Dec 17, 2009

Outcome of Jewish Free School 'racism' case

 


OUTCOME OF JEWISH FREE SCHOOL 'RACISM' CASE

[Extract from below BBC report on outcome of case]:

".......The boy has a father who is Jewish by birth and a mother who is Jewish by conversion.
     "But the conversion ceremony was conducted by a Progressive rather than an Orthodox synagogue which is not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.
     "The children of atheists, and practising Christians, were allowed to attend as long as their mothers were considered Jewish
....."
[End of extract]

In other words, membership by blood-line and not by by confession of faith. "This is not racist" say the leaders of the Jewish establishment.

Like Alice, most Jews are living in a 'Through the Looking-Glass' world of their own. For us to notice and question them about it is "anti-semitism".

In this instance the Jews find themselves caught by the very law (The Race Relations Act) which they, in the form of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, devised and floated in the 1950s as "The Group Libel Bill" to compel Britain to adopt multi-racialism.

The restrictions of this law against the freedom to choose ("discrimination") were intended by the JBD to apply only to the White-Gentile majority, not to the Jewish community.

But the biters have bit themselves
-- on the bum. They will now have to contemplate another law: The Law Unintended Consequences.

If they become depressed, as we have been depressed for decades, they might think about this proposition:

The only way they can enjoy the freedom to choose is to cease their constant campaign to deny the rest of us that same freedom.

This is, after all, our country. They only own the politicians, the media and a few senior police officers.

Happy Christmas/Yuletide everybody.

Martin.
----------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8415678.stm
BBC web site - Wednesday 16th December 2009

Jewish school loses places fight

[Caption to photo of Menorah candle stick: People are Jewish both by race and faith]

The Supreme Court has ruled a Jewish school in London did act unlawfully by refusing places to pupils it did not consider to be ethnically Jewish

Court president Lord Phillips said the school broke race relations legislation by restricting its admissions.

The case against the JFS was brought by a man whose son was not given a place because he was not regarded as Jewish under rules set by the Chief Rabbi.

The parents were angered at having their Jewish status questioned.

Lord Phillips, the president of the Supreme Court, said the justices had come to a split decision on the matter, five to four.

'Not racist'

"The majority of the court has concluded that the JFS admission policy does discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin and is, in consequence, unlawful," he said.

---------------------------------------------
The closeness of the court's judgement
indicates how complex this case was.
                              -- Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks
---------------------------------------------

"A minority disagrees, considering that the admission requirement is exclusively a religious requirement and does not depend on ethnic origin."

But he stressed that while the school had acted unlawfully over its admissions, it should not be regarded as racist.

"The majority have made it plain in their judgments that the fact that the JFS admission policy has fallen foul of the Race Relations Act certainly does not mean those responsible for the admissions policy have behaved in a way that is racist, as that word as generally understood."

The school went to the Supreme Court after three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled in June that the entry criteria had racially discriminated against the boy, known as M.

School 'disappointed'

Chairman of governors at the school Russell Kett said the school and governors were disappointed at the ruling.

"We must now set about establishing a more workable solution for a Jewish practice test to be used for admissions in 2011.

"JFS School felt it had no alternative than to continue to press for its test of 'Jewishness' to be based solely on orthodox Jewish religious law, rather than on a series of factors which themselves have no relevance under Jewish law, but which seem to support the notion of a test of Jewish practice required by the English legal system."

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said the matter required "careful reflection and consultation" and instant reactions would be inappropriate.

"The closeness of the court's judgement indicates how complex this case was, both in English law and in debated issues of Jewish identity.

"Our office will be working closely together with the schools, the United Synagogue, the Board of Deputies and other interested parties to consider the implications of the verdict before making a full response."

Jewish mother

The 12-year-old boy was refused a place at the JFS (formerly known as the Jews' Free School) in Brent, in north London.

The boy has a father who is Jewish by birth and a mother who is Jewish by conversion.

But the conversion ceremony was conducted by a Progressive rather than an Orthodox synagogue which is not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.

The children of atheists, and practising Christians, were allowed to attend as long as their mothers were considered Jewish.

Although Liberal Jews say faith is about belief rather than ethnic origin, Orthodox Jewish supporters of the school said the Supreme Court's ruling risked infringing their human rights by interfering with the way they have always been defined.

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the impact of the ruling on other faith schools was likely to be limited as Judaism was relatively unique with its close relationship between faith and ethnicity.




--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment