Jesus, Judaism and same-sex marriage: A response to James Baaden

Posted on by symonhill

Rabbi James Baaden has written a very challenging and helpful blog post in response to a recent article I wrote same-sex marriage. James challenges aspects of my approach to the issue, particularly as they concern Judaism and the Hebrew Bible.

My article – written in response to the Church of England’s statement on same-sex marriage – appeared on the Ekklesia website. James’ article has been posted on the blog of Ray Gaston, an Anglican priest and activist who I have long admired. I am sorry that James and Ray have had to wait a while for my reply. I wanted to wait until I had time to reply carefully and in detail.

James describes my article as Ekklesia’s contribution to the debate on same-sex marriage. However, Ekklesia has made a number of contributions to this debate. This article is a response from me, written as my Ekklesia column on the week in question, rather than an official response from Ekklesia. It is in line with Ekklesia’s general response to the issue. However, any blame for inaccurate portrayal of Judaism or the Hebrew Bible really lies with me rather than with Ekklesia as a whole.

I agree with about ninety percent of James’ article. I have also learnt quite a bit from it. It has challenged me to rethink some of my assumptions and to be careful about the language I use. However, I also have to say that I think James has misunderstood some of my views. At points in his article, he associates me with views that I have not expressed. I very much hope that nobody would regard me as anti-Jewish. I am also delighted that Jews and Christians are campaigning together – and with others – in favour of legal recognition for same-sex marriage. I remember how delighted I was a few months ago when I heard the news that the Movement for Reform Judaism had decided to support marriage equality. Had I been at home – rather than in the office of The Friend magazine – I could quite literally have danced around the room. I remember remarking to a colleague that Jews seemed to be making more progress on the issue than Christians.

James’ article includes some fascinating observations about the lack of anything we would recognise as “marriage” in the Hebrew Bible. I find this really helpful and would like to hear more from him (and others) about this. I admit that I am no expert on the Hebrew Bible and would never claim to be. I am inspired by his observation that “this creates a blank space – a space in which people had to and have to respond to the needs of their times and create new institutions, new possibilities, new practices”.

I also agree that the Hebrew Bible includes many powerful, independently-minded women who are, as James puts it, “independent agents”. It also includes far less positive portrayals of women. The picture is mixed. However, I would be the first to acknowledge that this is also true of the New Testament: Jesus treats women as equals and Paul says that “there is no longer male and female”, but the writer of Ephesians (who most scholars believe was not Paul) tells women to obey their husbands.

I acknowledge the diversity of views and images found within both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. This is important. It is a different position to one with which James seems to associate me early on in his article. He writes:

“As in so many areas, the implication is that the religion of the Old Testament was something rather nasty and was replaced by something thoroughly nice in the form of the changes introduced by Jesus. This is a very common model and maybe it helps advance Ekklesia’s cause and its concerns, but I don’t like it – and I don’ t think it’s accurate.”

This is indeed inaccurate, as well as simplistic and ridiculous. However, I was not not proposing this model. It is not something that I – or Ekklesia – would ever endorse. Nonetheless, I can understand that James is used to coming up against people proposing this model and that what I wrote may have inadvertently given the impression that I was coming from a similar perspective. I am sorry for my poor choice of words.

I want to make it clear that I think that both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, both Jewish tradition and Christians tradition – as well as the scriptures and traditions of many other religions – include a mixture of oppressive and liberating elements, of teachings that uphold injustice and teachings that resist it, of excuses for the love of power and calls for the power of love.

I think James misunderstands my position on the issue of legalism and power. He writes:

“Ekklesia in its statements clearly seeks to depict history in this way – with Jesus as a reformer who rejected the ‘legalism’ and ‘power’ of the ‘Old Testament’. I am not comfortable with this characterisation – and I do not think it serves this particular cause very well.”

I have just re-read my article. It is true that I suggested that Jesus challenged legalism and relationships based on power. But at no point did I suggest that this legalism and power was based on the Hebrew Bible. My thanks go to Keith Hebden, a Church of England priest, who wrote in a comment on James’ post that “Symon doesn’t set up an OT/NT binary in that article. He refers to ‘culture’ obliquely.”

