What Shinto means to me

There was only one object in the Holy of Holies and this was a bronze mirror on the back was the tet

I have been fascinated by Japan since I was 19. I saw the original screening in London of Kurosawa’s film ‘Seven Samurai’. It had a profound influence on me and I began to take up Japanese martial arts and develop a serious interest in Japanese swords. Japanese swords are forged at a Shinto ceremony with the smith wearing Shinto dress. The blade is thought of as incorporating a spirit and is the soul of the samurai.

Later, my M.A. dissertation was about Ennin (794-864 CE), an important Buddhist monk who went to China by ship to study scriptures that had not yet reached Japan. On the journey the ship met a terrible storm. Did Ennin, as a Buddhist priest pray to Buddha for the ship to be saved –no. Did he pray to the Bodhisattva of Mercy, Kannon - no. He prayed to the great Shinto kami of Sumiyoshi and the ship was saved. Was anyone surprised – apparently not. This struck me as the epitome of lack of conflict between Shinto and Buddhism.

Being a Londoner it took Shinto to awaken me to the beauties of nature. Heaven Earth and Man and the five senses. Shinto venerates nature. To most people rocks are inert, inanimate matter; to the Japanese they are living things There is no line of separation between the life of nature and the experience of man. The idea of activity in tranquillity was applied to all relationships. And the feeling that Heaven and Earth and I are of the same root.

Having started with a mystery perhaps we can end with one. Curiously some Japanese think that they are the lost tribe and therefore Jewish. My wife’s private tutor for the English language was an elderly lady who particularly followed Shinto. When visiting her once in Tokyo she showed me an old copy of the Stars and Stripes magazine, the magazine of the American forces. She pointed out an article written by an American officer during the occupation. It relates how this officer who happened to be Jewish, and his colleague, were sent to check whether or not there were any weapons in the Grand Shinto shrine of Ise.

The officers entered the shrine and saw the head priest who explained that although they might search anywhere they would not be allowed to enter the holy of holies since only he and the Emperor was allowed there. The Emperor is a living Shinto kami and although he renounced this on the radio at Macarthur’s’ insistence, I do not see theologically how you can undeify yourself.

The officers explained that they were under the direct orders of General Macarthur and although they would show every respect they could not be denied. They found no weapons there but the officer reporting afterwards said that there was only one object in the Holy of Holies and this was a bronze mirror. We know that this is one of the three sacred object of Shinto. The others are a sword and a jewel. The extraordinary thing the officer reported was that on the back of the mirror was the tetragramaton, the four letters of the name of God in Hebrew.

After this, the Holy of Holies was again closed to everyone except the high priest and the Emperor so we will never know if this is true!

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496