I wrote previously about the differences between covert and overt racial prejudice, and how it is unhealthy to bottle prejudice up.  I also sense that more and more the Australian “way of life” is being muffled by an undertone of suppressed political correctness, that ironically stifles debate about the true meaning and benefits of multiculturalism.  Every Australia Day, the topic of racism comes to the fore, polarising the nation between those who embrace, and those who feel threatened by ethnic diversity.

Sadly, I think it is fair to conclude that the majority of Australians are racially intolerant, some more vocally so than others.  The cause is attributed to Australian cultural identity, that is completely separate from any religious doctrine.  This contrasts, and rapidly conflicts with other cultural identities that blend culture and religion into a seamless ethos.  The binding of a religious identity into Australian identity is “tolerated” as ethnic diversity in Australia, but only just, and in a manner that typically irks the average secular ockker.

In Australia, the textbook definition of racial tolerance conflicts with the streetwise reality.

Aside from the inability to engage in any rational or intelligent discussion, it also seems to me that some Australian’s are so insecure in their own identity that they have to fear the identities of others in order to compensate.  Today’s example comes courtesy of former cricketer Rodney Hogg. For the sake of his future career prospects Hogg had the decency to apologise for his remark that “Allah is a shit” , however the lame excuse that this was a poor attempt at humour does not cut it.  In typical Hogg style, it was just poor form.

I find the visible signs of Australian “culture” such as the beach, surf, outback pub, cricket, vegemite, tim tams, beer, and barbie to be iconic enough, but they do not deliver any values beyond that of a perfunctionary symbol.  They are signs that are interpreted to deliver value statements such as a “fair go”, a laid back lifestyle, mateship, and she’ll be right.  However I then question, of what purpose such ideas contribute as cultural virtues.

Australia has to find its place in the world with a stronger identity.  At the moment we are a nation without a purpose. We remain a colony of the Commonwealth, a quarry of the Asia pacific, a backwater stretch of suburbia linked by endless dessert.

So what should Australia be?  My starting point would be to attempt to build a genuinely egalitarian culture that lost its racist undertone.  Recreating Aboriginal communities and sharing pride in the indigenous heritage of Australia would be a good starting point.  Australia offers the world the outback experience, the mining and resources market, the science of biodiversity, and a unique contribution to the arts.  Leveraging this more into the identification of Australiana would contribute more to global recognition of Australia than the current gift of “chill and relax”.

Before we progress pride in an egalitarian Australia, we need to correct the perception of Australia by cleanising our society of racism.  You don’t have to move very far to see open racism in the streets of Australia.  Take for example this bus shelter on Alexander Drive.  Michael Sutherland is an outstanding Member of Parliament who has engaged with the local Jewish community.  He recently placed banners near Jewish localities wishing members of the Jewish community happy Chanukah.  One of his regular billboards was recently defaced, the vandalism projecting an image that he is a mouthpiece of the Jewish community.

Australian’s don’t like being told that racism is rife in our community, but do need to hear it.  We are too dismissive of unsocial behaviour that is built on the basis of racial prejudice.  Just ask a migrant of any creed about their experiences in the workplace and beyond.  Ask the children of those migrant’s about their experience in the school playground and even moreso about the dismissive way in which racist behaviour is often dealt with.

We are one, we are many, and we are Australian.  We can all take greater pride in that when we make it a societal value that Australia will tolerate many things, but that racial prejudice is something that we will not tolerate.

There could have been no better way for the PHC to commence its 120th year celebrations.  The euphoria of the visit to Perth by the Chief Rabbi will linger for some time.  The Rabbi made a number of public addresses that endeared him to a broad audience base.  His ability to address such a wide variety of topics, and to impart such a positive and warm insight into Jewish thought is truely unique.  In his keynote presentation to the open community was only enhanced by the superb facilitation skills of Adam Levine as the interview host.

Amongst the valuable presentations was an address by the Chief Rabbi to the youth.  A packed Beit Midrash, without even any spare standing room, engaged in discussion with Rabbi Sacks about diverse topics such as Torah and Science, leadership, and the existence of G-d.  That so many students, from high school to University, took this opportunity to participate in this session was in itself inspiring.

