Category Archives: capitalism

Fantasy and reality at BAE’s AGM

Posted on by symonhill

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the BAE Systems Annual General Meeting. Shareholders were today welcomed into the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, to be greeted by plush carpets, free coffee and glamorous posters featuring BAE staff saying how great it is to work for one of the world’s largest arms dealers (they don’t quite put it quite like that).

Afterwards, the AGM itself was underway, with presentations and displays about “total performance” and “a culture of responsible behaviour”. A brief film attempted to demonstrate the diversity of BAE’s staff (not reflected on the board of directors), with gender, age and ethnicity very varied. None of them mentioned what BAE really does. The worker on the film with a visible mobility impairment did not mention how much cheaper mobility equipment would be if those who produce it were to receive the same subsidies that go to arms companies.

After the AGM is over, a free lunch was provided, including a vegetarian option (for all those vegetarian arms dealers).

I attended the AGM today, as I do every year, as a BAE shareholder. Before you get worried about my buying shares in arms companies, I own only one share. Like many others, I own it so that I can turn up and hold the company to account for its arms sales, its corruption and its damage to Britain’s democracy and economy.

The BAE AGM seeks to give an image of the company that has nothing in common with reality. It is far removed from the streets of Bahrain, where peaceful demonstrators have been killed by a regime armed by BAE. It is very distant from Tanzania, where corruption led the government to buy BAE weapons they didn’t need, reducing funding to tackle poverty and provide healthcare. And it’s also several hundred miles south of Brough, where around 900 of BAE’s workers are facing redundancy as the company continues to find it more convenient to employ people overseas.

At least, it would be removed from all those things if the BAE bosses had their way. I have never seen BAE chair Dick Olver more flustered than he was today. He essentially lost control of the meeting, which broke down into heckling as he patronised workers from Brough, said he was “proud” to sell jets to Bahrain and refused to rule out arming the Saudi regime even if they used BAE’s weapons to suppress a peaceful uprising. He would not even make an apology to the Tanzanian people.

When it was suggested that arms dealers might have difficulty sleeping, he insisted “all members of BAE’s board sleep very well”.

What’s the point, I sometimes think? What’s the point of going along like this, year after year? It’s not as if we’re likely to change his mind. But there are two good practical reasons for doing so. Firstly, our questions often get reported in the media, which makes more people aware of the nature of BAE. Secondly, board members often say things that can be quoted in future debates and campaigns by those of us seeking to draw attention to the reality of their business.

Today, there was another good reason. The AGM was full of workers from Brough, facing redundancy. Dick Olver made some attempt to set the anti-arms activists and the Brough workers against each other. He suggested that Brough might have remained open had the company received more orders from Saudi Arabia – after the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) had attacked sales to the Saudi regime.

But this strategy didn’t work. The Brough workers and the anti-arms activists were soon cheering and applauding each other’s comments, particularly those about diversifying to work on renewable energy to move away from arms and keep jobs at Brough. Today, we were able to tell the workers at Brough that we’re on their side. Serious government investment in renewable energy – a far more stable prospect for the future than arms – would make use of engineering skills in Britain and could save lives in Bahrain.

This is the one day in the year when some of the most powerful arms dealers in the world have to listen to the voices of anyone who wants to challenge them. On the other 364 days, they can hide behind their bank accounts, security staff and PR departments. Not today. Today, they were confronted with reality.

For a detailed report on today’s BAE AGM, please see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16612. 

A day to speak up about dictator debt

Posted on by symonhill

The thirtieth anniversary of the Falklands War took a bizarre twist this week. It emerged that the UK is still demanding repayment from the Argentine government for money they borrowed in 1979 – with which they bought weapons to invade the Falklands.

Documents uncovered by the Jubilee Debt Campaign reveal that the Foreign Secretary at the time, David Owen, recognised the brutal nature of Argentina’s then military junta, but authorised the sale all the same.

