Monday, 29 June 2009

Who is a Jew ?

Last week the Court of Appeal issued an extraordinary judgement in the case of E v JFS School [2009] EWCA Civ 626 where it decided that it was better qualified than the Chief Rabbi to decide whether or not a particular youth was jewish. This decision reversed an earlier High Court judgement [2008] EWHC 1535/1536 (Admin).

The essence of the case was that JFS School (formerly the Jewish Free School) is a faith school which selects students who are Jewish and it accepts the decision of the Chief Rabbi as to who is or is not Jewish. E's mother converted to Judaism in a reform synagogue and that conversion is not recognised as valid by the Chief Rabbi who only accepts conversions through Orthodox Synagogues. For this reason E was not accepted by the school as being Jewish because Orthodox Judaism accepts descent through the mother (matrilineal descent) and since E's mother was not accepted as being Jewish neither was he.

This may be regarded as a pretty hard set of rules but it is one which has been applied by Jewdaism for some 3000 years during which period Jews have survived the Pharaohs, Assyrians, Seleucid Greeks, Romans and the Nazis so you would have thought that the Jews had earned the right to decide these questions for themselves well not in modern Britain they're not. The Court of Appeal decided that the policy was "racist" and therefore it must be overturned and they, the Court of Appeal were entitled to overrule the Chief Rabbi and decide that E was in fact Jewish.

I frankly find this decision dangerous, if a religion cannot even decide for itself who its members are then what real freedom do religions have left ? What I find more worrying is that during the High Court case the Counsel for E relied upon the
Nazi Nuremberg Laws in support of her proposition that E should be regarded as Jewish (I am not making this up see paras 286 to 301 of the High Court decision). The question I ask is this if the Court of Appeal is deciding that it can say someone is Jewish even though other Jews do not regard them as such then isn't this similar in principle to what the Nazis were doing ? Under the Nazis "Jews" who were Christians were still regarded as Jews and sent to the concentration camps. The lessons of history are that once the state starts defining who people are we are into dangerous waters indeed.

5 comments:

dillydaydream said...

Effectively that sets a clear legal precedent for appeals by non-practising Catholics for entry to Catholic schools, and this inevitably means the character of these schools will be irretrievably changed. The appeals process for my children's school (top performing in the borough) is already horrendous. It is the end of Catholic schooling. Sorry to be dramatic.

kieran said...

If you read the judgement you will see that it does not mean the end of Catholic school. The judgement says that religion is a defined by belief and not by ethnicity.

To say that Jew is only a Jew if the Chief Rabbi says so would be like saying that a Christian is only a Christian if the Pope says so. This would exclude many devote Jews and Christians and would unjustly privilege Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism.

kieran said...

Having now read the first judgement as well as the second and thought about this some more I now think my previous comment was superficial and ill-informed. The JFS seeks to educate Jewish children in a Jewish context as defined by the Orthodox Jewish tradition and this is as much,if not more,about membership of a community as it is about belief and religious practice. This tradition has its own rules about membership of that community as defined by Jewish law in the Orhodox tradition. So in that context it is a matter for the Chief Rabbi and the Beth Din court to decide meets the criteria to be counted as a Jew in the Orthodox Jewish tradition. Presumably Jews from other traditions can open schools for children who meet their criteria for memebership which could be more or less 'liberal'. In the same way although the Pope does not have the authority to decide who is a Christain he does have the authority to decide who is to be counted as a Catholic in the Roman Catholic tradtion where this is in dispute. The issue is more complicated than I first thought and I agree that the State should not interfer in this matters except where other human rights laws are involved. The implication of the latest judgement seems to be that the criteria for membership of the Orthodox Jewish community is inherently racist? If that is so then I can see why the Chief Rabbi and other members of the Orthodox Jewish community are so concerned about the judgement and would want to reject it.

David said...

The decision of the Court of Appeals is worrying. It reflects a total misunderstanding of what "discrimination" is. Jews have a right to have/ go to schools intended for Jewish pupils, by halachic definition- if they so choose. Such schools are essential in order to preserve Jewish identity & learning. To enforce otherwise is sheer antisemitism. A minority group deserves the right in a liberal, democratic society to "defensive segregation" in schools, if chosen by that minority to preserve its own traditions. Ghetto-isation & segregation- imposed by others- is discrimination- BUT IF THAT IS WHAT IS REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY GROUP, IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

David said...

I intend to publish a critique of this misguided judgment (which I hope will be overturned) in the Jerusalem Bar Association journal.