Since I blogged about the issue yesterday, the British National Party has published a statement condemning the recent court decision regarding admissions policy at the London Jewish school, JFS.
This isn't because the intolerant, racist BNP has any great love or respect for the Jewish community, most of whom they would cheerfully see deported to some random shtetl in eastern Europe. It's because the story gives them the excuse to spout out a load of the usual far-right claptrap: ethnic identity being attacked by the great liberal conspiracy, etc etc.
I looked at the BNP's website today, and noticed they'd put up a picture of some JFS students - the school's Head Boy and Head Girl teams. If I were one of those kids, or their parents, I'd be pretty uncomfortable with that photo on display on a far-right website - more on grounds of safety than anything else. And whilst I will support to the end of the earth the BNP's right to engage in lawful political debate, I wouldn't for a second blame JFS for taking every legitimate legal step possible to have that photo taken down. Copyright infringement, breach of privacy, they'd all help.
Interesting to note that the picture's gone up just before the Jewish Sabbath, so presumably it'll be Sunday at the earliest before the kids and their families can start to do anything about it.
If you're reading this and have any connection to JFS or to the students involved, do please draw it to their attention.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Friday, 26 June 2009
JFS: the court got it right
First of all, apologies for not blogging in several months (again). In my defence, I had exams, more exams, and then scary pupillage interviews.
Secondly, what I am about to say is very likely to annoy a lot of my fellow Jews who might be reading this. So again, apologies in advance. Take it in the spirit of healthy debate; it's certainly not meant as an attack on Jewish schools or Jewish identity.
But in a nutshell: I think the court got it right this week, when they ruled that a Jewish school's admissions policy was unlawful. Having said that, I'm not quite convinced I agree with their logic; I would come to the same answer for different reasons.
JFS, a Jewish school in London, had refused to admit a boy on the grounds that he "wasn't Jewish". The boy practised the Jewish religion, but from the perspective of orthodox Judaism, that isn't enough. To be considered Jewish, either you must be the child of a Jewish mother, or you must undergo the orthodox Jewish conversion process. The boy's mother had converted to Judaism in a progressive ceremony, not an orthodox one. Through orthodox eyes, this meant that she wasn't really Jewish - and therefore, neither was her son.
The Court of Appeal decided that this was racial discrimination - he was being denied a place because of his parentage. That doesn't entirely ring true, because you don't have to belong to a particular ethnicity to be Jewish. Anyone, of any racial background, can join the Jewish religion, and the worldwide Jewish community is very ethnically diverse.
My real objection to the JFS is that they were applying the orthodox criteria for Jewish status, when they should really have focused on the boy's own religious beliefs. JFS is a publicly-funded Jewish school, and should therefore be prepared to take anyone who practises Judaism, in any branch of the faith, whether orthodox or progressive. Orthodox Jews are quite entitled to decide who can be a member of their synagogues, and take part in their worship. However, no one grouping within British Jewry should have the right to set the legal standard for Jewish status in the British courts.
There is a wider debate about whether we should allow faith schools at all; I don't want to get into that minefield right now. I would simply argue that if we are going to allow schools to prioritise students of a certain religion, the sole criteria should be the student's own religious beliefs, and not the criteria set by a particular religious authority (such as the United Synagogue) - because that would mean giving away control of admissions policy to an unaccountable religious grouping with its own agenda. Admissions policy should be a public matter.
(Incidentally, I blogged about this issue last time it was in the courts a year ago: you can read my original article here.)
Secondly, what I am about to say is very likely to annoy a lot of my fellow Jews who might be reading this. So again, apologies in advance. Take it in the spirit of healthy debate; it's certainly not meant as an attack on Jewish schools or Jewish identity.
But in a nutshell: I think the court got it right this week, when they ruled that a Jewish school's admissions policy was unlawful. Having said that, I'm not quite convinced I agree with their logic; I would come to the same answer for different reasons.
JFS, a Jewish school in London, had refused to admit a boy on the grounds that he "wasn't Jewish". The boy practised the Jewish religion, but from the perspective of orthodox Judaism, that isn't enough. To be considered Jewish, either you must be the child of a Jewish mother, or you must undergo the orthodox Jewish conversion process. The boy's mother had converted to Judaism in a progressive ceremony, not an orthodox one. Through orthodox eyes, this meant that she wasn't really Jewish - and therefore, neither was her son.
The Court of Appeal decided that this was racial discrimination - he was being denied a place because of his parentage. That doesn't entirely ring true, because you don't have to belong to a particular ethnicity to be Jewish. Anyone, of any racial background, can join the Jewish religion, and the worldwide Jewish community is very ethnically diverse.
My real objection to the JFS is that they were applying the orthodox criteria for Jewish status, when they should really have focused on the boy's own religious beliefs. JFS is a publicly-funded Jewish school, and should therefore be prepared to take anyone who practises Judaism, in any branch of the faith, whether orthodox or progressive. Orthodox Jews are quite entitled to decide who can be a member of their synagogues, and take part in their worship. However, no one grouping within British Jewry should have the right to set the legal standard for Jewish status in the British courts.