In response, Ray Gaston – who clearly agrees with James – made his own comment, quoting from my original article. However, I would like to suggest that the quote reinforces Keith’s observation that I was referring to “culture” obliquely and not talking about the Hebrew Bible. The passage I wrote, and which Ray quotes, is:

“In a time when only men could initiate divorce – often throwing their wives into social disgrace and even poverty – he [Jesus] criticised casual divorce. In a culture that blamed women for giving men lustful thoughts, he encouraged people to take responsibility for how they dealt with their own thoughts, and be aware of what they did in their hearts.

“In other words, Jesus challenged relationships based on power and money in favour of relationships based on love, equality and self-control. It might be said that he redefined marriage.”

There is nothing in these paragraphs about the Hebrew Bible. I did not suggest that what Jesus was challenging was an authentic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on marriage and relationships. I did not suggest that Judaism is (or was) inherently legalistic, oppressive or sexist. I think Jesus was following the prophetic traditions of the Hebrew Bible in calling his listeners to a deeper and more liberating understanding of scripture. I am, however, truly sorry if I did not make this clear. I also accept that, while the New Testament shows Jesus debating marriage with Pharisees and Saducees, historians differ on the extent to which they consider these two groups to have been representative of Jewish society at the time. I should perhaps have written about Jesus challenging certain groups of people and been a bit less vague when I wrote about the “culture” and “society” of his time. I also readily accept that – as James points out in his article – early Jewish rabbis also sought to make divorce rules fairer.

It seems to me that many societies – including most that have considered themselves Christian – have upheld relationships based on power more than those based on love. I believe that Jesus posed a challenge to this situation, as did many prophets in the Hebrew Bible, later Jewish teachers and many prophets and teachers from outside both Christianity and Judaism.

In saying that Jesus arguably “redefined” marriage, I was not suggesting that he changed the Hebrew Bible’s understanding in favour of something better. I was trying to challenge the perception that marriage has always been the same. I was seeking to satirise the language of Christian opponents of same-sex marriage, who argue that it “redefines” marriage. I was pointing out that understandings of marriage have varied widely over time and space and that Jesus challenged people who seemed to think that their understanding was true for all time.

Please note how I am quoted in Ekklesia’s news story on the Church of England’s statement on same-sex marriage:

“Hill said that Jesus had arguably ‘redefined’ marriage when he challenged casual divorce and disputed the views of some who used selective quotes from the scriptures to back up their own position. He said, ‘In all areas of life, Jesus upheld relationships based on love, equality and respect, rather than on power or legalism’.”

When I say that Jesus’ opponents used selective quotes from the scriptures, I am of course comparing them to those Christians who do the same thing today to justify opposition to same-sex relationships. In my experience, their selective quotes come much more from the New Testament than from the Hebrew Bible. For me, the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees is not about a Christian versus Jews (Jesus was as Jewish as they were). It is about approaches to scripture, tradition and life that are liberating and honest, rather than those that are legalistic and oppressive.

As we look at Jesus’ words today, the primary challenge is for those of us who consider ourselves to be his followers but who too often fall back on trusting in human institutions rather than recognising the “blank spaces” and seeking God’s guidance. Sorry this post is so long! I feel I have a responsibility to make my position clear. I suspect that James and Ray may still disagree with me after reading all this, but I hope that they will understand my position better. Many thanks to them both for encouraging me to think more deeply about this issues, to question my own assumptions and to be more careful in future about choices of wording that may give an inaccurate impression of my beliefs. I look forward to working alongside them on both marriage equality and other issues.

Sex, money and church attacks on governments

Posted on by symonhill

This week, several UK churches have been objecting to government attempts to redefine things.

On Tuesday, the Church of England attacked government plans to “redefine” marriage – i.e. to allow same-sex couples some of the same rights as mixed-sex couples.

On Thursday, the Baptist Union, Methodist Church and United Reformed Church (URC) made a joint statement criticising government plans to redefine poverty. David Cameron wants to measure poverty differently. Even the least cynical person in Britain must surely suspect that this is likely to result in statistics showing a lower level of poverty.

None of these churches are wholly united behind these statements. The Church of England statement triggered protests from its own members, especially given the scaremongering warnings about the danger to church-state relations. Some individual Methodists, Baptists and URC members object to their churches’ recent tendency to issue left-wing statements on economics.

