P A G meeting voices diametrically opposed views on Bishop’s role in Manx politics

Monday’s (19^th May 2008) Positive Action Group meeting was one of the most divisive ‘discussions’ organised so far by the Group.

In an occasional heated exchange of views, the contentious and emotive matter, of ‘should the Bishop have a seat, let alone a vote, in Tynwald’, split the meeting along very partisan lines.

P A G Chairman, Roger Tomlinson opened the packed meeting, by informing the audience that a key part of the P A G’s Charter was a fully popularly elected Tynwald. He recounted that prior to the House of Keys’ election, in 2006, all prospective candidates had been canvassed for their views on this issue; and that 18, of the successful candidates, had supported the P A G’s stance.

However, he reminded the meeting that a year ago Michael MHK, David Cannan had addressed a P A G meeting, in advance of the Keys’ debate, on his Constitution Bill - which would have removed the Bishop’s vote - but that it had been ‘hijacked’ by Middle MHK, Martyn Quayle; and it has subsequently disappeared into the long grass.

Mr Tomlinson then introduced the two speakers. He explained he had approached various people within the ‘Church’ to represent the ‘Bishop’ but, for one reason or another, they were unable to accept the invitation.

So he had asked former MHK and MLC, Leonard Singer, who had taken a constitutional reform bill through Legislative Council; and he had agreed to speak in favour of retaining the Bishop.

Representing the opposing view was King William College educated microbiologist, Kella Distillery owning, ‘resting’ actor and IOM Freethinkers’ spokesperson, Andrew Dixon.

The IOM Freethinkers is a local group for atheists, agnostics and humanists; and, among other things, are against ‘dogma’ and religious privilege.

Mr Dixon was first to speak and described how he was a supporter of a society based on ‘reasoning’ and a ‘god-free’ philosophy. He said he doesn’t believe in concepts such as ‘an afterlife’ and that, essentially, humans were one of a number of organisms eking out on existence on a planet; not that we seem to be doing that very well at the moment.

He pointed out that the Isle of Man, and the United Kingdom, are the only parliaments, among western democracies, that give an automatic seat to a religious person; and he finds that appalling.

He admitted that he is not concerned if the ‘Church’ ‘disappears’; and certainly he doesn’t care if it collapses because the Bishop loses his vote in Tynwald.

He argued the Bishop’s seat, and vote, is a feudal anachronism, and he said that, in his view, the Church would carry on looking after its ‘believers’ regardless of whether the Bishop had a seat in Tynwald.

Mr Dixon stated that the most frightening prospect is that within his grandchildren’s lifetime a religious fanatic will have their finger on the nuclear trigger; and whose ‘god’ instructs them to invade another country (sounds like Tony Blair and George W Bush - Ed.).

He said he is terrified by the ability, and the prospect, of things like ‘dirty bombs’ to do damage to communities; and he hopes ‘reasoning’ will prevail.

He pointed out that it was not too many years ago he would have been burnt at the stake for expressing his views and hoped society had moved on a bit; and that people are able to emphasize with the other side of the argument.

He told the audience that the earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years and humans, who by comparison, having only been around for a very short time, are still going through a transitional stage; and he hoped we haven’t reached a plateau.

He referred to the job description for the Bishop and, although he is sure he is a thoroughly nice chap, he said he is not his choice for helping determine his children’s future.

“It’s a yes or no answer” Mr Dixon said of the issue. It is not in the interests of democracy to have an appointee who is not answerable to the electorate, he stated.

“My MHK should be able to represent the moral and social aspects of society” he argued; and he was critical of the Church for not having even considered the question - should the Bishop have a vote. “If they had thought about it, they should have voluntarily withdrawn from Tynwald” was his view.

He pointed out that their has been a significant change in the make-up of the community in the Island; with large influxes of people from eastern Europe, South Africa and Asia. “So why not allow every ‘faith’ to have a seat in Tynwald, he inquired.

He described the Quakers as some of the nicest people he had ever met, but inferred they are notorious for indecision; and that this may be a hindrance to a role in Tynwald.

Mr Dixon brought up the debate on ‘Assisted Suicide’ and described how 81% of Protestants thought that people should have the right to ‘die-with-dignity’, yet the Bishop said no. “Dogma over-ruled reason” he claimed.

What was the point of having the debate, he said, if the way the vote would be cast was already known? “It is not good for democracy” he stated.

