their hats. He had to order court officers to put their hats back onto their heads, so they would then refuse to remove them in his presence when he asked them to, so he could then fine them for contempt.
That was the last light moment in the trial. Starling then, very unwisely, took on William Penn in a battle of wits. Penn had enquired under which law they were charged and Starling declined to make any answer but merely said it was “common law”. Penn then asked which specific part of common law he meant because if he was using an interpretation of common law that ruled out freedom of speech and assembly, this was a threat to “the rights and privileges of every Englishman”. When Starling tried to brush him off, perhaps unsure himself of the answer, Penn then revealed to the court his line of defence in the now famous sentence: “The question is not whether I am guilty of this indictment, but whether this indictment be legal.”
On hearing this, Starling ordered Penn removed from the dock and returned to the ‘bail-dock’, a cage where prisoners sat waiting to be called. But William Mead was up next, and he found Mead pursued the same line as Penn, this time citing learnedly the Institutes of Edward Coke, regarded in the 17th century as England’s leading legal authority. Mead too was sent to the cage.
Starling then proceeded to the conviction and imprisonment of Penn and Mead by instructing the jury on the obvious guilt of the defendants. However, to his astonishment it appears, he found the jury no more compliant than Penn. They refused repeatedly to obey the instructions given. The jurors found a spokesperson for their principled stand in one of their number, Edward Bushel. Eventually, in exasperation, Starling had the jury locked up without food and water until they produced the verdict he wanted. The Court Recorder, John Howel, told the jury: “you shall not be dismist, till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be lock’d up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco: You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.”
Penn appealed to the jury to remain strong, and they did, and history was made when they endured the punishment for two days and still remained defiant. Starling fined them, as well as sending Penn and Mead back to jail for contempt of court, but he had gone too far. Later, in the face of extreme disquiet amongst members of the establishment who themselves might need the help of a jury one day, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, John Vaughan, made the historic ruling that in future a jury could not be punished for any judgements they chose to make.
The modern reader should not be too contemptuous of Sheriff Starling, as if they would have acted differently if they had been alive at that time. For a start, there are cases similar to the Penn-Mead case taking place today and usually only a few individuals protest. Secondly, there were historical circumstances constraining Starling, Howel and the Puritan government. The courts at that time had no presumption of innocence, no exclusion of hearsay evidence, and no burden of proof on the prosecution. From Starling’s point of view he was trying to keep order in the City of London (there were no police in those days) and here was a bunch of trouble-makers (Quakers) clearly guilty of what today would be called a breach of the peace. The jury surely must have heard of the Quakers’ appalling reputation, Starling would have thought: Quakers were extreme egalitarians, refusing to address their superiors by ‘you’; refusing to take off their hats to clergy, judges and other eminent people; refusing to pay taxes for the upkeep of the state Church; and refusing to swear oaths just because their social superiors did not have to swear oaths. Starling must have felt it very unlikely, in the City of London, that the solid citizens who sat on juries, reliant for their livelihoods on law and order, would countenance in their own City such unruly behaviour.
The recent cases today with a similarity to the Penn-Mead case were those of climate activists not allowed by judges to communicate to a jury the motives for their protests. This meant the actions of which they were accused looked to the jury like random criminal damage. In addition, there has also been a general trend in recent years towards an erosion of the right to a fair trial by jury. That was the reason for the ‘re-enactment’ demos by Quakers and others in London last weekend and why there is a National Week of Action called by the campaign, ‘Defend Our Juries’, for April 13-21. The aim is that every court in the country will be picketed. These tactics try to draw public attention to the undermining of juries but it is doubtful whether any other protest will be as colourful as the ‘fancy-dress’ re-enactment last Sunday. About 70 protesters, some in traditional Quaker dress, sat around the Monument at London Bridge in an impressive Quaker silence before they marched to the site in Gracechurch St close to where the trial of 1670 took place, and then moved on to a third demo outside the Ministry of Justice in Petty France.
An article by Rebecca Hardy in the Friend, the weekly Quaker magazine, written before the event, described the dramatic ‘re-enactment demo’ in this way: “The London event at Gracechurch Street is in support of the Defend our Juries campaign, which was sparked by a wave of restrictions in climate activist court cases. These prevented defendants from mentioning climate change in front of a jury, sometimes resulting in imprisonment. The re-enactment will depict the trial of William Penn and William Mead, which became a legal precedent for the rights of juries. Quaker Phil Laurie, one of the organisers of the event, told the Friend: It’s basically to alert Quakers to the fact that one of the great gifts of Quaker activism in the early days was the jury system – and it’s under threat. Quakers need to wake up to this and defend it. A jury was threatened with prison last month if they acquitted someone according to their conscience. We’re reminding people that this was hard won by the sacrifice of Quakers in the 1670s…”
There were several Quaker Socialists among the demonstrators last Sunday who went to all three protests. Starting from the impressive Quaker silence at the Monument, they proceeded to the re-enactment in Gracechurch St, then to the demonstration outside the Ministry of Justice, before finally arriving, weary but happy, at the Westminster Quaker Meeting House in St Martin’s Lane, where they were greeted by warm hospitality and hot soup. Trudi Warner, a climate activist, then gave a filmed account of why she was at the Penn-Mead demo. She herself was one of those soon to be on trial, and she told the camera that the case, and the subsequent ruling, “had established the really important legal principle about jurors being able to give a verdict according to their conscience”. That victory she pointed out – now commemorated on a plaque in the Old Bailey – was all due to some persecuted Quakers who 354 years ago “held a protest meeting in the street”.
