Letters - 10 May 2024
From Sadness and sympathies to Boarding schools
Sadness and sympathies
I have often found Tony D’Souza’s articles enlightening and inspiring and so I owe him thanks. However, I was perturbed after reading his article (5 April), which described soldier Aaron Bushnell’s self-immolation, in front of the Israeli embassy, as an act representing ‘the best in all of us’.
I expect few if any Quakers would advocate harming anyone to garner publicity.
It is confusing for me to understand how our testimonies of peace, integrity and seeking that of God or goodness in others and ourselves lead us to admire Aaron Bushnell’s sad self-immolation. I don’t see an act of courageous spiritual beauty.
Most of my friends who endure pain would not gain any solace or succour from others choosing to join them in pain and taking this to the extreme. Suicide does not seem a way to protest that is particularly Quakerly.
Indeed creating more traumatised people, while enacting this public self-immolation, makes me struggle to see this as anything other than a very sad and disturbingly brutal suicide. My sympathies are with Aaron Bushnell’s parents and those who have no choice as to their suffering, which I think included Aaron Bushnell.
Claire Christopher
Disappointment and anger
Might I add my voice to those Quakers expressing disappointment and anger about Jeremy Corbyn’s treatment over the proposed Salter Lecture?
The Britain Yearly Meeting rejection implies agreement with anti-semitism charges with which Corbyn has long had to contend.
He is a decent man who has had a raw deal. It is appalling that the decision-makers have bowed to ‘public perception’, rather than upping protective security if this is deemed necessary.
‘Our life is Love, and Peace, and Tenderness; and bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, and not laying accusations one against another but praying for one another, and helping one another up with a tender hand.’ Isaac Pennington.
Rosamond Cynthia Reavell
The Salter Lecture 2024
This is a quote from The Guardian of 16 April, coincidentally the date that I was advised on the new venue for this year’s Salter Lecture.
‘A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak, the UK prime minister, said: “It’s very clear that cancelling events or preventing attendance and non-platforming speakers is damaging to free speech and to democracy as a result. It’s very clear that free debate and exchange of views is vital. Even when you disagree.”’
This was in relation to the halting of the National Conservatism conference in Brussels.
I hope that this might precipitate a thorough reconsideration of the way decisions are made.
David Partridge
Voice and vulnerability
I have followed the Friend’s news items and the correspondence about the decision of Britain Yearly Meeting trustees that Jeremy Corbyn not be allowed to speak at Friends House during Yearly Meeting, and have not been able to see a piece of information which I would regard as germane to a process of discernment and decision-making on this matter.
The basis for trustees’ decision as I have understood it is that Jeremy Corbyn’s presence as a speaker in Friends House would put staff at risk of protest and reprisals by pro-Israel groups. What I do not know is whether this decision about the protection of staff was a consequence of their representations or a decision made by management on their behalf. It seems to me that the voice of staff in this matter should be heard and that Friends would wish to give it a hearing.
Perhaps it is believed that the staff having a voice is another vulnerability for them? When we are faced with profound questions about speaking the truth where can we draw the line in terms of transparency? I cannot pretend to know the answers, so maybe I can only ask the questions.
Daphne Sanders
Taxation
Our Friend John Morris (29 March) has made what is described as a novel argument, in other words one that has not been heard in a court of law before and I think there is a reason for that. HM Treasury (HMT) wrote something similar in reply to my letter to them, saying that money is ‘fungible’. That when I pay my taxes I cannot identify whether it is my money that has gone to fund the military. That’s more or less saying that I could pretend that none of my taxes have gone in that direction, that it went to pay for something else – the NHS, say.
I think we can see what a morally feeble argument they were making. If the military is given ten per cent of all tax revenue then it is only logical to apply that proportionally to each taxpayer’s contribution. It is noteworthy that the HMT solicitor did not mention fungibility when replying to the ‘Peace Tax Seven’ letter before action.
The full library of their legal case documents can be found at: www.peacetaxseven.com/legal.html. The nature of money was never offered up.
The thing is, we have agency when we receive and pay out money. Money itself might be neutral but how we obtain it and where we place it has moral and legal implications. Let’s say that there is a charity (I am sure there is somewhere) which funds rebuilding Palestinian homes and provides resources for the children and, for the sake of comparison, let’s say that ten per cent of its funds go to the Hamas military wing. How might our government, which has proscribed all of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, judge my giving money to that charity?
I don’t think my insistence that my money only went to rebuild homes would be seen as much of a defence.
Finally I would like to respond to John Morris’ last sentence which implies that I am calling on all Friends to withhold their taxes. This is not so. Conscience is expressly focused on changing the law so that taxpayers can opt to have the military part of their taxes diverted to conflict resolution. And that is why they are worth supporting.
Robin Brookes
Capitalism
To the views expressed by Anthony Gimpel and Wendy Pattinson in answer to Paul Hodgkin’s essay calling for a testimony against capitalism (5 April, 19 April and 26 April) the following may be added.
Capitalism, relying as it does for its very existence on the pursuit of wealth, is profoundly unChristian. Jesus preached repeatedly that the love of money cannot coexist with seeking first the Kingdom of Heaven, as we are bid to do (Matthew 6:19-21, 24, 31-34, and so on). The love of money – in other words, capitalism – does not only destroy our world; it destroys our humanity, our soul (individually and corporately).
And this knowledge is not only a Christian insight. William Wordsworth knew it when he wrote, ‘The world is too much with us, late and soon/Getting and spending we lay waste our powers’, and wishes that he might be ‘A pagan nourished in a creed outworn’ if only he could recover a vision of nature that has been destroyed by the coming capitalist monster.
Capitalism depends on our being made to want ever more gadgetry, ever more of the ‘experiences’ delivered by mass tourism, and delivers us a world of plastic gratification which cannot satisfy our hunger for real food and which destroys the world from which it is extracted.
And, yes, we need to recognise that the capitalism of the last two centuries has delivered us more prosperity than previous ages could dream of, along with the capability of extending our lives and preserving our teeth.
Moreover, attempts to replace capitalism have not, so far, met with resounding success. Nevertheless, we must continue to ask what is the cost of capitalism’s munificence?
Jo Dales
Boarding schools
About Henry Lawson’s letter on boarding schools (5 April), he has my full support.
I spent twenty years working with problem children. A number of these were children whose experiences at boarding schools harmed their later life.
Ray Bray
