PLAIN SPEECH IS RESPECTFUL OF ALL PEOPLE
Ronis Chapman and Susan Rockliff
Canberra and Region Quakers, Quaker Peace and Legislation Committee
The Quaker Peace and Legislation Committee has been prompted by Jessica Morrison, Peaceworker, to discern the appropriate way to address parliamentarians. As an experienced advocate for the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Jessica had been used to using formal titles in correspondence, and was curious when advised that these are not used by Quakers.
Quakers have a well-established preference for plain speech which includes not using titles or honorifics when speaking to people or writing them letters.
The spiritual basis for this practice is the Quaker belief in the equality of all people. Since the 17th century, Quakers have not used titles which indicate differences in status. Early Quakers suffered persecution for refusing to make gestures of servility, e.g. taking off their hats in the presence of their social superiors, and for using the pronoun “thee” when speaking to all others.
We would like to know how Quakers around the country respond to this custom of not using titles. It seems that there is no consistency in the way Quakers Australia or regional meetings or individuals use titles or honorifics. The Handbook of Quaker Practice and Procedure in Australia (7th edition) uses Friends’ tradition of not using titles as an example of our testimony on equality. There are no specific guidelines for addressing titled people in correspondence or when meeting in person.
The Quaker Peace and Legislation Committee (QPLC) decided in August to refrain from using titles as much as possible.
This includes:
- Not using titles of people when addressing them either verbally or in writing as Mr./Mrs/Dr/Bishop/Professor, and if formality is required, then the full name is used e.g. greeting someone as “Hello Phillip Huggins” (not “Hello Bishop Huggins”);
- Using the person’s full name as a salutation, but not a title, e.g. Dear Penny Wong (not dear Foreign Minister);
- In addressing letters, include references to roles but not honorifics. g. Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia, NOT The Hon Mr Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia).
- Using a title only when it refers to someone’s role, e.g. “We wrote to the Education Minister.”
Including the job title after a person’s full name is acceptable, for example, Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister. A letter would be addressed to Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister, but begin “Dear Anthony Albanese”.
Furthermore, QPLC will recommend using the sign off “In peace” to close the correspondence, above the signature.
In order to provide a simple explanation for this practice, the byline on emails from the Peaceworker will read:
As part of our testimony to the equality of all people, Quakers do not use formal titles.
How do you feel about this?
If you were to meet Anthony Albanese in person, would you be comfortable in saying “Hello Anthony Albanese”?
QPLC has found it an interesting exercise to think about this issue, as it is one of our visible ways of expressing our testimony to equality. We are keen to have responses from Quaker committees or regional meetings. Any examples you are willing to share would be appreciated.
There is a useful and informative QuakerSpeak video on this subject at https://quakerspeak.com/video/history-quaker-plain-speech/
If you are not already familiar with it, you may also be interested in the detailed requirements of the Commonwealth Style Manual (https://www.stylemanual.gov.au).
As long as respect for the person is evident, does it matter if titles or honorifics are not used?
Related Posts
The Art of Plain Speech
David Evans, South Australia and Northern Territory Regional Meeting I love listening to whoever...
Read More
I grew up with the Quaker protocol of calling people by their full name.
Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Anthony Albanese, David Tehr.
It feels respectful to call everyone by their full name.
It also,I think, recognises that the person to whom we are speaking is first and foremost a person, before they are a title or a role.
This comment actually comes from Roger Sawkins (roger@sawkins.name). His original seems to have become lost in the system, so I’ve copied it in here,
Many years ago when I was Clerk of Qld RM we were incorporating under the relevant Act of Parliament. As part of the process we had to send a ‘petition’ to the Governor of Qld which, according to the wording specified in the legislation, was addressed as something along the lines of “The Honourable Air Marshall Sir Colin Thomas Hannah, Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of The Royal Victorian Order, …” etc.
I said ‘I am not signing that’, and of course had lots of support from the Meeting. I also had some doubts about whether we should be signing something that started with “Your humble petitioners hope and pray …” but that was a lesser objection.
Part of my reason was that in the Conscription for the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, one of our Members, David Martin, refused to comply with the Federal Act and was arrested and imprisoned. In prison he refused to address the staff as ‘sir’ or salute them and was duly punished. (He was subsequently found – against his will – to be a Conscientious Objector and hence exempted from service, but that is another story). I maintained that if he was prepared to go to those lengths in following our Testimony, I should also follow it in much easier circumstances.
We wrote to Edward Milligan, then librarian at Friends House in London, who provided us with several examples of how Friends had addressed various members of the royal family, including ‘Elizabeth Windsor, Queen of England; Dear Elizabeth Windsor.’
We then made an appointment for me, a Friend who was a solicitor (I’m afraid his name escapes me) and Betty Bredt, a school mistress, to talk to two senior members of the relevant Government Department. The poor public servants had no idea what to do. They had never been faced with people who refused to comply with the wording of an Act of Parliament, let alone address the Governor ‘properly’. Especially when we had written to the Queen, of all people, in that way!
We prevailed; the petition was addressed to “Colin Thomas Hannah, Governor of Queensland”, with an attachment which explained our refusal to use titles.
Of course in my business and private life I have never used titles, always addressing people with their first and family name, and position if relevant, and have never had any objections.