House of Keys Prayers.

A recent report by the House of Keys Management and Members’ Standards Committee has recommended replacing the current prayers by the Chaplain (or in their absence the Speaker) at the beginning of each meeting.

The first recommendation is that there no longer be a Chaplain of the House, the pastoral care currently offered by the Chaplain being offered by the Lord Bishop, and to allow adoption of one of two replacements to the current prayers (para.14).

If this recommendation is accepted, the second recommendation is for prayer to be replaced, for a trial period of a year, by a “House of Keys Smooinaghtyn”, which could involve a short talk on a philosophical or educational theme by a person nominated by a member. If this second recommendation is not accepted, prayer would be replaced by “a period of silence during which Members could be encouraged to reflect on the oaths or affirmations they had taken” (para.8).

What would a Smooinaghtyn look like? The Report includes draft guidance (Annex Two). A contribution would last no more than 3 minutes (300 words at normal talking speed); would consist of a short narrative “on a philosophical, educational topic or relating to the time of year; and/or a reading or readings from appropriate texts” (para.7). It “may reflect the practice of faith or the belief community to which the orator belongs (if any)” (para.8). It “will not denigrate another faith, belief, or none” (para.9), and “will be consistent with the principles of equal opportunity, dignity and respect for all and should not include remarks or comments that are discriminatory” (para.11). The text of the contribution should be submitted at least 24 hours in advance to the Secretary of the House, and may not deviate from the text (para.13). Although not covered explicitly, I assume that a text which fails to meet the requirements of para.9 and para.11 will be vetoed at this point, or the contributor will be required to make particular amendments. It will be broadcast on Manx Radio, but not transcribed (para. 14, 15).

As I noted in correspondence included in Annex Three, other jurisdictions have wrestled with making prayers around public business more reflective of a diverse population, and more inclusive. A few thoughts reflecting on that issue in particular.

The Smooinaghtyn as set out in Annex Two clearly envisages the possibility of contributors talking from their particular faith position, indeed going so far as to recognise that they may read from “appropriate texts” which I take to include religious texts. There are mechanisms, however, to allow the Secretary of the House to censor these contributions in advance. Policing the boundaries of acceptable contributions could be contentious,.

Who contributes? Contributors must be nominated by an MHK. Neither the Secretary of the House, nor MHKs, are required to take account of the principles of equal opportunity, dignity and respect for all, in the exercise of their functions. What if no MHK was prepared to nominate a member of a stigmatised religious community, even one whose contribution would meet the guidelines? Additionally, there is no suggestion in the documentation as to the criteria on which nominations would be accepted – is demographic representation in the Manx community important? avoiding a succession of contributions from the same or related communities? what about a contribution by someone who does not identify as belonging to any belief community? Issues about who contributes have been explored elsewhere (see Annex 4), but it is not necessarily straightforward.

What if the Secretary has to censor a contribution? As I’ve argued elsewhere, many world faiths contain doctrines, and passages of “scripture” which are profoundly difficult to reconcile with particular contemporary human rights values. Even within “equal opportunity, dignity and respect for all”, there are contemporary debates where both sides of intensely polarised debates identify their stance with equality, dignity and respect for all, and their opponents stance as quite the opposite. A community could have a member’s contribution censored for expression of lawful beliefs, including direct quotations from texts they regard as holy – the limits proposed in the Annex do not, entirely sensibly, limit themselves to criminal speech.

I think the less problematic option would be to trial, for a year, replacing prayer with a brief period of silent contemplation. Although closer to some religious traditions than others (I can but feel that the Manx Quakers punished for their religious practices would rather approve of silent contemplation reaching the legislative chamber), it is sufficiently capacious to address the needs of a diverse chamber and Manx population. It would also avoid the problems, present in the current system, that could be posed by a Speaker who has a conscientious objection to praying being required to lead the House in prayer.