Lending money to despots, and selling them weapons, has been a feature of UK government policy under Tory, Labour and coalition governments. When these dictatorships are replaced with more democratic forms of government, their countries are often weighed down with the inherited debt. When repayment is demanded, it’s the people, not the dictators, who lose out.

A shady government unit stands at the centre of this scandal. UK Export Finance – previously called the Export Credit Guarantee Department – is part of Vince Cable’s Department for Business. UK Export Finance has long backed projects supporting arms, aviation and fossil fuels. It has done business with some of the world’s most oppressive regimes.

UK Export Finance is still demanding millions for deals done with former dictators in Egypt, Indonesia, Argentina and Iraq.

In opposition, Vince Cable criticised the department and called for its debts to be audited. Now he is against this policy.

On Tuesday 17 April – the Global Day of Action on Military Spending – people concerned about this situation will stage a nonviolent protest outside the offices of the Department for Business,between 8.30 and 9.30am. The protest is organised by Jubilee Debt Campaign and the London group of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).

The Department is on Victoria Street in London. To read more about the event on Facebook, please visit http://www.facebook.com/events/277426555670117. I hope to see you there!

The Occupy movement and the challenge to take sides

Posted on by symonhill

Christians, like others, have been challenged to take sides by the Occupy movement’s resistance to economic injustice. I wrote an article about this for Reform (a monthly Christian magazine) following the eviction of Occupy London Stock Exchange, during which I was dragged by police from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral as I prayed. The article is now available online, on the Ekklesia website. Please click here to see it.

Invulnerable people

Posted on by symonhill

Regular readers of my blog (a small but much appreciated group!) may wonder if I’ve got a bit obsessed with the Occupy eviction and my forced removal from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral. Looking back now, I realise that my last five blog entries have been about it.

A few people who know me personally have also hinted that I might be getting a bit carried away with the subject. My focus is perhaps unsurprising given the shock of being removed by police while praying on the steps of a church. However, I wouldn’t want anyone to think that it’s the only thing I’ve been thinking about. As well as being more than usually occupied with some personal and family issues, I’ve been writing some Bible reading notes on the theme of peace and continuing with my part-time role at at The Friend magazine.

Nonetheless, I’ve been hampered over recent weeks by own mental health problems. I’ve written before on this site about my problems with anxiety, panic attacks and obsessive compulsive disorder. They are less severe than they were some years ago, but they still bother me, and sometimes they become quite bad again. This has been the case over the last month or so.

The experience has led me to reflect on the phrase “vulnerable people”, which I keep hearing. It was heard in the court case over the eviction of Occupy London Stock Exchange, when the City of London Corporation said that the camp attracted “vulnerable people”. (Is that a bad thing? You could say the same about churches.) Critics of the government’s assault on the welfare state warn that they will harm “vulnerable people”.

I share their criticisms, but find this term somewhat worrying. Firstly, because it can imply that disabled people are inherently vulnerable as individuals, rather than made vulnerable by society. But my biggest objection to the term is that it implies that the majority of people are invulnerable.

I have yet to meet any invulnerable people. We are all vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent. Different people are vulnerable in different ways. This is the condition of humanity. It is more particularly the condition of humanity in an unjust world beset by the sins of violence and inequality. A society that values money and markets over people and planet will naturally make more of us more vulnerable in more ways.

Social justice is not about “vulnerable people” being “looked after” by those who are supposedly not vulnerable. Nor is it about escaping vulnerability. It is about building personal, social, political and economic relationships rooted in love and justice. We are able to do this only if we recognise our vulnerability and our mutual needs. To use the words of a recent statement by Quakers involved in the Occupy movement, we are all “broken people in a broken world”. There can be no healing if we do not recognise this.

New Dean of St Paul’s defends eviction

Posted on by symonhill

I admire David Ison, who was appointed Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral earlier this week, for speaking up for same-sex marriage in his first national media interview after being appointed. I’m sorry that he ruined it within days by defending the forced eviction of Occupy London Stock Exchange in language that manages to be both evasive and insulting.

