Stonehenge
I note the photo of cornstarch paint on Stonehenge (28 June). It sparks discussion here in Tasmania. First, can you confirm and clarify if the action was committed by a member or an attender? Second, was the action taken to a Meeting for Worship for Business (MfWfB) for approval and entered into minutes before being performed?
I ask because it would cause alarm and cultural offence if any person painted Uluru in central Australia. Was the person painting the rocks of Stonehenge acting in right order with approval, or was it a private individual who happens to be an attender acting on their own (unregulated) volition? I seek to establish whether they were, in effect, letting their life speak but not necessarily with the prior accord of the Area Meeting, or Britain Yearly Meeting, to act so, as ordinarily achieved through a process of discernment and agreement at a MfWfB. I assume the editor who let the photo and story go to press as worded (28 June) is a Quaker member fully familiar with Quaker faith & practice guidelines, rather than an attender? Our own Australian Annual Yearly Meeting (AYM) is weeks away. Please reply with answers before that, as this monumental defacement of a sacred site is sure to be discussed at our AYM by members and attenders.
Maree-rose Jones
Editor’s note: the Friend does not generally distinguish between members and attenders, unless it is pertinent to certain forms of church business (which perhaps the letter addresses). We aim to treat all who identify as Quakers as Friends.
Just Stop Oil
I am not in unity with the actions of Just Stop Oil in targeting Stonehenge (28 June).
The criticism of Just Stop Oil, as articulated by the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, is that it alienates public support by disrupting the lives of ordinary people, rather than focusing on powerful groups and individuals who have a financial interest in promoting the consumption of fossil fuels.
Surely there is a risk that Just Stop Oil’s recent actions will alienate public support because of a widespread view (which I share) that pre-historic sites should be treated with respect, given they are part of our shared heritage.
I do not accept that Just Stop Oil’s actions are necessary for publicity. The public is generally aware that climate change is a serious issue. I accept that there are situations where peaceful direct action is justifiable, but I do not feel that the recent action at Stonehenge falls into this category.
Richard Pashley
