Meeting for Sufferings: Speaking out
Ian Kirk-Smith reports on the discussion about advocacy at Meeting for Sufferings
In the early eighteenth century many of the tools of contemporary campaigning – such as slogans, logos, public meetings and boycotts – were developed by Quakers and others as part of the campaign against the slave trade. Today, a Quaker faces imprisonment because of his conscientious objection to taking part in the census. Meanwhile, in parliament, another Quaker talks to MPs about the consequences welfare reform legislation may have on the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Quakers have spoken ‘truth to power’ for centuries and, in doing so, have had to use many different kinds of advocacy, whether ‘speaking out’ in a private capacity or on behalf of the Religious Society of Friends. If Friends are to be taken seriously as a faith group then they must continue to ‘speak out in the world’ confidently, clearly and effectively.
This concern formed the main theme of Meeting for Sufferings, held at Friends House, London, on Saturday 4 February, when Friends looked at many different aspects of advocacy today.
Centrally managed work
Paul Parker, recording clerk of Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) stressed that one of the key roles of the Yearly Meeting and its staff was to carry out advocacy on behalf of Quakers in Britain.
He told Meeting for Sufferings of the three main areas in which advocacy is carried out by BYM staff: work with decision-makers, work with opinion-formers and campaigning activities. He also acknowledged the extraordinary amount of advocacy being carried out throughout Britain by Quakers at a local, regional and national level.
There can often be a tension, he added, between the pressure to respond promptly to an important story and fidelity to words such as those in Quaker faith & practice 3.27:
Individuals and groups must be careful not to claim to speak for Friends without explicit authority.
This tension has been greatly increased by the extraordinary speed in which advances in the technology of communication, such as Twitter and Facebook, have emerged.
These developments have, also, created many more opportunities for ‘speaking out’. They have, in addition, forced Friends to clarify what they mean by a ‘public statement’.
Paul emphasised that much of the advocacy work done on behalf of Quakers was performed in ‘quiet ways’ and it was ‘not just what we say but how we say it’ that mattered. He stressed the urgent need, in a crowded media world, to create a very ‘clear and confident Quaker voice’. Friends then heard some ways in which this voice is being expressed in centrally managed work.
Speaking Truth to Power
An overview of the Quaker voice in parliamentary and political affairs was given by Michael Bartlet, the parliamentary liaison secretary for BYM.
He described his work as providing a ‘contemporary channel for expressing our spiritual insights publicly’ and highlighted the advocacy done with MPs, peers and NGOs to amend the Armed Forces Bill (2011), to provide a legal right of discharge to under eighteen year olds; the work on ‘reframing’ the issue of same sex marriage as one of religious liberty as much as equality and the need to act on the Welfare Reform Bill which, he believed, ‘strikes at the heart of the Beveridge Welfare State’. Michael also talked about how positive his recent experiences of working, in partnership, with other faith groups had been, particularly at the party conferences and in parliament.
Anne Van Staveren, the media relations officer of BYM, stressed that ‘our reputation, fundraising and outreach are all affected by media coverage’. She cited a number of positive examples of recent media coverage and reminded Friends that the work can be both ‘proactive and reactive.’ Anne emphasised that ‘we need to have something distinctive to say’ on a subject and that it was important ‘to respond in a measured way, to be very clear, and to have the necessary authority’.
Helen Drewery, general secretary of Quaker Peace & Social Witness, provided an overview and described campaigning as focusing on ‘building a broad public consensus for (or against) a particular change’. She saw campaigning as ‘drawing people in’ and reminded Friends that many methods of campaigning today originated in the anti-slavery movement.
In discussing examples of the support given to topical campaigns, such as Make Poverty History and the Occupy movement, she stressed the word ‘witness’ and said that this involved ‘being patterns and examples’ and of ‘living a life true to our Quaker values’.
A new department
Friends were told of the restructuring at Friends House that will assist in creating a strong and confident Quaker voice and of ensuring that it would be more regularly heard. The new department of Communications and Services will include a team that is more sharply focused on advocacy and public relationships. This will bring all the strategic responsibility for advocacy with decision-makers and opinion-formers into one place.
Marisa Johnson, executive secretary of the Europe and Middle Eastern Section of Friends World Committee for Consultation, described some of the advocacy work undertaken on behalf of Quakers in Geneva and Brussels. She cited the quiet and effective work being done in areas such as human rights, criminal justice, sustainability and economic justice and gave some insights into the range of concerns held by Quakers in various European countries.
A concern
Attention then turned to a minute of concern by Southern East Anglia Area Meeting. It contained the offer of a substantial amount of money to fund a specific post within Britain Yearly Meeting. This post would support the work of parliamentary liaison. It was made clear that, at present, it was not in right procedure for an Area Meeting to determine centrally managed work. Friends in an Area Meeting may have a sincere concern and wish to fund it at a centrally managed level, but there was no mechanism at present to deal with such an offer. Several Friends spoke in appreciation of the generosity of this offer and said that ways should be found to use it to strengthen the advocacy at Friends House.
Good advocacy
Meeting for Sufferings then continued to explore different aspects of advocacy. A Friend commended Quakers to be much more professional in their approach to outside bodies. He said that many Area Meetings had registered as charities but that a worryingly large number of them had not got their accounts in on time. This failure can both undermine the reputation of Friends and compromise their work as advocates.
Good advocacy, a Friend said, involves opinions that are based on authoritative knowledge. When they are not then they are just empty opinions – as useful as those heard in pubs up and down the country every night of the week. There was a danger that more money was going to be put into advocacy when it might be better spent on knowledge. He said that ‘Me too’ advocacy was not going to be taken very seriously. The best Quaker advocacy springs from solid research, strong knowledge and deep personal experience.
A northern Friend agreed that ‘knowledge is the key’ but reminded Meeting for Sufferings that there were different kinds of advocacy. There was an advocacy that happens quietly behind closed doors, that involves building relationships over time, getting people of different views together in ‘neutral spaces’, and that contributes, for example, to nurturing a culture of peace rather than definite outcomes.
A Friend said that she had picked up, during Meeting for Sufferings, words such as ‘focus’, ‘process’, ‘time’ and ‘knowledge’. She said that she would like to add, in terms what helps to make good advocacy, another word: ‘imagination’.
Action and strategy
The distinction between ‘action’ and ‘strategy’ was highlighted. A Friend said that actions were most effective when they were part of an effective strategy. She recalled a friend who ‘always wanted to get up and do things’ and who got frustrated with people who just ‘talked about doing things’. Actions, such as the generous offer to fund a position in Britain Yearly Meeting, are most effective when placed in the context of an overall strategy.
It was clear that unity had not been reached and that further time needed to be given to the subject of advocacy. Further time and discernment also needed to be given to the generous offer from Southern East Anglia Area Meeting. Jonathan Fox, clerk of BYM trustees, said: ‘we feel that we are not able to accept the offer at this time’ but stressed that it would be followed up. There was agreement, however, on the crucial importance of advocacy, the re-structuring being made to enhance it in BYM and appreciation for the centrally managed work being done.
A Friend, choosing her words carefully, reminded those present that their ‘encouragement for work to be done’ meant that difficult choices had sometimes to be made. These choices, inevitably, had financial implications.
Friends may wish to do everything. They should only do what they can do well and what they can fund properly.