The difference here is not only between one denomination and another. It’s also between comments on marriage and comments on economics, and between reactionary statements and progressive ones.

Which of those distinctions affected the media response is open to debate. The Church of England was making headline news on Tuesday. It was a rare case of a religious story being on the front page of at least three national newspapers. In contrast the statement on poverty doesn’t seem to have led to even the smallest article in any national paper.

Much of the public – especially this week – have understandably got the impression that Christian Churches are fall of reactionaries obsessed by sex. If we want people to notice the radical political and economic views that many British Christians now hold, we have to speak about them more loudly, and more effectively. The media also need to be more aware of what’s really going on in British Christianity. They need to notice Christians saying surprising things – about money as well as sex.

CofE and same-sex marriage: Serving society or protecting privilege?

Posted on by symonhill

The Church of England have today issued their formal response to the government’s consultation on same-sex marriage. They had a great opportunity to acknowledge the diversity of views within their own ranks and to move on from the defensive tone that characterises so many Christian contributions to debates over sexuality.

It is an opportunity that they have completely missed.

There is very little sign of originality or creative thinking in the CofE’s statement. It relies heavily on old, and largely discredited, arguments, to push its opposition to government plans to allow legally recognised civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales.

The CofE’s central argument is the same one used by most other opponents of marriage equality – and it is equally unconvincing. This is the claim that the government is “redefining” marriage, which has been “always and exclusively between a man and a woman”.

Marriage has meant many different things in many different cultures. Very few British Christians would now argue for arranged marriage, let alone forced marriage or marriage while still of childhood age. Yet all these practices have been normal for Christians in certain times and places. When the Married Women’s Property Act was passed in 1882, critics claimed that it was an attack on the sanctity of marriage. Similar claims were made when laws were introduced to protect women from domestic violence and rape (indeed, Stephen Green of the right-wing fundamentalist group Christian Voice still claims that marriage has been undermined by the law that bans men from raping their wives). As a friend of mine put it more bluntly recently, “The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow suggests that we have already redefined marriage”.

The reality is that on many occasions marriage has been about money. As David Graeber points out in his recent history of money and debt, this has worked in several ways. “Brideprice” has involved a man making a payment to his new wife’s father. The opposite system is that of dowries in which the father makes a payment to the groom. In the UK today, money-based approaches to marriage are still strong. They are preserved symbolically in the appalling practice of the bride being “given away”. More alarmingly, they are very visible through the hugely profitable wedding industry. The average cost of a wedding in the UK is now roughly equivalent to the average annual income.

Thankfully, marriage has never been solely about money. Jesus shocked his listeners with his comments on marriage. In a time when only men could initiate divorce – often throwing their wives into social disgrace and even poverty – he criticised casual divorce. In a culture that blamed women for giving men lustful thoughts, he encouraged people to take responsibility for how they dealt with their own thoughts, and be aware of what they did in their hearts.

In other words, Jesus challenged relationships based on power and money in favour of relationships based on love, equality and self-control. It might be said that he redefined marriage.

The second major argument in today’s statement is the claim that men and women are fundamentally different. It speaks of the “biological complentarity” of men and women. Marriage, it argues, “embodies the… distinctiveness of men and women”. It states, “To argue that this [difference] is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals”.

The Church of England leadership do not seem to have noticed the reality, diversity and uniqueness of the human beings they are called to serve. Of course, the writers of this document may well have major problems with transgender and genderqueer people. Disgracefully, the document doesn’t even mention the government’s proposal to scrap the outrageous practice by which a married person who transitions gender automatically has their marriage dissolved. But no-one can deny the reality of intersex people – those who are born without a clearly identifiable biological sex. This includes people whose genitalia do not “fit” with social categories, as well as those whose chromosomes do not “match” their genitals. About one in every 2,500 people are born intersex. Has the Church of England nothing to say about them, let alone to them?

As the theologian Susannah Cornwall points out, the significance of intersex goes beyond its statistical frequency. It disrupts any attempt to fit men and women into simplistic binary categories.