Graham Taylor 2024.04.13
[The Quaker silence at the Monument][The demo in Gracechurch Street][The demo at the Department of Justice][At the Department ofJustice]
Recent remarks by Wes Streeting MP give a distorted view of the effect that his proposed reforms would have on the NHS . He says Labour healthcare policy is to support the private sector ‘to help to reduce NHS waiting lists’ but this involves taking doctors and all other healthcare staff out of NHS services, where they have been trained. The plan includes the NHS paying for private services for some patients. But these waste money by costing more than they would do if they were provided directly by the NHS. Meanwhile, some leading Labour MPs accept funds from private healthcare companies and can expect to work for them in future decades and earn very high incomes. This is explained in:
Professor Allyson Pollock has researched the privatising of the NHS for over 20 years and has made this moving webinar. Anyone who care about the NHS would greatly benefit from watching it. https://gftu.org.uk/general-election-protect-the-nhs/
Professor Allyson Pollock, expert on privatisation of the NHS
‘Peace is not sufficient alone; it must always coexist with truth and justice.’ Photo: by Paul Moody on Unsplash
[This article is taken from the Quaker weekly magazine, the Friend (15.03.24), which reports all topical debates within British Quakers. You can read, and subscribe, at: thefriend.org]
Back in 2016, The Guardian commissioned a short thought piece from the rapper Akala. He talked eloquently about how ‘The propaganda of “British values” is a distortion of history’. I showed the piece to my coaching group – I was teaching Philosophy A Level, and ‘British Values’ had been recently introduced to the curriculum.
Traditionally, actions of witness taken by Friends – such as holding someone in the Light during Meeting for Worship, gathering in a silent vigil for peace, or sharing ministry – have been understood as peaceful. These are valuable, and may even contribute to positive change and healing. But it is Britain’s worst-kept secret that our basic human rights and freedoms – such as the abolition of slavery and a woman’s right to vote – were achieved through intense political struggle, revolt and a high cost to human life. The truth is not very nice, not very calming, and not very peaceful – and, ironically, not very ‘British’.
Ruth Kettle-Frisby
What even is peace? Our lives can often appear to be peaceful. In East London, I do not have to worry about a bomb dropping on my children’s heads. There is a useful British veil of landscape, postcards, family days out, and cultural institutions like art galleries, schools, universities, and places of worship, including Quaker Meeting houses. But this veil is itself the result of bitter, bloody conflict, and underneath it lies a sobering truth: our historically-embedded political, social, economic and cultural inheritance is anything but peaceful. Our lives, lifestyles and privileges, our thought processes and instincts, are dripping in unjust conflicts and the blood of our brothers and sisters who we continue to colonise. Our history of empire and colonialism continues into our complicity in war. Homeless friends continue to suffer on the streets. Our friends from the global majority die as a result of climate breakdown. Meanwhile, billions of pounds are spent on funding nuclear weapons, and we continue to invest in fossil fuels.
We are free to talk about peace until the cows come home. But the truth is that even if we as individuals oppose, say, war in the Middle East, we have already been collectively dragged into it. We live and breathe conflict. When a person or group of people (including women and people who make up the global majority) are powerless in the face of gross, supremacist injustice, what springs to the western mind when we think of ‘peace’ just hasn’t ever cut it.
Peace is much more complicated than it first appears. If you could go back in history to stop the direct activism that led to the partial emancipation we have today, would you do so? Not an easy question to answer, is it? Do we not all, at some level, condone the consequentialism by which peaceful ends are arrived at by violent means? Do we not embody that very maxim as an imperialist nation?
I do not doubt that there is a difficult variety of perspectives on the ground among Palestinian and Israeli civilians. Lack of education, constant suffering and fear will likely lead to all sorts of views that we in the west deem to be unacceptable. I invite Friends to empathise, not condone.