“Tynwald is over a thousand years old and we still have a religious appointment by another government”, he exclaimed; and what would be the response if Tony Brown was to say, next time around, we want a woman, he wondered.

In conclusion, Mr Dixon said as there is no justification for the Bishop, representing a “minority interest group”, to have a role in Tynwald; “it is unethical, unjust and unfair”.

Mr Singer opened his response by stating that he has always supported a popularly elected Tynwald, but explained that the Constitution Bill had been amended to remove the Bishop’s vote and ultimately fell.

Since then, in his opinion, there has not been a clamour from the public for a change; and so the status quo has prevailed.

He recalled that when Noel Jones was the Bishop he had only involved himself in matters relevant to his position; but acknowledged that Graham Knowles had taken a wider interest.

He said it would be interesting to see which stance the new Bishop would take.

Mr Singer felt, if any decision is to be made regarding the future of the Bishop’s position, the history and tradition of the role should be taken into account.

As for the question, ‘should he sit there or should he have a vote’, Mr Singer was forthright in his view; it was the “dogma of those that oppose ‘dogma’ that the Bishop shouldn’t have a vote.” He obviously saw this as a form of hypocrisy by the opponents; and it raised a few hackles.

He said that it was not possible to elect the Bishop in the same way as other MHK’s; but pointed out that there had been input from 4 people from the Island in the selection of the Bishop, and that congregations on the Island had voted on representatives.

He claimed that the Bishop provides continuity and maintains the long link between the Church and State; and that no harm had been caused by the Bishop having a seat in Tynwald.

“His value will be reduced by not having a vote” asserted Mr Singer.

He put to the audience that the Bishop was able to look at matters from a philosophical and moral viewpoint; and without the worry of having to pander to the electorate to ensure votes at the next election.

“The spiritual aspect of Tynwald will be lost by his removal”, he opined; not that he dismissed the argument that other members may be able to provide some substitution.

He claimed that the Bishop does represent the views of other religious groups and that this had been confirmed by these groups.

Mr Singer pointed out that he is Jewish, but that he has no problem speaking about Christian values; and said, after all the Bishop only has one vote so he needs to persuade the other 32 members to support his view.

Contrary to Mr Dixon, Mr Singer believed that the loss of the Bishopric of Sodor and Mann would cause considerable concern to believers - even if it was of no concern to the non-religious.

He worried that too few members of Tynwald have an ‘outside’ viewpoint and so the Bishop helps to adjust that imbalance. It’s not as though the Bishop could be equated to some of the Ayatollahs, he stated.

“He has a strong voice and it is required in the fight against the reduction in moral values” stated Mr Singer in bringing his contribution to a close.

Mr Tomlinson then opened up the debate to the floor and, at times, it became easy to see how combatants, in war, can become divided according to religious beliefs.

Chris Robertshaw, who professed to be a Catholic Christian, said he was hugely impressed by the openness of views expressed on the Freethinkers’ website, but viewed Mr Dixon’s input, to the discussion, as an attack on Christianity, and religion, rather than an attack on the role of the Bishop in Tynwald. He saw this as a lost opportunity.

He expressed the view that the IOM does not have party politics, a free press, an ombudsman or an auditor general; that the multi national companies go with the flow; a legal profession that pursues money and sticking together and asked if the police are independent. “Not really”, he said, nor is the system transparent. Therefore, he asserted, the only truly independent person in Tynwald is the Bishop. “Deal with all the other issues before removing the Bishop” he suggested.

He also suggested that it is necessary to separate the established Dogma from modern Christianity, as things have changed, and that we should consider whether we vote for politicians for their morality or on the basis of monetary issues. He surmised that it is the latter.

He concluded that with a Tynwald dominated by the Ministerial system it was essential to retain the Bishop.

Dr Jeff Garland felt that the argument for retaining the Bishop, as otherwise the See would disappear, as a “crude form of blackmail”. He referred to the prayer, conducted at the start of Tynwald sittings, “that the will of God will be done”; and put it to the audience that surely it should be the will of the people.

He recalled, to laughter from the audience, that the previous Bishop had remarked how “mind numbingly boring” many of the debates were in Tynwald; and that we often hear this from the most boring of members. However, what effect had the Bishop’s words had, he queried. “None, as they remain boring if not worse” he suggested. “He has failed to make any difference but he acts as a moral fig leaf for our politicians” he stated.