He has yet to take up his post at St Paul’s and was not, of course, appointed when the Cathedral colluded in the violent removal of people who were peacefully sitting or praying on the cathedral steps. At least he has had the courage to express an opinion on the issue. The current authorities at St Paul’s have failed to do despite nearly two weeks in which large numbers of people have urged them to make a clear statement on the issue.

Asked about the eviction by the Church Times, Ison said, “It’s difficult what you do when people refuse to acknowledge reality and to obey court orders. But, if people choose to make a demonstration by not obeying the order of the court, that’s up to them. The Church’s role is to help people recognise reality in all sorts of ways, and that includes helping Occupy recognise when it’s time to move on.”

The new Dean is running the risk of appearing deliberately evasive. He must surely be aware of the reality that the cathedral steps were not covered by the court order, which authorised an eviction of land belonging to the City of London Corporation, not to St Paul’s Cathedral.

I also find it rather arrogant to be told that views that do not fit with David Ison’s are not “reality”. In theological terms, sin and selfishness can be seen as resulting from our alienation from the reality that is found in God. We are all more detached from that reality than we should be. In contrast, David Ison appears to be equating “reality” with the perceptions and priorities of those who hold power in the world. This may not be his intention, but that is how it comes across.

I hope the new Dean will also challenge the City of London and its institutions to recognise the reality of an economic crash built on fantasies of endless money. There is no reality in the false gods of money and markets, which are merely human constructions.

Another insult from St Paul’s Cathedral

Posted on by symonhill

Following the clamour since Tuesday morning about the involvement of St Paul’s in the eviction of Occupy London Stock Exchange, the cathedral have now released another statement. It is longer than yesterday’s statement, but completely fails to answer the questions that are being asked from all sides.

Police claimed on Tuesday morning that they had the cathedral’s permission to drag people away from the steps of St Paul’s, including several of us who were peacefully kneeling in prayer. The next morning, the cathedral issued a statement that ignored the issue. Under pressure from journalists, they said that they had not given police specific permission, but implied that they were OK with what had happened and had effectively given police permission in advance.

Their comments yesterday added insult to injury. Today, they have added insult to insult to injury, with another statement that doesn’t say anything.

How long will they keep this up? They have given many people the impression that, when push comes to shove, their loyalties lie with the City of London and its false gods of money and violence. It is vital that we proclaim a different and more authentic vision of the Christian Gospel than this. It is also vital that we keep pressing the Cathedral Chapter to answer the questions they are still avoiding.

  1. What communication did they have with the police and City of London Corporation about the details and timing of the eviction?
  2. Did they in any way give permission for the police to remove people from the cathedral steps?
  3. Do they think it was right that this happened?
  4. If they do, will they have the courtesy to admit it and tell us why? If not, will they apologise?

The cathedral’s statement makes collusion clear

Posted on by symonhill

It is now clear that the authorities at St Paul’s Cathedral were complicit in this morning’s violent eviction of the Occupy London Stock Exchange camp.

Along with several others, I was dragged by police from my knees as I prayed on the steps of the cathedral. My Ekklesia colleague Jonathan Bartley was kicked in the back as he was similarly removed. An Anglican was pulled away as she she sat with her hands held prayerfully together. A Quaker activist was hauled down the steps as he called out the Lord’s Prayer.

The situation was of course far worse for those who have made their home in the camp over the last four months. They saw it viciously ripped down in front of them.

The eviction order applied only to land owned by the Corporation of London. It did not apply to the cathedral’s land. The police said at the time that the cathedral had given them permission to forcibly remove people from the steps. Today there have been conflicting reports about the extent to which the cathedral sanctioned the action.