In ‘Hold your peace’ (21 February), Keith Braithwaite expressed a suspicion of the word ‘but’. This little word, however, can be a powerful one, capable of holding space for nuance, empathy and understanding. Rarely is anything clear-cut. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are on the rise, and both of these evils should be condemned. Alongside this, I believe we should extend our empathy to Palestinian civilians, without conflating them with Hamas. We should condemn violence by Hamas, while also trying to understand where it came from. This will allow us to visualise an achievable peace. We should also condemn violence by the state of Israel, but listen open-heartedly to our Jewish friends who feel terrified, and who are being subject to an increase in abuse.
We should do whatever is in our power to uphold all of our friends peacefully. But it is disingenuous to insist on ‘peace’ as the western psyche understands it. It’s OK to be mistaken, it’s OK to be wrong, and it’s OK not to know.
I recently went on a march for Palestine with a friend and her young daughters. I wanted to join others in a desperate plea for a ceasefire, but doubts began to creep into my thoughts: Is it right for me to get involved in something I don’t fully understand, and which doesn’t directly impact me? Am I legitimising the lexicon and culture of conflict by participating in a protest that is explicitly couched in the language of ‘sides’? Am I contributing to increased racist abuse of our Jewish friends?
Different answers to these questions have prompted a number of cultural civil wars here in the west. For me, I am proud of the marches for Palestine by people of all faiths and none, and my heart goes out to Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who suffers as a result of violence, oppression, injustice and war.
It’s worth being mindful that peace never exists in a vacuum. This truth is understood in our Quaker values by the fact that peace is not sufficient alone; it must always coexist with truth and justice.
It seems to me that there is a powerful way for Friends to collectively put our Peace Testimony into action. It starts with our being mindful of the distinctly unpeaceful origins of the relative ‘peace’ that many of us enjoy in the UK. From there we must keep up the pressure on our government by supporting organisations like CND, War on Want, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Tax Justice UK. Together we should unequivocally oppose the UK’s investment in neocolonialism, climate injustice, occupation and nuclear arms. In the spirit of early Friends and activists throughout history, we are called to challenge the UK’s complicity in global acts of violent injustice. If these policies are said to be undertaken on our behalf, we should tell the world that they are not made in our name.
On 11 February the BYM Trustees recommended that our Salter Lecture on ‘War & Peace’ should not go ahead at the same time as Yearly Meeting if Jeremy Corbyn were one of the speakers. On 23 February QSS produced a Summary of the situation, expressing our concern and our feeling that this decision was giving way to the establishment and the media.
We sent our Summary to the Trustees to explain our view, and a meeting was arranged for Sheila to have a discussion with Marisa Johnson and Paul Parker. We also sent it to the two other BYM decision-making bodies: Meeting for Sufferings and Yearly Meeting Agenda Committee, asking for it to be circulated to their members, but we were told that was inappropriate.
On 29 February an item was therefore posted on the QSS website headed: ‘Will Quakers ban Jeremy Corbyn?’. This was the first public mention of the Salter Lecture issue, and for some people in inner-Quaker circles it caused what they described as a ‘media storm’.
Communication with QSS members:
Discussions with BYM about the Salter Lecture had actually been going on since September. All that time we were hoping for a resolution that would be acceptable to both sides. However, the Trustees’ decision seemed to make this impossible. So on 1 March we sent QSS members our Summary of the situation, and within two days we received 31 responses from members expressing dismay, disappointment and a considerable degree of anger.
QSS talk to Management (1 March):
When Sheila met with Marisa and Paul on 1 March, she pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn’s office had still not been able to confirm his availability for July. However, she also stated that QSS could not possibly disinvite a speaker whom they considered perfectly appropriate. If Jeremy were unacceptable in Friends House, QSS would be obliged to hold the Salter Lecture elsewhere.
Marisa declared that she would happily speak to Jeremy Corbyn in person, explain the situation and ask him to withdraw. Sheila therefore arranged a meeting for this extraordinary conversation to take place.
Meeting for Sufferings (2 March):
The Trustees had sent their report on the Salter Lecture to Meeting for Sufferings as a ‘Confidential Minute’, which was not revealed until the actual meeting. So when Marisa spoke to the minute, members were unclear about the background and the implications. The report was accepted, with just a few queries from members who had seen the website or read the QSS Summary.
The meeting with Jeremy Corbyn (14 March):
Sheila and Marisa met Jeremy over a cup of tea in Portcullis House. He was very gracious, but said he was sad and disappointed with the Quaker position. He had spent five years combatting the lies told about him by the Labour Party and the media. Quakers had also experienced persecution, and he felt it would be a shame if they allowed others to set their agenda.
The meeting was warm and friendly. In response to Marisa’s request, Jeremy said he would do whatever QSS wants – speak or not speak. He wanted to maintain his close connection with QSS, so if July were not possible, he would do another event for us some other time.