He said that changes should be possible and that we shouldn’t hang on to things just for the sake of it.

An exchange then took place between audience members as to how democratic, or not, the ‘appointment’ of the Bishop really was. Some expressed the view that it was entirely undemocratic, and he was thrust upon us by a foreign power; whilst other claimed they had been involved in the process and that the public had had the opportunity to participate. In their view the process was quite democratic.

The Bishop’s secretary informed the meeting that the new Bishop was a very approachable person but he felt that he had to decline any invitations prior to his enthronement. She also said she wished to make clear that Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, had had nothing to do with his appointment. “He was given two names and told who to recommend to the Queen” she said.

Dr Dick Horsnell reminded the audience that the IOM is a dependent territory and the sovereign power has a recognised established Church. He pointed out that the Queen, in fact, makes two appointments, the Bishop and the Attorney General; and he urged people, when debating the role of the Bishop, not to overlook the issue of the A.G.

Whilst claiming not to be schizophrenic, former Rushen MHK John Rimington - who also attempted constitutional reform as an MHK - said this was one of the few occasions when he was in agreement with Leonard Singer; even if it was contrary to all logic and common sense.

He commented that democracy represents a relatively latter part of history and he hopes it is not the end of the political evolutionary chain. He claimed that we do not have full democracy, although people shifting bits of paper and money around may give it the appearance of being so. In reality the power is elsewhere and perhaps it lies in economic territory, he postulated.

He told the audience that he had valued the Bishop’s contributions, which were better than the ‘average’ MHK’s and, as they were not ‘interested’ in the issue of re-election, they looked at humanity beyond themselves. He agreed with Mr Singer that they did not have to pander to what the electorate wanted and the culture of ‘greed’ now prevalent in sections of IOM society.

Today’s politics is about ‘now’, he stated, whereas the Bishop spoke of the future; which was a joy, he added. It may be undemocratic, he concluded, but he still remained in favour of a wider participation in Tynwald.

Peter Murcott, a lay-preacher, informed the audience, slightly tongue-in-cheek, that legislation on discrimination, out for consultation, if approved, would make everybody more religious; and said the non-believers may wish to take a note of that.

On the question of the Bishop’s role in Tynwald, he said he had changed his view.

Mr Murcott continued he doesn’t subscribe to the view the Bishop retains his seat purely on the basis of history and tradition; but it comes back to what the Bible says about the ‘word of God’.

However, he said his current stance is he supports the Bishop having a seat but not the vote.

Mike Coleman, although he too said it was against logic and undemocratic, supported the retention of the Bishop. He based this on his experience of having appeared before a Tynwald Select Committee, on which the Bishop was a member; and he claimed the Bishop was the only member who had recognised how he was feeling.

Mr Dixon interjected at this point and said that if the Bishop wanted a seat he should stand for election like every other candidate and, if he got more votes than the others, then that was good and democratic.

Beastie Dovey said she had listened to the arguments, some of which were quite persuasive, particularly John Rimington’s, so much so she “started to think there must be something to this minority special interest group”. But then she thought, there are lots of people living in the Island who could do an equal job to the Bishop. The only issue, as she saw it, is how do you get these ‘good’ people, who are probably not ‘politically motivated’, to take a seat in Tynwald.

John Barber created a bit of a stir by stating we live in a Judeo-Christian society and that they are not a minority group. He pointed out that Bernard Russell had set out to disprove the existence of God but ended up becoming a Catholic. “If it isn’t bust don’t fix it” was his considered opinion.

Denys Drower said six years in the army had taught him that the worst possible reason for doing anything was tradition. The only reason he could see for keeping the Bishop, and it was a rotten one he said, was that he doesn’t endanger his income by voting against the government.

Paul Fisher observed that Manx society is changing with Catholicism and Islam gaining an increased presence through immigration. So he posed the rhetorical question, does it make it acceptable to change the Bishop for an Iman?

The opportunity for the last remark was given to Andrew Jessopp, who said, whilst he agreed with John Rimington about the quality of contributions by the Bishop, he believed that this didn’t strengthened the argument to retain the Bishop but to improve the quality of our MHK’s.

In wrapping up the event, Mr Tomlinson dismissed calls, from the floor, for a vote, thanked everybody for attending and hoped they would come again. He also requested attendees to visit the P A G’s website and make a comment about the event in the ‘Guest Book’.