The Cathedral Chapter published the following statement this morning:

“In the past few months, we have all been made to re-examine important issues about social and economic justice and the role the cathedral can play. We regret the camp had to be removed by bailiffs but we are fully committed to continuing to promote these issues through our worship, teaching and Institute.

“The cathedral is open today and set aside for prayer and reflection. The cathedral is accessible to everyone. The area currently cordoned off is for essential repairs to damaged paving. Clergy are available throughout the day for pastoral care and support.”

The statement adds insult to injury. I am truly offended by being told that “the cathedral is accessible to everyone” when I was three times removed while attempting to pray there last night (twice on the steps and then again for being “too close” to the steps). I am pleased that “clergy are available throughout the day for pastoral care and support”. Where were the clergy last night, as people sat crying while their homes were destroyed?

The statement led BBC Radio 4 to report that “St Paul’s Cathedral has expressed regret..”, but this can give a misleading impression. The statement expresses “regret that the camp had to be removed by bailiffs”. But it did not have to be removed by bailiffs. The cathedral’s statement gives the lie to the notion that they are neutral on the question of eviction. Even if they are argue that eviction was necessary, this is a far cry from backing police who are throwing praying Christians from the steps of a church.

The cathedral’s press office has been telling journalists today that “the police did not ask for permission from us regarding any aspect of the action taken last night”. At first glance, this appears to suggest that the police were lying. However, it gets more complicated. The press office’s comment goes on to say that “we were clear that we would not stand in the way of the legal process or prevent the police from taking the steps they needed to deal with the situation in an orderly and peaceful manner”.

This implies that the cathedral had given the go-ahead in advance for police to do what they considered necessary. This is arguably worse. It would stretch credulity to breaking point to suggest that the cathedral authorities did not realise that people were likely to be removed from the steps. Given that they knew of plans for a ring of prayer at the camp, last night’s images can hardly have been a surprise to them.

The Cathedral Chapter must now tell us clearly exactly what they knew and when. They must comment explicitly on the issue of Christians being dragged from their knees as they prayed on the steps. If they think this was right, they should say why. Furthermore, the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, needs to tell us how much he knew and what he thinks about it.

Throughout this controversy, the staff of St Paul’s Cathedral have been divided and inconsistent. The cathedral authorities have swung back and forth, repeatedly giving out mixed messages about their loyalties. That, at least, is over. The cathedral’s authorities last night made their loyalties clear for all to see.

Urgent questions for St Paul’s Cathedral

Posted on by symonhill

I have been forcibly removed from buildings by police on several occasions, but never before have I been dragged from the steps of a church as I knelt in prayer. I am profoundly shocked to have been dragged from my knees as I prayed about economic injustice on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral.

What is even more alarming is that this seems to have been done with the support and approval of the cathedral authorities.

The incident took place during the forced eviction of the Occupy London Stock Exchange camp. I have not long got back home, having spend the night at the eviction. I was praying with other Christians. We declared our solidarity with people of other religions and none who are resisting economic injustice with active nonviolence.

On two occasions, the police physically pushed back a group of people who were praying. Later, we decided to pray on the cathedral steps. We knew – or thought we knew – that we couldn’t be removed from there, because the eviction order related only to the land owned by the City of London Corporation. It didn’t cover the cathedral.

But then police threatened us with arrest if we did not move. They told us, several times, that the cathedral had given them permission to remove us.

I was one of several people who were removed while praying. I’m not sure how many. There was Anglican, Quaker and Buddhist involvement, and probably more. Some were hurt more than me. One Quaker was carried down by several officers as he loudly prayed the Lord’s Prayer. I was dragged away from the steps by two policeman, but I returned shortly afterwards. I was recognised, and thought I would be arrested, but I was again removed to the bottom of the steps, which the police now surrounded.

I knelt there reciting Psalm 23 (which got a bit garbled in my confusion), before the police told me I was too close to the steps. I again politely refused to move, and was carried further away.

This whole outrage raises urgent questions for the cathedral authorities and the bishop of London.