Yearly Meeting Agenda Committee (16 March):
Last weekend YMAC met to decide the final agenda for Yearly Meeting. Mary Aiston introduced the item on the Salter Lecture, accompanied by Marisa. Nearly two hours were spent discussing it and producing a Minute, which was sent to us. (Attached.) It is disappointing, though hardly surprising. Essentially everyone involved in this procedure has accepted the recommendation of the Trustees. On the positive side, I gather that YMAC expressed a great deal of respect for QSS and much enthusiasm for the Salter Lecture and for this year’s topic. Members stated how keen they were that the lecture should go ahead.
Ironically, if Jeremy is not available in July anyway, this whole debate will have been unnecessary. Paul Ingram is eminently qualified to speak on War and Peace, and is happy to do the lecture on his own or with another co-presenter.
What concerns are there now? (22 March):
In the autumn we were told the concerns about Jeremy Corbyn speaking at the time of Yearly Meeting. These were based on the public perception that he is anti-semitic, and on the assumption that his presence would attract a great deal of negative media attention. They were:
The anticipated media attention, including on social media, could be overwhelming for staff. It would distract from the themes of Yearly Meeting. The distraction would mean that QSS fails to achieve the aim of our lecture topic. Quakers could be seen as condoning anti-semitism. It could damage BYM’s relationship with the Jewish community. It could endanger the Ecumenical Accompaniment programme in the Middle East.
I feel the discussion has been changing over recent months. The YMAC minute does not mention most of these points (media, YM themes, lecture topic, antisemitism, Jewish community). As for the EAPPI programme, the only danger stated is that participants might get their entry visas refused – by the Israeli government.
Interestingly however there is a new concern mentioned for the first time by YMAC. They say: “We are aware of the risk to relationships within our Yearly Meeting community, posed by one group exercising authority over the decisions of another, when we are all trying to move forward in prayerful discernment.” And they ask QSS to “consider the risks identified…….to relationships within Britain Yearly Meeting”.
This is very vague, but QSS has picked up much resentment from members and other Friends about the power of Trustees, interfering in the Salter Lecture and unfairly influencing others’ opinions. Personally I regretted that QSS were not allowed to express our views directly to the decision-making bodies. There seems to be a problem about who is allowed to query what, not just in public but also internally. And it was worrying to have it implied that any other speaker we might choose should first be ‘run past’ the management team. I thought that Jeremy Corbyn was a one-off case, but perhaps some people would like a veto on all future Salter lecturers!
Sheila Taylor (Salter Lecture Coordinator)
The YMAC Minute
YMAC 2024-3-11 Salter lecture
We receive paper YMAC 2024 03 12, Salter Lecture, which has been introduced by Mary Aiston. We have been joined by Marisa Johnson, the Clerk to Britain Yearly Meeting Trustees, for this agenda item.
We are asked to decide whether to agree to the Quaker Socialist Society’s request to hold a Salter Lecture, on the subject of war and peace, delivered by Paul Ingram and Jeremy Corbyn, at Friends House during Yearly Meeting. If the lecture does take place during the time of Yearly Meeting (at Friends House or elsewhere), we are asked to decide whether it should be included in the Yearly Meeting programme.
We are grateful to Britain Yearly Meeting Trustees for identifying risks associated with the proposed lecture and for explaining them to us. We are grateful to the Quaker Socialist Society for communicating with our clerks during the period of exploration of these questions. We are glad to hear that the clerk to Trustees and the Salter Lecture Coordinator have met with Jeremy Corbyn to explore the issues with him.
We have met together, acutely aware of the risks associated with each way forward from here. We do not wish to be swayed by fear of controversy, and we are aware of the fast movement of information and speculation on social media and elsewhere.
We note that Britain Yearly Meeting’s work in Israel and Palestine is particularly vulnerable at this time, and that this work may be put at critical risk by the conversations that we would expect to arise around a lecture held in the proposed way and including Jeremy Corbyn as a speaker.
We are aware of the risk to relationships within our Yearly Meeting community, posed by one group exercising authority over the decisions of another, when we are all trying to move forward in prayerful discernment.
We ask that the Friends in the Quaker Socialist Society tasked with arranging the Salter Lecture consider the risks identified both to peacebuilding work in Israel and Palestine and to relationships within Britain Yearly Meeting, and either:
• arrange for the Salter Lecture to go ahead in Friends House at the time of Yearly Meeting, delivered by Paul Ingram, or:
• make alternative arrangements for a venue for the Salter Lecture that may include Jeremy Corbyn as a speaker. This could be at the time of Yearly Meeting or at another time.
We agree not to publish details of the Salter Lecture as part of the Yearly Meeting programme if the latter choice is taken.
We recognise the difficult decision ahead for our Friends in QSS, and we offer them our prayerful support as they move forward with this. We send this minute to the Quaker Socialist Society and to BYM Trustees.
Quaker Socialist Society 
Leave a Reply