In the past, people argued against mixed-race marriage on the grounds that people of different races are fundamentally different. The vast majority of people in this country would now find such a claim to be morally and intellectually abhorrent. I hope the time will come when we are just as appalled when the claim is applied to people of different genders.

The CofE’s statement includes more scaremongering about the possibility of churches facing legal action for not carrying out same-sex weddings. This is extremely unlikely (not least because almost everyone campaigning for marriage equality respects the right of faith groups to make their own decisions on it). Further, it is only an issue because the Church of England is an established church. This position gives it both privileges and legal responsibilities. If top Anglicans want to have more freedoms, they need to give up their privileges.

Nonetheless, I’m more than ready to agree that one the CofE have a point in one aspect of their response. They suggest that the government’s plans, and the discussion around them, have given the impression that the law recognises two forms of marriage, “civil” and “religious”. In reality, this refers only to a type of ceremony, not to the legal status of the relationship.

Unfortunately, the CofE’s statement does not offer a solution to this confusion other than to try to keep things as they are. But marriage laws are already complicated, confusing and easily misunderstood. It is not proposals for same-sex marriage that are mixing things up. Not only do same-sex couples have different legal rights to mixed-sex couples, but different religious groups have different entitlements when it comes to the authority to perform legally recognised weddings. For example, the law that allows Quakers to carry out their own weddings dates back to the Marriage Act of 1753. It has barely been updated since. The Quakers are one of the groups now seeking the right to carry out same-sex marriages. The government plans to deny them this right, which they will restrict to civil ceremonies, thus making the system even more complicated and discriminatory.

To deal with all this, we need a thorough overhaul of marriage law to recognise the diversity of beliefs and relationships in a plural society. A government consultation aimed at such an overhaul would be a courageous and welcome step indeed.

At the Ekklesia thinktank, we have long argued that celebrating marriage and making commitments should be separated from the (arguably less important) process of gaining legal recognition. This would mean that people could carry out ceremonies with personal, social and – if important to them – religious significance, with legal registration being a separate process. This would allow supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage to act on their beliefs, to promote them, to publicise them and to seek to persuade others, without being able to use the law to enforce their views on those who disagree.

The CofE’s statement makes the frankly offensive claim that “almost all other churches” regard marriage as a union of a man and a woman. It might have been more accurate to say “most”. In the UK, churches that recognise same-sex marriage now include the Metropolitan Community Church, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. The United Reformed Church will be discussing the issue at their General Assembly next month. There are calls amongst Baptists for each church and minister to be allowed to make up their own mind on the subject. There is significant support for same-sex marriage within the Methodist Church, the Church of Scotland and indeed within the Church of England itself, as well as from smaller numbers in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The statement makes no acknowledgement of the range of views within the Church of England’s own ranks. In talking about what “churches” believe, rather than what Christians believe, it seeks to uphold the authority of a privileged establishment, rather than to recognise the Holy Spirit’s movements amongst millions of believers – and unbelievers. While some church leaders are determined to resist change, other Christians seek, however imperfectly, to be at the forefront of it. Thankfully, we don’t need to rely on hierarchies. In the Church as well as in society, change comes from below, not from above.

The anti-monarchy, anti-cuts protest

Posted on by symonhill

I’m about to leave for the rebpublican protest against the monarchy and the royal jubilee. For me, this is not only a demonstration for democracy, important though that it. It is also an anti-cuts demonstration.

This is because the original meaning of “jubilee” is being scandalously abused this weekend. Jubilee is described in the Book of Leviticus as a time when debts were cancelled, slaves set free and the economy rebalanced.

“You shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you… The land shall not be sold in perpetuity… If any of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property… in the jubilee it shall be released and the property returned… If any of your kin fall into difficulty and sell themselves… they and their children with them shall go free in the jubilee year… I am the LORD your God”. (Leviticus 25, NRSV)

As Gareth Hughes, Anglican chaplain to Hertford College, Oxford, pointed out last week, “our society is crying out for this sort of jubilee”. Instead, this weekend’s “jubilee” will celebrate earthly power, obscene wealth, hereditary privilege and military might.

The economic dimension of “real jubilee” is a key reason for the involvement of Christianity Uncut in the weekend’s protests. Sadly, many churches are celebrating, rather than challenging, the abuse of the concept of jubilee. This makes it all the more important for other Christians to make clear that they want to celebrate justice, not privilege.

