Judaism is not on trial
This post is prompted by a You Tube video I have just watched. The video was made by the ugly anti-Semite Fredrick Toben, in support of our local anti-Semitic non-celebrity Brendon O’Connell. I’m not posting a link as I have no desire to attract traffic to the video itself.
In the video, Toben requests that Jews who are honest and sincere about their religious affiliation step forward.
Well, here I am.
I am a Jew. My religious observances and beliefs (in that particular order) make me distinguishable as a Jew. However that is not WHY I am a Jew. I am a Jew because I was born to Jewish parents; more specifically a Jewish mother. That also make me eligible to be a citizen of the world’s only Jewish State, Israel. My ethnic identity is Jewish. It so follows that my religious beliefs conform to that ethnic tradition. My ethos, my culture, my race, my ethnicity, my religion, and my blood is all Jewish. I was born Jewish and I also choose to live in accordance with that birth identity.
Does that sound racist to you?
For millennia people have poured over the discussion, philosopher and ignoramus alike, whether Judaism is an ethnicity or a religion. Sometimes the confused Jews amongst us also have trouble trying to work it out.
There is no distinction. Jewish identity is a national, ethnic and religious identity, all intertwined. Such a definition does not impact or threaten the liberty of the Toben’s and O’Connell’s of the world as they would like to think that it does. Nor is this critical to the resolution of the legal technicalities that define the basis of charges laid against their brazen anti-Semitism.
Even the UK supreme court has managed to adjudicate on matters of Jewish identity without putting Judaism itself on trial. In an article relating to that case, Lesley Wagner writes: ” However, as Judaism, uniquely, defines religious status through descent, rather than affirmation, this makes Jews an ethnic group as defined by the legislation and case law. We are Jews because our parents were Jewish, whether we believe or practice any Jewish principles or not. Converts can join this group, but they don’t change the essential nature of the group.”
Perhaps the key word in determining the true nature of Jewish identity is “nation”. Jewish nationhood developed when Israel entered Egypt as a family, and emerged as a people. Shortly afterwards the covenant of Sinai became the unique national constitution of the Jewish people.
There was a Jewish State which came into existence over 3,000 years ago. It existed in the form of two different Commonwealths for approximately 1,000 years.
For almost 2,000 years the world has not been used to treating their Jews as a “nation”, as the physical instrument of a State, and the mechanism of self-Government was transformed from a system of justice (one that had principles that greatly differed from the empires of the time, and formed the basis of what we call Western Civilisation today) to a system of intellectual rigour. The texts of Judaism have preserved the knowledge needed to recreate Jewish national self determination.
Being a Jewish resident of a Jewish State is incomparable. Although modern Israel has yet to transform itself into a nation governed by Jewish law, even today a “Jewish Israeli” has a different connotation to a “Christian Australian”. In order to fulfill the definition of “Jewish” the person has to do more than just identify or accept an ideology. To preserve their identity they have to practice and live a Jewish way. That is why ethnicity is a perfectly rational definition to apply.
Judaism is not on trial, by any court or by any legal system. By contrast, Brendon O’Connell is on trial. Here is a person who is proud of his anti-Semitism. In good company with Toben, O’Connell will be instructed by the law that his brand of racial hatred is not accepted within Australian society. Although these people want to grandstand and use their few minutes of infamy in court to ”expose” Judaism as a religion and entice the legal system to declassify Judaism as an ethnicity, the entire crusade they represent is pathetically irrelevant.
Jewish people will continue to be Jewish, proudly upholding their religious-ethnic identity. In Australia, we should have confidence that the judicial system and the political system that supports it will continue to uphold both religious and ethnic freedom for all creeds, free from vilification.
The courts should be interested in why O’Connell wants to brand Jews as “not a race”. The reason being, he, and others like him, desire to persecute a particular group of people (namely Jews) and wish to be immune from laws against persecution.