Youth pack the PHC Beit Midrash to converse with the Chief Rabbi

In the previous blog post I noted that the Chief Rabbi has clear areas of strength, which he leveraged to great effect during this visit.  His address to an interfaith audience hosted by the Anglican Arch Bishop was of tremendous value in building relationships, connecting the Jewish community, and articulating a tolerant base upon which faith based communities can  share dialogue.

Rabbi Sacks himself admitted, when asked about his reasons for retirement, that the job of Chief Rabbi came at the opportunity cost for him to write, travel, and engage.  He noted that the number of books he still has to write, exceeds the number of books he has already written.  In an ironic way, the duties of the Chief Rabbi to the Orthodox Synagogues communities of Britain (the Beit Din, community and Rabbinic duties) are almost a distraction from the ability of Rabbi Sacks to optimise his talent as an orator and philosopher. 

I would love to see a new role formed for Rabbi Sacks that is an emeritis theological post.  Rabbi Sacks should be to Diaspora Jewry what Natan Sharansky is to the Jewish agency.  Without the ceremonial Rabbinic duties of the office, but whilst retaining the mandate to represent the Jewish community, Rabbi Sacks should be the public face of interfaith dialogue.  In the process, the office of the Chief Rabbi could divest itself of this focus, returning instead to focus on the Rabbinic business of growing Jewish education, observance, and identity from within.

Rabbi Sacks also said he believed strongly in the universal message of Judaism.  He has forged a rapport with the British public as a contributor to social debate.  This is from within the House of Lords, from within the studios of the media, across the pages of the press, and through the medium of the internet.  A small but very powerful example of this was on display yesterday in the Perth Town Hall. 

As a connected observation, it was evident that no public media were covering this address, to an audience of hundreds of people, including civic dignitaries.  This was not a slight on the Chief Rabbi or the Jewish community.  It is however very indicative of a major difference between Australian and British society when it comes to the exposure of religion, and the contribution of religious viewpoints to conversations that impact ethics, culture, public policy, and communal harmony.  The British community is more secure in its faith based tradition, and more tolerant of incorporating a religious perspective into its discussion.  In Australia we are far too secular to embrace a religiously founded viewpoint.  In Australia, religious leaders of all persuasions receive no media platform to persuade.  Their only press coverage comes through derision or negative news stories. 

Rabbi Sacks stated clearly that he believes in the separation of religion and State.  However he sees room for the religious perspective to be heard and respected.  In discussing the risks of fundamentalism, he noted that a fundamentalist is someone who attempts to impose their view on everyone, who will not accept that there is another view that is different to their own that is still freely expressed.  Such a view can be respected without being accepted.  The Jewish religion is a strong exponent of pluralistic expression, but the dynamics of how Judaism structures and protects itself from the risk of puralistic self-destruction are often gravely misunderstood.   

The great talent of Rabbi Sacks should be channeled to impart this message to the non-Jewish world.  The more opportunity he has to engage with both religious and secular society and speak to people that would otherwise never come into contact with a Jewish thinker, the better off the world will be.  My previous comments about the future of the Office of the Chief Rabbi stand, however I only wish to add that Rabbi Sacks should be elevated from the role of Chief Rabbi, to the role of Ambassador of the Jewish people.   Irrespective of the role title, his activity in this area should only grow in stature and influence, and he should be blessed with many more years as a respected commentator, and leader who represents the power and learnings of 4,000 years of enduring Jewish tradition to people of every faith and creed.

Next week marks an auspicious moment for the Perth Hebrew Congregation as they celebrate their 120^th year by hosting Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.  Mazaltov to the PHC, and may the next 120 years of the Shule be filled with continued prosperity and growth of yiddishkeit.

Rabbi Sacks serves as the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, a role which has formally existed since 1845 and has a strong institutional tradition.  Each occupant of the Chief Rabbi’s office has brought a unique strength to the role. I have had the pleasure of meeting Rabbi Sacks several times, and also his predecessor Rabbi Jakobovits  Z”L on two occasions.  They were both very different in character and in how they shaped the role of their office.  Rabbi Jakobovits delivered strong ethical teachings in contemporary areas such as law and medicine.  Rabbi Sacks has utilised his strength as an author and philosopher to bring prominence to the title.