  • Were they aware of the eviction date and time before it happened?
  • If so, did they attempt to influence the procedures in any way, for example by arguing for a more humane time of day?
  • Did they really give permission for the removal of peaceful people from their steps? If so, when did they do so?
  • Why did they choose to take this action?
  • Do they still believe it was the right thing to do?

Throughout the night, we were approached by people, many of them non-Christians, who thanked us for praying at the eviction. As we watched the people destroy their peaceful camp, I wondered if it was enough to offer. But it was apparently too much for the Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral.

Eviction of Occupy: Why I’m joining the ring of prayer

Posted on by symonhill

Occupy London Stock Exchange are likely to be evicted from their camp near St Paul’s Cathedral, within the next few days. I am determined to be praying at the camp as the eviction happens. Along with others, I will attempt to form a ring of prayer.

Since the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of eviction last week, there have been various calls for the occupiers to leave “peacefully”. It is clear that most of the people making these calls mean that they want them to leave “passively”. But it is possible to be peaceful without being passive. Indeed, active nonviolence is an alternative to both violence and passivity.

Ever since the idea of a ring of prayer was first promoted in October, it has met with an enthusiastic welcome from both religious and non-religious supporters of the Occupy movement. It has also been criticised – sometimes constructively, sometimes with pointless aggression. Its purpose has occasionally been misunderstood.

The idea grew out of Twitter discussions in October, shortly after the cathedral’s staff closed their doors and asked the protesters to leave. The protesters were outside the cathedral only because they had been prevented from camping any closer to their real target – the London Stock Exchange. Along with many other Christians, I was angry that the cathedral’s leadership seemed to be more concerned with the inconvenience of the camp than with the damage and destruction inflicted by the City of London.

On Twitter, I said that I would pray at the camp if it was evicted. Others had expressed similar views, and a London-based Christian activist suggested a ring of prayer around the camp. I thought this was an excellent idea, and it was soon mentioned to journalists. There was coverage in the mainstream media, but the idea went quiet until the occupiers found themselves in court earlier this year. I then joined with other members of Christianity Uncut to make some basic plans for prayer at the camp at the time of eviction.

We have been overwhelmed with supportive messages about the plan. Some have also criticised us, suggesting we are being too hasty or that it will not be effective. Others have been more aggressive. Some of these are anti-religious supporters of Occupy who think we are trying to impose Christianity on them. Others are Christians opposed to Occupy who think we are supporting a dangerous extremist movement and making a mockery of prayer. Several people have accused of being naive in thinking that we will be able to form a ring of prayer around the camp in the midst of the chaos and confusion of an eviction.

The last accusation misses the point. We may not be able to form a literal ring, but that does not matter. If the police cordon off the camp, it may be that only a few people get there to pray before this happens (including, of course, those sleeping in the camp). If so, others will pray outside the cordon. Their witness will be visible to the police and the media, and some may still aim to get in the way of the bailiffs.

With regards to the other points, I should emphasise that I cannot speak on behalf of the many people planning to join the ring of prayer. Not everybody’s reasons for joining are identical. Some basic principles and guidelines are available by clicking here. I can, however, give my own reasons for joining the ring of prayer.

Firstly, by praying at the eviction we will be bearing witness to the power of God’s love and justice. This is a subtler but greater power than the powers of money and markets idolised in the City of London, or the power of violence in which bailiffs place their trust. God’s power will of course be present whatever we do. We will provide a testimony to the choice faced by all people to respond to that power.

Secondly, the camp, and the wider Occupy movement, will know that there are many Christians who support their stance. This is particularly important given the shameful actions of St Paul’s Cathedral. It is not necessary to agree with every aspect of the Occupy movement in order to stand alongside it in resisting economic injustice.