Pacifism in rural Hertfordshire

Posted on by symonhill

Rural Hertfordshire is not known as a hotbed of radicalism. I was surprised – but pleased – to be asked to give a talk about pacifism in the village of Ayot St Lawrence this week. As I arrived there, I encountered a village that looked both affluent and physically remote. I instinctively started to make assumptions about the likely political views of its inhabitants. But of course, I was wrong to make guesses before I’d met them. As it turned out, the views expressed at the event were fairly varied.

Amazingly, Ayot St Lawrence – despite having only about 100 houses – has a regular “tricky issues” group that discusses ethical questions. This is great. More villages should take it up.

They’ve looked at topics including euthanasia and religious experience. This week, it was pacifism versus “just war”. I put the pacifist case, while the argument for “just war” was made by Chris Pines, head of religious studies at a school in St Albans.

I have to admit that I was very tired after working flat out for four days at Quaker Yearly Meeting, which had finished the day before. I had been reporting for The Friend magazine. As a result, I wasn’t at my best and was sometimes too keen to talk rather than to listen. Nonetheless, it was a good and thought-provoking discussion. It was vigorous and passionate but people were very friendly, both before and after the debate. I was given really good refreshments, including some truly excellent home-grown apple juice.

The event benefited from the presence of several people with experience of the armed forces, including someone who had recently left the forces after several years. She was very much in favour of the arms trade and soon Chris and I were agreeing with each other as we both challenged her argument that it was “just business”. On most other questions that came up, Chris’ views differed sharply from mine.

There was very interesting discussion of aspects of World Wars One and Two. However, I regret not making more of an effort to explain my position on the nature of nationality and the role of national armies. Several times, the discussion focused on what “we” can do if we are aware of atrocities being committed overseas.

In this case, the “we” refers to the UK government and its armed forces. The question was when those forces should be sent into battle against an oppressive regime. Several people present – including several who made clear that they were not pacifists – agreed with my point that governments tend to intervene when they have a strategic or commercial interest in doing so, even when they wrap it up in humanitarian language.

What I didn’t explain so well were my feelings about the whole notion of talking about what “we” can do. Each of us in the UK has a very small amount of power to contribute to the policies of the government. Most of what we can do about injustice is not about what we can ask our government to do. It is about what we can do as individuals, as communities, as churches, as charities, as NGOs, as campaigning groups.

It is vital to remember that for every atrocity denounced by UK ministers, another one is defended. For every tyrant they criticise, there is another to whom they well arms. As people in Bahrain and West Papua are viciously assaulted with British weapons by their own governments, what “we can do” is to resist the injustices committed by politicians and companies in our own country. This is why I make a priority of campaigning against the arms trade and resisting the militaristic outlook promoted by the government and much of the media. We can continue to support people resisting tyranny around the world, whether the tyrants in question are defended or denounced by the rich and powerful in Britain.

Cameron tries to blackmail the Greeks

Posted on by symonhill

David Cameron and Kenneth Clarke yesterday tried to blackmail the people of Greece. Along with other European politicians, they have threatened the Greeks with all sorts of dire consequences if they elect a left-wing government. 

Clarke said the Greeks should not elect “a hopeless lot of cranky extremists”. This is presumably a reference to parties such as Syriza, the Radical Left Coalition, who are leading in the polls ahead of Greece’s election re-run on 17 June. Cameron demanded that Greece “meet their commitments” by implementing austerity measures in return for handouts from the Eurozone.

These “commitments” have not been made by the Greek people. They have been made by Greek politicians in the parties now being punished by voters: the right-wing New Democracy party and Pasok, the “Socialist” Party. The measures these politicians cravenly accepted include cuts to the minimum wage and massive privatisation, contributing to a rapid growth in extreme poverty in Greece.

What’s happening in Greece is only the most extreme example of what’s happening all over Europe. The rich have gambled with the wealth of others, been bailed out, and everyone else has to pay for it. The idea that unemployed people and minimum-wage workers in Greece are responsible for the country’s problems is as ludicrous as the argument that they have a moral obligation to pay for them. 