Over the past 20 years of Rabbi Sack’s tenure as Chief Rabbi, the Jewish world, and the modern orthodox world in particular, has encountered much change.  One of Rabbi Sack’s seminal works “Orthodoxy confronts Modernity” highlights the contemporary approach of his work and optimisation of his use of the Chief Rabbi’s office.

This will be Rabbi Sack’s last visit to Perth as Chief Rabbi. There is a lot of conjecture relating to the search for his successor, and with it, much questioning of whether the role itself has outlived its usefulness.

My own view is that whilst the UK Jewish community needs to retain this establishment, the Jewish communities of the Commonwealth do not.  Much as Australian’s are happy to respect  the monarchy and the current reign of Her Majesty, there are many who feel that a move towards a Republic should succeed Queen Elizabeth.  So too, the future Chief Rabbi should be a national role for the United Kingdom, carrying no ceremonial or mandated role for other nations.

In forming this view, I have thought about what the purpose of the role of the Chief Rabbi is, and what it should be.  I have seen communities in Australia and beyond consult the Chief Rabbi on matters of communal structure and halacha.  However most people have reduced the status of the Chief Rabbi role to a figurehead position, essentially serving as a spokesperson for the Jewish religion to the non-Jewish world.  There are discussions regarding whether the role is akin to a diplomatic role, a media role, a political role, or a combination of all of this with a healthy dose of Judaism mixed in.  Whatever the case, the role has to reach far and wide, impart the positive virtues of a Jewish identity while at the same time defending the Jewish community from anti-Semitism, advocating for Israel, and standing up to the eroding forces of assimilation.  It’s not an easy job description.  The “in-tray” of the Chief Rabbi makes the recruitment process one that is very complex and daunting.

The UK Jewish community of several hundred thousand people (a diminishing number) requires a domestic focus from its Chief Rabbi. British Jewry needs the traditional status of the role itself to hold the United Synagogue communities together.  Australian Jewish communities have a more diverse constituent, and they are too geographically distant for the role of Chief Rabbi to have a meaningful physical presence.

In Australia, the issues and requirements of a Jewish community are also different.  From a general cultural perspective alone, if Australian Jewry needs a spokesperson, it is in the form of lay leadership and not Rabbinic decree.

More importantly, Australian Jewry should look towards Jerusalem as the centre of the Jewish world, and not London.  It should be through a Rabbinic structure of leadership that we should take direction.  In a formal sense no such structure exists at this point in time.  Many movements of Judaism, including Mizrachi for religious Zionists, have their own leaders and consultative authorities.  The office of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel is too ceremonial, politicised, and dysfunctional to have any meaningful role for Australia.  However other structures are slowly evolving.  For instance there is a non-public and unidentified Sanhedran structure that is developing for the time that it will be needed (may that be soon!) which could well be a future body by which the evolvement of Jewish tradition continues its rite of passage.

The Chief Rabbi visit to Perth is a wonderful opportunity for us to hear from a Torah Scholar and orator.  There is no doubt that Rabbi Sacks has accomplished much and advanced Jewish identity across the Jewish world.  He has embraced technology, represented Jewish communities with distinction, and revitalised modern orthodoxy as a centralist movement.

Rather than seek any one successor for the incumbent role, I believe that the role itself should change.  There should be many successors, each with strengths in various parts of the role.  Above all, as Australia continues to mature towards the sovereign independence of a Republic, so too should the Jewish community of Australia mature towards independent and unaffiliated structure of spiritual leadership.

A post was placed onto this blog last night that attracted some views and comments.

In the interests of ahavat yisrael, this post has been removed so as not to inflame tension, or cause upset to any of the people involved.  JewglePerth has no desire to cause offence or distrub sensibilities, and apologies to those concerned.   It is sometimes best not to comnment , especially on matters where knowledge of a situation is limited.

“There came a new Pharoah who did not know Joseph.”

As we commence reading the book of Shmot, the reader of the Torah comes to learn that suddenly, despite all the hard work, productive contribution, acceptance and integration of the family of Joseph into Egyptian society, the Jewish contribution towards famine relief and nation building in Egypt ultimately counted for nothing.  Soonafter, through the narrative of the ten plagues we come to learn that the anti-Semitism of Pharoah started to gradually compound.