There is a wider debate about whether we should allow faith schools at all; I don't want to get into that minefield right now. I would simply argue that if we are going to allow schools to prioritise students of a certain religion, the sole criteria should be the student's own religious beliefs, and not the criteria set by a particular religious authority (such as the United Synagogue) - because that would mean giving away control of admissions policy to an unaccountable religious grouping with its own agenda. Admissions policy should be a public matter.
(Incidentally, I blogged about this issue last time it was in the courts a year ago: you can read my original article here.)
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Licensed to discriminate: Jewish school wins controversial court case
The JFS, a Jewish school in North London, has just won a significant court case over admissions. They'd refused a place to an 11-year-old boy, because they didn't consider him to be Jewish, even though he'd been brought up and raised in the religion. The father took the school to court on the grounds of racial discrimination, and has just lost.
I think this is a very significant case, which people outside the Jewish community need to pay attention to. It throws up some very major questions about the relationship between the State and all kinds of religious groups.
A bit of background. There are around 250,000 Jews in Britain, and the majority belong to Orthodox Judaism. The other main group, Progressive Judaism (which splits into Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism), is still a pretty significant denomination, with about 50,000 members. Orthodox Judaism is in a dominant position, however, because it runs most of the key institutions, like the religious courts and the office of Chief Rabbi.
Orthodox Judaism generally cooperates fairly well with the two Progressive movements, but there's one big area where they can't agree: people converting to the faith. If you convert to Orthodox Judaism, you're recognised as a Jew by everyone, no problems. But if you convert to Progressive Judaism, the Orthodox community won't accept you as a Jew.
It's this little theological spat which has landed the JFS comprehensive in the dock. The boy's mother had converted to Judaism, but in a Progressive community. From the Orthodox perspective, she's not Jewish at all, and therefore her son isn't either. That's why the school wouldn't accept him, and that's why this whole argument has ended up rather messily in court.
I have some sympathy for Justice Munby, who made the ruling. A British secular court isn't the place to decide religious questions like "who is a Jew?". I'm sure he just wanted to get the issue out of his courtroom, and pass it back over to the community. What he's actually done is handed total control over Jewish status to one particular, theologically very conservative Jewish denomination. So perversely, whilst trying to avoid making a religious decision, the judge has come down on the side of one main Jewish group, to the exclusion of the other one.
If you're going to have state-funded Jewish schools, they ought to be open to anyone who practises the Jewish religion, in any of the Jewish denominations. I'm really uncomfortable with a movement that represents 80% of British Jews being able to force its views on the other 20%, and to hijack state funding away from members of Progressive communities. I'm even more worried to see this happen with judicial approval. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and people of all religions and none should take notice.
I think this is a very significant case, which people outside the Jewish community need to pay attention to. It throws up some very major questions about the relationship between the State and all kinds of religious groups.
A bit of background. There are around 250,000 Jews in Britain, and the majority belong to Orthodox Judaism. The other main group, Progressive Judaism (which splits into Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism), is still a pretty significant denomination, with about 50,000 members. Orthodox Judaism is in a dominant position, however, because it runs most of the key institutions, like the religious courts and the office of Chief Rabbi.
Orthodox Judaism generally cooperates fairly well with the two Progressive movements, but there's one big area where they can't agree: people converting to the faith. If you convert to Orthodox Judaism, you're recognised as a Jew by everyone, no problems. But if you convert to Progressive Judaism, the Orthodox community won't accept you as a Jew.
It's this little theological spat which has landed the JFS comprehensive in the dock. The boy's mother had converted to Judaism, but in a Progressive community. From the Orthodox perspective, she's not Jewish at all, and therefore her son isn't either. That's why the school wouldn't accept him, and that's why this whole argument has ended up rather messily in court.
I have some sympathy for Justice Munby, who made the ruling. A British secular court isn't the place to decide religious questions like "who is a Jew?". I'm sure he just wanted to get the issue out of his courtroom, and pass it back over to the community. What he's actually done is handed total control over Jewish status to one particular, theologically very conservative Jewish denomination. So perversely, whilst trying to avoid making a religious decision, the judge has come down on the side of one main Jewish group, to the exclusion of the other one.
If you're going to have state-funded Jewish schools, they ought to be open to anyone who practises the Jewish religion, in any of the Jewish denominations. I'm really uncomfortable with a movement that represents 80% of British Jews being able to force its views on the other 20%, and to hijack state funding away from members of Progressive communities. I'm even more worried to see this happen with judicial approval. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and people of all religions and none should take notice.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
World Champion: racist abuse justified
These comments from so-called F1 World Champion Fernando Alonso are truly disgraceful. He tries to justify racial abuse against Lewis Hamilton, and to make excuses for the people who shouted racist slogans at the British driver. He should be kicked out of motor-racing immediately. I'm embarrassed to have him in our sport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
