Letters - 18 November 2011
From poppies to politics
Remembrance poppies
I trawled the Royal British Legion website to try and find any condemnation of warfare and killing. There was none.
I did, though, come across a picture showing armed squaddies wearing combat uniform in what looked to be a war zone, with the caption, ‘It’s time to do your bit for our armed forces’.
Are we then correct in assuming that Remembrance Day has degenerated into a giant military propaganda exercise, and can we be forgiven for believing that the symbol of the red poppy has been hijacked by politicians and others into becoming the best recruiting sergeant that the army, navy and air force will ever possess?
Keith Davis
I have been reflecting much on our Quaker witness during the annual period of Remembrance. I wear a white poppy together with a red one. When anyone draws attention to my white poppy – often saying they have never seen one before – I explain its origin. Made originally in the early 1930s by mothers, wives, daughters, sisters and sweethearts of men killed in the 1914-18 war, they are a positive symbol of working for peace, rather than just remembrance.
I also explain that, for me, they reflect the memory of civilians whose lives were taken or damaged by war and the grief of those who mourn for those they loved. Now made and distributed by the Peace Pledge Union, white poppies can be a beacon for our testimony to peace and all attempts to find alternatives to violence.
I pay tribute to the work of the Royal British Legion, which provides much support to members of the armed services injured in war and to bereaved families. That is why I wear both a red and white poppy.
I would like to see every Quaker Meeting prepare for future remembrance anniversaries with a co-ordinated approach to selling white poppies, and using such a focus to explain our peace testimony through local media and other means.
Michael Wright
Tax and financial transparency
The question of tax evasion and avoidance has been raised several times in the Friend this year. Last week’s edition (11 November) covered Quaker involvement at the ‘Occupy London’ camp near St Paul’s. The occupation itself has given wide publicity to many aspects of economic injustice, including the way taxation is dealt with. The issue has moved to the top of the political agenda.
Ray Robinson’s article (15 July) on tax havens provided invaluable information, including reference to Christian Aid’s campaign and other churches’ support for it. The Inland Revenue’s conservative estimate of money lost to the UK is £40bn per annum, while the Tax Justice campaign (www.taxjustice.net) puts it at £70bn annually. The damage caused to poor countries worldwide is massive.
Occupy London have called for an end to global tax injustice. In their current dialogue with the Corporation of London they are asking them to publish comprehensive information about all financial dealings in the City and to make the entirety of its activities subject to the Freedom of Information Act. These are bold and ambitious requests and it will be interesting to see what comes of them.
In the meantime, the Tax and Financial Transparency Bill with similar, though more limited, aims, sponsored by Caroline Lucas MP, is due for its second reading on 25 November.
I urge Friends to write to their MP asking for their attendance at the debate and support for the motion. Action Aid has provided a simple means of taking this action at www.actionaid.org.uk for those who have online access.
Janet Toye
Nuclear power
Chris Gwyntopher and readers of the ‘Talking Point’ article (28 October) may be reassured by some facts regarding three aspects of nuclear power.
Firstly, regarding the terrible earthquake and tsunami that occurred on 11 March 2011, the final report on implications for the UK makes clear that when the earthquake struck, the eleven reactors then operating at affected sites in Japan all shut down automatically as designed. There have been no fatalities reported from exposure to radiation. Since the accident, the Japanese government has tested 219,000 residents for radiation exposure; none have shown results high enough to warrant health concerns.
Secondly, although nuclear power is not ‘carbon neutral’ when building work and decommissioning are taken into account, this is not disturbing. Energy is used in the fabrication, construction and erection of wind turbines as well. CO2 is by no means the only greenhouse gas, and nor is carbon emission the only measure of comparison. Economically (and who is not concerned about energy prices?) electricity generation from nuclear, gas and coal costs about 4-8 p/kWh, but gas and coal costs will be higher when carbon tax is applied; energy from wind turbines costs 8-30 p/kWh and is only available intermittently.
Thirdly, as shown in the book Sustainable energy – without the hot air by David MacKay, there is sufficient recoverable uranium for the next 1,000 years. When ‘breeder’ reactors are built they will do away with the need to transport radioactive waste and so we will stop worrying about that as well. The present inventory of radioactive waste is very small in volume and the task of moving it to secure storage will shortly be providing welcome employment in Cumbria.
Ian McFarlane
Sustaining faith
Jenny Mathieson (21 October) asks us: ‘What sustenance is there in our faith?’
This is an important question and Jenny implicitly links lack of sustenance with our declining numbers. ‘… all we seem to be offering’, she says, ‘is an hour of silence and a tolerant support of all races, creeds, ages and genders’. This is a theme that comes up time and again amongst Quakers in Britain, most recently in Simon Best’s lecture at Yearly Meeting Gathering in Canterbury.
Such questions and concerns make me recognise I am fortunate to be part of a Meeting that does, in fact, place considerable emphasis on supporting and developing our ‘spiritual’ lives and offers continual ‘sustenance’ in a whole variety of ways: from listening groups, meditation groups, monthly enquirers’ groups, retreats, reflection/discussion groups, as well as the sheer enjoyment of being together (craft groups, book groups, singing groups, shared meals and celebrations).
I have hesitated to send this letter for fear of sounding complacent but such an ongoing feast of sustenance does pose questions, in my view, about the relationship between the amount of energy in Meetings and the number of people attending – which, by the way, in our case continues to increase. I would like to hear from other Meetings who are ‘bucking the trend’ in terms of rising numbers to see if there are any areas of commonality from which we can all learn.
Margaret Cook
Principles and politics
May I first of all say how grateful I am for your edition for the John Bright bicentenary. The interface between politics and faiths has concerned me for a very long time and it is surely of more importance now than ever before. In a modest way I have stood for office myself and served on a London council. I also stood for parliament – with Quaker principles and ideals very much in mind – and though (thanks to dedicated colleagues) I got 14,000 votes I wasn’t elected. The experience, however, left me with the question that, having gained so much towards democracy since Bright’s time (universal suffrage and the intention that parliament should be a true image of the people and not an assembly of governors), should we not now begin to seek to implement our best goals by democratic legislation? This was finally done with the abolition of slavery, racial discrimination, and the right to conscientious objection, so that we gain power for truth as well as speaking truth to power.
Wiser friends than me have warned me that Quakers (and the like-minded) are wary of the compromises that politics would seem to demand. I understand and respect this. However, when we compromise we compromise with something that is already prevalent, and there is no reason to suppose that Quaker ideas and ideals (the ending of all war and violence, for instance, as the resolution of conflict) should not be the prevailing norms of the future.
If we resign ourselves only to speaking truth to power we acknowledge that power belongs to others, not to people like ourselves. Democracy, at its best, should tell us the opposite. We are of the people, we have human love and hope at heart. What better administrators could the future hold than some of the young of today taking office tomorrow who are fearless in the political implementation of Quaker principles?
Ian Flintoff
Nigel Norie (4 November) says that our testimonies to equality, peace, integrity and simplicity are completely opposite aims to any current political party.
Not quite. The Green Party comes out pretty well on equality, integrity and simplicity. It is not a pacifist party, which would be a problem to some Friends, but it does oppose nuclear weapons and arms sales, would greatly reduce our armed forces, and has ‘peace building’ as a major plank of its defence policy, which can be read in full at http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd
Dilys Cluer
Green Party councillor
