British Court To Define Jewishness

[The Brain]

Jews suck. Film at 11.

[garbon]

Jews suck. Film at 11.

Swallow

[The Minsky Moment]

This all seems tenous to me but OK. It's the Government's fault. The Government (the Court of Appeal) has told itself that its policy contravenes the Government's (Parliament's) law. The Government (the School Board) now has to comply. 

I think what it shows is that the problem here is not merely state entanglement with religion; it is compounded by this particular state's penchant for favoring certain established organizations with historical pedigree.

I'm not sure if any of this is particulaly relevant to whether the Court made the right decision or not.

It's relevant to why the case existed in the first place.

Where the Court errs it seems to me is in para 26: "That, Ms Rose submits, is discrimination against M on the ground of ethnicity – in the first instance the ethnicity of his mother, which is enough to bring the case home; and by extension the ethnicity of the child. "

The court appears to accept Rose's position, but the statement is incorrect.  The ethnicity of the mother has nothing to do with the admission decision.  What drove the admission decision was the fact the the mother's conversion was not conducted under the aupices of the Office of Chief Rabbi.   

[Malthus]

Is that the case?

I think they are saying you cannot exclude someone because they do not pass an ethnic Jewishness test - that does not at all mean that they MUST exclude those who pass an ethnic Jewishness test, but not a religious one.

Logically it does, since the Court has already stated there are only two ways to be a Jew:

1. Descent; and

2. Conversion.

If someone is "not a Jew" by descent, and if you acn't include or exclude someone on this basis (and I think you'd agree that logically if one cannot EXCLUDE a Jew for lacking a Jewish mom, you equally cannot INCLUDE a Jew for having a Jewish mom) they must, logically, become one by conversion. There is no other way.

Unless of course the Court requires the school to draft one - such as a 'faith test'.

Then, congratulations! You are supporting the creation of an Orthodox Jewish faith test - something that has no part in Judaism, and gives an Orthodox "head rabbi" control over the very definition of the faith.

Of course, having an Orthodox Head Rabbi in control of admissions is the problem in the first place. This "solution" merely makes that problem worse.

I still do not see this as such a huge problem. The fact that Judaism has some ethnic conditions for inclusion doesn't make them 'special' such that they should have different rules from any other religion. Otherwise anyone can create a religion that is as exclusionary as they like. You keep harping on the ability to convert as being key to allowing this kind of discrimination.

The word is not "special", it is "different".

It is easy to tell if a kid is Catholic. Catholics have the sacrament of baptism. Is that "special"? Should Jews adopt Baptism too, so that you feel they are all nice and equal?

Fine. I want to create a religion that only allows white people to join, or people who convert to my religion. However, to convert to my religion, any non-white must cut off two fingers.

Aren't you arguing that this should be perfectly acceptable - in fact, if you replace two fingers with "chunk of their penis", isn't that pretty much what the rabbi is demanding (at least for men)? is the theoretical ability to convert adequate to excuse racial or ethnic discrimination that is normally NOT permitted?

Now you are entering Marti territory with the analogies. No, the 'cutting a chunk off the penis" problem remains, because presumably the argument (if one cannot be "Jewish by descent") is that one must prove to be Jewish by conversion (or some nebulous "Jewish by practice" test) - both of which will (surprise, surprise) require male Jews to be circumcised!

Since the UK gov't clearly has no problem with religious discrimination, a test that states "male Jews are only Jewish if they are circumcized" is perfectly acceptable - as it is not an "ethnic" test.

I don't see why Judaism should get some kind of pass when they want to dip into the public trough. Yes, the faith rules are not really "fair", but then, excluding people from good schools based on whether their mom was converted in Church A rather than Church B is not really fair either.

We all agree this is a mess whose foundation is the basic fact that the state is supporting religious institutions - but given that that is not going to end, I don't see the courts decision as particularly hostile to Jews by any means, nor do I think it's effect will be practically meaningful either.

It is an absurd decision which compounds the very problem that brought this kid to court in the first place - the strangle-hold of the chief Orthodox Rabbi over admissions.

[The Brain]

Jews suck. Film at 11.