Thirdly, the ring of prayer, along with the many other acts of active nonviolence during the eviction, will give the public and the media an image of the reality of power in the situation. Pictures of people being dragged from their knees as they pray will expose the violence of the Corporation and undermine attempts to portray the Occupy movement as violent. This sort of imagery was well understood by Gandhi, who argued that active nonviolence should force the powerful to choose between two things that they don’t want. The Corporation of London do not want to leave the camp in place. Nor do they want their violent nature exposed. It is a choice with which they will soon be confronted.

Wallace Benn and Stephen Green – the confusion continues

Posted on by symonhill

The saga of Wallace Benn and the pro-rape booklet goes on and on. Having first withdrawn his endorsement of the booklet, then apologised, he has now offered what appears to be an attempt at an explanation.

Wallace Benn, the Suffragen Bishop of Lewes, recommended a booklet called Britain in Sin, written by Stephen Green of Christian Voice. The booklet supports the legalisation of rape within marriage and the criminalisation of same-sex relationships. It opposes the welfare state, equal pay for men and women, power-sharing in Northern Ireland and the UK’s membership of the United Nations.

On Tuesday, I was one of several bloggers who drew attention to the bishop’s endorsement, which was quoted on Green’s website. The next day, the Diocese of Chichester (which Benn works for) sent me a statement from Wallace Benn disassociating himself from the booklet. I blogged again, pleased that Benn had withdrawn his endorsement but saddened that he had not apologised. The next morning, his press officer sent me another statement, containing an apology.

I thought that might be the end of the matter, although I was frustrated that Benn had offered no explanation of how he came to endorse the booklet in the first place.

But yesterday I received an email from an Anglican living in the Diocese of Chichester. He had written to John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester (Wallace Benn’s boss), to express his concern over Benn’s comments. He has now received an email from Wallace Benn in response. While my correspondent asks not to be named, he has kindly given me permission to quote the email.

In this email, Wallace Benn declared:

“My comment on the first publication of Britain in Sin in 1997 was ‘This makes interesting and disturbing reading. We desperately need to understand, as a nation, that our Creator knows what is best for us, and to return to His way as the best way to live’. It was never my intention to endorse particular contentions in the book, but to express concern about the need of our nation to follow the way of our Creator God. If my comment has given a different impression to some, it is regrettable, and I am deeply sorry.

“I was not aware that my name was still being used in any way in connection with the book and I have asked for any reference to it to be removed from the Christian Voice website. I am sure you are also aware of the Statement I have made disassociating myself from the book.”

It appears that he gave his endorsement when Green’s booklet was first published, in 1997. This was also the year in which Benn became a bishop. It’s not clear whether the endorsement came before or after his appointment. This date was before Green’s methods became an embarrassment to so many other conservative evangelicals, who began to distance themselves from him. But the contents of the booklet remain the same.

Nonetheless, Wallace Benn’s latest comment raises more questions than it answers. He says that it was never his intention “to endorse particular contentions in the book”. Of course, it is possible to endorse a book’s general approach without agreeing with every point that it makes. It is, however, difficult to read any part of Green’s booklet without encountering bigotry very, very quickly.

It may be that Wallace Benn merely wanted to go along with the general approach of those who argue that Britain must “return” to being a “Christian country”. This is popular with certain conservative groups who would nonetheless oppose Green’s positions on rape, the welfare state and so on. Ironically, Green’s booklet is a reminder that the “Christian country” to which they would return was a place in which men could easily beat and rape their wives.

The Anglican who sent me the email he received from Wallace Benn has pointed out that he originally raised the issue with John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester. John Hind merely forwarded on his email to Wallace Benn, without expressing any comment himself. I find it worrying that Hind did not feel the need to comment further, at least to express approval of Benn’s disassociation of himself from the booklet.

Again, let me emphasise that I do not wish to encourage personal hostility to Wallace Benn or John Hind. We have all sinned and God offers us forgiveness. Rather, I want to draw attention to the surprisingly casual attitude towards misogyny and homophobia that appears to be displayed in parts of the Church of England.