Last month, you may remember the Met Police raided a Quaker meeting house in Westminster, causing huge uproar. Over 20 uniformed police, some equipped with tasers, entered and arrested six female members of the activist group Youth Demand who had gathered there. They were arrested on suspicion to cause a public nuisance, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, but have since been released on bail (apart from one who was released and will face no further action).
On the surface of it, the police raid might appear excessive and authoritarian. Even the most hardened on the Right could find themselves agreeing with George Monbiot in the Guardian, who criticised the police’s heavy handedness, recounting how “six women were having tea and biscuits” before their arrests.
My own view, however, is that it’s actually good that Quakers have had some heat on them. During my research on political funding, Quakers often turn up, undermining our democracy and subsidising causes that harm British interests. Too often their places of 'worship' are used for hard-Left activities, and Quakers’ 'religious' beliefs sound more like political positions.
To give you an example, Friends House, the central offices of Quakers in Britain, hosts an annual 'Reparations Conference' which was attended last year by the MPs Diane Abbott, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Clive Lewis. These MPs happen to be part of the All Party-Parliamentary Group on Afrikan Reparations, which receives £10,501-£12,000 from Friends
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s a shame they can’t be bothered to look into human rights abuse in the UK
Bravo Charlotte Gill, following the money. I hope mainstream journalists start to pay attention to her investigations.
I used to go to some of their meetings in York. This was thirty years ago but I have to say that there was nothing pushy or bolshy about them then quite the contrary. We used to wait in quiet contemplation until the correct spirit had entered into us before saying anything. Any talking that ensued was conducted with great humility I remember being struck by that.
Well done to Charlotte Gill for shining a light into the strange dark world of Quakerism. Her article inspired me to find out more about what Quakers actually believe, and it turns out that they are so extremely tolerant and welcoming that there are Muslim Quakers, Jewish Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Humanist Quakers and every other possible kind, though very few these days are Christian Quakers. They don’t like music or people singing hymns or praying aloud. You’re supposed to just keep silent and meditate, unless there’s a visiting imam giving a Muslim talk. Their main belief is in SOCIAL JUSTICE.
The Quaker ideas about sin and evil have shifted “from evil within the individual, to the Revealing of Social Evils”.
“Specific evils and sins named are personal pride, the vain use of resources and economic inequality (20.29), exploitative relationships (22.38), torture and slavery (23.31/30), homelessness and unjust land owners (23.23), unemployment (23.69), war (23.92; 24.04) armaments (24.40), and nuclear weapons (24.41).”
What does ‘Quaker Faith and Practice’ say about sin and evil? – Jolly Quaker
Well that’s a relief to know that when you become a Quaker, you don’t have to worry about repenting your own sins, or not committing… Read more »
Charities (including religious orders which enjoy similar tax and reputations advantages) must be taken in hand. They must lose status when they become political campaign groups.
Hear, hear!
I tend to think that no special privileges should be given to “charities”
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of small local charities that do excellent work and that couldn’t exist without things like tax exemptions. My dad ran one for over two decades, helping poor and working-class people in Stoke-on-Trent insulate and heat their Victorian terraced homes so they could save much-needed money. I don’t think they particularly made it into a political cause. Then there are the small local private schools that have been forced to close because of the VAT policy, leaving special-needs children without suitable education and the state school system under serious pressure.
Perhaps more rigorous vetting is required before granting an organisation charitable status, but that status shouldn’t be abolished completely.
I’m sure you are right about lots of them doing good work. My issue is that I think it’s inevitable that the vetting process will become corrupted. In any case, my thoughts and your thoughts may differ from other people’s regarding what constitutes a good cause. An alternative is to treat them all as not-for-profit concerns which also attract some tax exemptions.
As soon as they become “political” and/or “activist” they should have their charitable status revoked, so the likes of RSPB, NT and many others should be put on notice, ditch your ideology or lose your status.
Who would decide whether something was “political” or “activist”? Who would appoint the body that decides this? To whom would this body be accountable? Whose definition of “political” or “activist” would be used?
I accept this is difficult to achieve, there is a charities commission, and this needs to be populated with non-partisan members, with no political bias, no conflicts of interest, and no political alliances. Several people on here might qualify!
The National Trust exists to preserve our national heritage and protect national and historical properties and artifacts – it does not exist to flaunt its Woke credentials, virtue signal and dismantle our history and heritage by de-colonising properties and artifacts.
If these organisations stray from their purpose, or “forget” why they exist (their mission) they should be issued with an order to either get their house in order or lose their charitable status and benefits.
I think it’s impossible to achieve. I certainly do not qualify – I am very partisan. Who appoints the charities commission?
The original Quakers were largely anti-establishment. Now that they have aligned themselves with the state and its progressive left-liberal policies and its sectarian system of governance known as diversity, they effectively have no king but Caesar.
From what I have read, I don’t want these people to succeed in whatever they are doing, but phrases like “undermining democracy” make me uncomfortable. They are playing the system, perhaps sometimes with help from the system itself. But it’s up to what should be the most important participants in “democracy” to wake the hell up and act accordingly. It’s good that Charlotte Gill, DS and others shine a light – shame the information is not yet spread widely and has not sunk in.
Thank you, Charlotte Gill, for once again exposing the activities of the Provisional Wing of the Enemy Within. Marxists masquerading in Quaker pointed-hats, getting the usual kicks out of Telling Other People What To Do.
Chocolate Money getting up to all sorts of mischief – descendents of the filthy rich assuaging wealth-guilt through God’s Work.
Meanwhile, as ever, the real guardians of modern civilisation – farmers, food-retailers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, builders, materials scientists, software experts, etc, etc, etc – go purposefully about their daily business.
Seems as of tomorrow, steel-manufacturing notionally to continue, albeit through the usual expedient of throwing other people’s money at it.
My family knew two Quakers, they were the most genuine, serious and peaceful people. Both Master Cabinet Makers, of the Arts and Crafts movement, and both Conscientious Objectors.
Yes, it seems there will always be people ready to infect good things.
They should stick to porridge.
good one!
At least they’d get their oats that way.
Hasn’t porridge been highlighted as a “bad” food?
All Religion is mind control. And socialism grew from religion. Evil. Atheism is rhe beast course.
Lucky the world has benefited from the peaceful atheism of Mao,Stalin and Hitler.
Not to mention the current example: North Korea.
Atheism never lasts: sooner or later it transforms into two possible outcomes: nihilism (a sort of self-destructive suicidal anarchy) or totalitarianism.
Of these two outcomes anarchy does not last for very long either (it can’t as it is by its very nature dysfunctional), so eventually the only possible outcome is totalitarianism. Which is just a form of bad religion, as it replaces God with the Fűhrer or the State.
So, like it or not, the outcome is always religious, the question is who or what society worships.
Anarchy simply describes a situation where there is no leader (Greek, an archos). It does not have be bad or chaotic or violent. It depends on the people, like everything.
Anarcho-Capitalism suggests an absence of STATE, but not an absence of Law and Order.
You still have a constabulary, courts and prisons, but not centralised state control. No taxation on production, only on consumption.
Anarchy does not have to mean violence and lawlessness.
Read Murray Rothbard for explanations. Also, F.A. Hayek.
The state in principle is not bad, but the reality, as we see every single day is terrible.
Agnosticism is the best course. It’s OK to say, “I haven’t got the foggiest idea, I am going to focus on doing what I believe is right in the here and now, instead.”
Atheism is just another religion, in my opinion. “There is no God” is just as dogmatic a view as the rest.