In a contemporary analogy, today we have an entire world that does not know Joseph. Billions of people around the world are not aware of the scientific, medical, ethical, technological and economic achievements of the State of Israel, all achieved under existential threat over the past 60 years or so.  However they do know another Israel, one that is charged as a subjugator, a suppressor of rights, and an occupier.  These false allegations may well be ingrained into the psyche of thousands of years of anti-Semitism, but they are mostly expressed people who are fully ignorant of Jewish history, ancient and modern, and the revitalised role of the Jewish nation.

Essentially, Pharoah had cleaned out his facebook friends, and delinked Joseph.  Having stolen and uploaded the Intellectual Property rights of the Jews to YouTube, the masses came and posted comments telling the Jews to go back to where they came from.  They accused the Jews of killing Egyptian babies, and of stealing wealth through sound economic management.  Social media took over from the state sanctioned media incitement, and the Jews of Egypt were powerless to stand up aganist the culture of Jew hatred that had been instilled into society.   

It is not so different today, certainly from a news media perspective.  Occasionally you open a newspaper or watch a TV clip that has a retraction or a correction over an error.  It creates the veneer that the media concerned is considered beyond reproach, that it is a self regulating paragon of virtue.  It may be an advertisement that contained the wrong price, or the incorrect citation of a relationship between two people.  The media are at pains, it would seem, to be honest and accurate.

Above all, there is one alarming trend that stands as an absolute double standard through the publication of online media.  It is not always the news articles, which may not be factually incorrect, but biased due to omission of information, selective quoting, or the removal of context.  It is within the comments section of many news sites that anti-Semitism is now given a forum, in the name of free speech, to fester unabated.

How often do you open a you tube clip that may have something to do with Jewish art, music, or even very little to do with Jewish identity, yet the comments very quickly degenerate into very foul statements about how the Jews are Nazi’s, or stole Palestinian land, or killed Jesus, or control the worlds money markets?  Why is it that the publisher of a news article online delivers an open forum for hate speech, and when big red lines are crossed, does not take responsibility for moderation?

Godwin’s Law is that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches”. It used to be six degrees of separation from the start of a discussion thread.  Now it appears to be good enough as an opening gambit.

Vic Alhadeff in an article published in the AJN and Jwire, advocates for moderation and the disclosure of identity as part of the solution to the problem of online racism and hate speech.  There is no doubt that these measures will help.  The harder part of the equation is attacking the problem at its source.

Australia is a very open society and generally fairly tolerant.  This is true in a public setting, but less so in the private domain where online communications are initiated.  It is sad, and sometimes hard to acknowledge, but there are some deeply inherent prejudices built into Australian culture that are expressed as an intolerance of multiculturalism.  Many people express this either in private and/or with the protection of anonymity, but will repress and conceal these views in a public setting.

This can be unhealthy.  In a sense, it is far better for these views to be “outed” and seen for what they are.  At least we know what we are dealing with.  People who bottle up their resentment of minority cultures and allow their proverbial powder keg to explode are far more of a risk and a threat to society.

Sadly, Australia is a global contributor to online anti-Semitism.  Nobody can solve this problem.  Censorship breeds contempt and suffocates the vitriol, but it doesn’t make the issue go away and it brings forth allegations that the freedom of speech is in breach.  Moderation is subjective, and limited in effect.  Allowing free passage of hate speech creates a passive attitude towards societal decay, and ignoring racist remarks doesn’t change the fact that they are very real viewpoints that have been expressed out of malice.

Jewish people know better than most that new answers to old problems are required for each generation.  For example, the great influencing factors that motivated Jewish communities have faded.  Our world does not have a first hand account of the Shoah, and the Jewish population itself cannot comprehend the concept of a world with no Jewish State.  So the culture within our Jewish communities begins to change accordingly.

The days of media self regulation have reached an end.  Regulation of the internet is a Generation X solution applied to Generation Y interactive social intercommunications.  Media regulation needs to be better asserted through broadcasting licensing and policy, starting from the online media and working right back through to TV, talkback radio, and the press.  A publisher of views not only needs to be accountable for what they themselves say, but also for the interactive commentary that they invite and publish as part of their media.  This blog is not immune – we do not moderate comments prior to publication, but check very regularly, and sadly have to occasionally remove remarks that are offensive.

Communication though any medium is a vital privilege and gift, and it must be used wisely.