Swallow

Where?

[Gups]

This all seems tenous to me but OK. It's the Government's fault. The Government (the Court of Appeal) has told itself that its policy contravenes the Government's (Parliament's) law. The Government (the School Board) now has to comply. 

I think what it shows is that the problem here is not merely state entanglement with religion; it is compounded by this particular state's penchant for favoring certain established organizations with historical pedigree.

I'm not sure if any of this is particulaly relevant to whether the Court made the right decision or not.

It's relevant to why the case existed in the first place.

Where the Court errs it seems to me is in para 26: "That, Ms Rose submits, is discrimination against M on the ground of ethnicity – in the first instance the ethnicity of his mother, which is enough to bring the case home; and by extension the ethnicity of the child. "

The court appears to accept Rose's position, but the statement is incorrect.  The ethnicity of the mother has nothing to do with the admission decision.  What drove the admission decision was the fact the the mother's conversion was not conducted under the aupices of the Office of Chief Rabbi.

And therefore she was not Jewish in any sense of the word. But had she been born Jewish, the son would have got in whether she was religiously Jewish or nor.

So the admissions policy favours those who are ethnically Jewish. I don't see how this can be disputed.

And that is against the statute which the Court has to apply. Maybe the statute is wrong and should have an exclusion for Jews, but that is a different matter.

[The Brain]

I think it should. Special rules for Jews have worked out so great in the past.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

I agree that this is another key factor that creates this weird result.  In the States, the anti-discrimination laws apply with equal force to discrimination based on religion or creed as on race.  That apparently does not hold in the UK.  Thus, Jewish organizations in the UK take the legal position that Judaism is a racial group in order to come under the ambit of the anti-discrimination laws - and that ends up driving what appears to be circular reasoning by the court to the effect that Jewishness is a racial category because it is a race.

And therefore she was not Jewish in any sense of the word. But had she been born Jewish, the son would have got in whether she was religiously Jewish or nor.

So the admissions policy favours those who are ethnically Jewish. I don't see how this can be disputed

Sure it can be disputed - the link between "being born of a mother who is Jewish" and Judaism being an ethnic category is an artefact of the UK's legal structure which deems Judaism to be a race.

[Gups]

It is an absurd decision which compounds the very problem that brought this kid to court in the first place - the strangle-hold of the chief Orthodox Rabbi over admissions.

Only over the admissions policy of this school. Just to be clear, there are about 40 Jewish schools in the UK. 7 are affliated with the US. Many of the others are Orthodox, some are reformed and some liberal.

[Malthus]

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

I agree that this is another key factor that creates this weird result.  In the States, the anti-discrimination laws apply with equal force to discrimination based on religion or creed as on race.  That apparently does not hold in the UK.  Thus, Jewish organizations in the UK take the legal position that Judaism is a racial group in order to come under the ambit of the anti-discrimination laws - and that ends up driving what appears to be circular reasoning by the court to the effect that Jewishness is a racial category because it is a race.

Great. By defining themselves as a "race" they are now defined as "racists" for favouring themselves.

Why, they are just the KKK in Kippahs! 

[The Minsky Moment]

Great. By defining themselves as a "race" they are now defined as "racists" for favouring themselves.

And they must define themselves as a race to obtain antidiscrimination protection because the law permits discrimination on the basis of religion, and indeed must do so in order for the entire system of pseudo-state religious schools to operate the way it does.

[Gups]

In UK law there is the same protection against discrimination on grounds of religion as there is for race except on schools admissions policy.

[garbon]

Where?

[The Minsky Moment]

In UK law there is the same protection against discrimination on grounds of religion as there is for race except on schools admissions policy.

OK.  But then why were the respondents so keen on making sure Jews were covered under the Race Relations Act?

[dps]

Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.

The present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.

More specifically, from the article in the OP:

Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority.

In other words, the government delegated the task of establishing who was a member of a particular faith to a "designated religious authority" of that faith.  This would imply that the criteria set by that authority are sanctioned by the government--the designated religious authority has acted on behalf of the government in setting the criteria--in affect acting as an agent of the government.