It is largely assumed by commentators and the media that if Greece refuse to “meet their commitments”, they will have to pull out of the Euro and there will be economic disaster. Thankfully, progressive economists are pointing out that the Greek people may be better off in the long run if they repudiate this unjust debt, citing the example of Argentina in 2001. If it’s managed relatively well, then they may even have some hope of being better off in the short term.

Whether or not this prediction is accurate, there is still a good reason for Greece to refuse the bailout package. Merkel and Cameron are seeking to bribe, bully and blackmail the Greeks into voting in parties that will betray them into the hands of bankers. Merkel and Cameron tell the Greeks that they have to face extreme pain – and then promise to alleviate the pain slightly if they do what they’re told. This is not democracy. 

The bailouts offered to this unjustly indebted nation are nothing more than crumbs from the cake of the capitalists who caused the financial crisis. Like millions of other working class and lower middle class people across Europe, I am fed up of this blackmail. We don’t want the crumbs from the cake. We want the cake.

Speaking about the Occupy movement on Sunday

Posted on by symonhill

There’s more than three months to go until the Greenbelt Festival gets underway, but a pre-Greenbelt event will take place this Sunday in London. I’m really pleased to be one of ten speakers who will talk for 8-10 minutes each on an aspect of the theme of Greenbelt 2012, Paradise: Lost & Found.

My topic will be The Occupy movement – a signpost to paradise? I’m also looking forward to hearing the other speakers, who include Tamsin Omond, Lucy Winkett, Paul Vallely and Ann Pettifor.

I was one of several Christians to be dragged by police from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral as I knelt in prayer during the eviction of Occupy London Stock Exchange. My emotions took some time to settle, and the controversy over the cathedral’s complicity in the eviction is still unravelling.

This experience will be my starting point, as I look at what the incident says about the future of Christianity in Britain. I’ll consider the Occupy movement’s challenge for Christianity and whether it can tell us anything about the kingdom of God. A lot to cover in 10 minutes!

Tickets are still available and can be bought online. If you can’t make it, I understand that videos of all ten short talks will be posted on the Greenbelt website.

Capitalism and idolatry

Posted on by symonhill

I recently wrote an article for Reform magazine entitled “Trusting in what isn’t real”. It is a brief piece in which I ask if capitalism has made our relationship with money into a form of idolatry.

It was published in the May 2012 issue of Reform, a monthly Christian magazine published by the United Reformed Church. I love Reform (and not only becuase I write for it!) and heartily recommend the magazine generally.

If you have a subscription to Reform, you can read my article here.  However, the article has now been reproduced in my column for Ekklesia, so it is freely available here. Your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Warsi was right to link UKIP with the BNP

Posted on by symonhill

Sayeeda Warsi, co-chair of the Conservative Party, was last night brave enough to note a link between the BNP and UKIP. She pointed out that UKIP candidates are standing in areas where the BNP had previously stood, implying that they can draw on the same sort of support.

She triggered a storm of anger, including an abusive Twitter message from a leading member of UKIP (who thus made himself sound more like a far-right thug, rather than less), for which he later apologised.

Warsi was right to make the point. I hope she will not back down. All she has done is to state the obvious: two parties on the same end of the British political spectrum may well attract sympathy from the same voters.

She could go further. Two years ago, ahead of the last general election, I wrote an article comparing the stated policies of the BNP and UKIP. I found even more similarities than I had expected.

It is true that UKIP do not share the BNP’s obsession with ethnicity, and this is important. It is also true that the BNP are more statist and that UKIP are basically ultra-Thatcherite in economic terms. In other areas, their policies are very, very similar.

They are both strongly anti-immigration, anti-European, anti-multicultural and pro-military spending. They both deny the reality of climate change. Like totalitarian regimes, they both want to make laws about what people are allowed to wear in public (by banning niqabs). They both make comments on the niqab and on multiculturalism that whip up fear and prejudice against Muslims. They both want biased history teaching that portrays the British Empire in a positive light (this is explicit in their policies).  They both support “workfare”. And they both want extreme, punitive approaches to law and order.

It’s not that Warsi went too far. She didn’t go far enough. Because one far-right party includes middle class ex-Tories with a polite manner, that doesn’t make it any more acceptable than the other one.

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.