At the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter whether Australian courts consider Jews a religion or a Race. O’Connell’s stated goal remains to persecute a segment of society and that should be (and is) illegal.
That kind of hatred alone should be cause for concern and should be truly stamped out. However, weak as the court system is, his pathetic debate will probably be allowed.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:09 amI attended the hearing of the Brendan O’Connell matter in the WA District Court on 11 December before her Honour The Chief Judge, expecting it to be listed for trial. It had been deferred to that day because on the previous occasion, O’Connell dismissed his lawyer and proceeded to rant and make wild allegations. The judge in that instance urged him to seek alternative representation.
O’Connell was still unrepresented on the 11th December, although he attended with Fredrick Toben, who appeared to be advising him.
Note that Fredrick Toben also “advised” Olga Scully in the Federal Court case Jones v Scully. Olga Scully lost the case and went bankrupt. Toben alao lost his own case. So if Fredrick Toben is now advising Brendan O’Connell then O’Connell has a fool for an adviser and Toben has [for the third time] a fool for a client.
O’Connell requested “many months” to seek funding “from interstate” and also arrange witnesses “from overseas …including the United States…”
He also repeated his prior allegations of police trespassing and planting evidence. He alleged that he has been slandered by the Jewish community.
Despite O’Connell’s protests that the matter had “international ramifications”, her honour was not inclined to delay further and listed a directions hearing on 11 February 2010, for two purposes:
• to determine if “Jews are a racial group” (Prosecution was required to present its submission on the matter by 23 December; Defence by 29 Jan) Apparently an issue O’Connel has raised in his defence is that Jews are not a racial group in an attempt to undermine the applicability of the subject Act.
• to list the matter for trial.
The issue of whether or not “Jews are a racial group” is certainly interesting.
The law is well settled that Jews are a group protected by the various ethnic vilification laws in Australia, New Zealand and UK. Jews are a race in the sense required to qualify for protection under legislation proscribing racial discrimination. The reasoning is described in a famous decision of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand concerning the meaning to be given to the words “ethnic . . . origins of that group of persons”. The decision of the Court of Appeal was that Jews in New Zealand did form a group with common ethnic origins within the meaning of the Act.
The following short passages from the Judgment are authoritative.
****QUOTE****
“The real test is whether the individuals or the group regard themselves and are regarded by others in the community as having a particular historical identity in terms of their colour or their racial, national or ethnic origins. That must be based on a belief shared by members of the group… …. a group is identifiable in terms of its ethnic origins if it is a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from a common or presumed common past, even if not drawn from what in biological terms is a common racial stock. It is that combination which gives them an historically determined social identity in their own eyes and in the eyes of those outside the group, they have a distinct social identity based not simply on group cohesion and solidarity but also on their belief as to their historical antecedents.”
****UNQUOTE****
That last passage sums up very well the difference between a race for anti-discrimination purposes and a race in the biological sense.
In recent UK cases, the courts relied on precedent definitions of Jews as a racial group (determined in the context of charges under their racial vilification laws) to later find against some Jewish schools for favouring applicants on the basis of the halachic definition of Jewishness. These findings have caused considerable consternation in the Jewish community around the world, as Gedalia has noted. [See http://jiw.blogspot.com/2009/12/defect-in-uk-law.html for a detailed report, complete with links to press releases from the school, United Synagogue in UK and verbatim copies of the relevant judgements.]
The majority [5 of the 9 UK Supreme Court judges], while stating that the logic of the argument of their interpretation of the law meant that the school had breached the race relations legislation, this did not mean that those involved were “racist.” As one of the justices said, “The chief rabbi and the governors of JFS are free from any moral blame. That they have fallen foul of the 1976 act does not involve any reprehensible conduct on their part, for it is accepted on all sides that they acted on sincerely and conscientiously held beliefs. Their motives are unimpeachable… The grounds on which the rejection of M was made may well be considered perfectly reasonable in the religious context, but… they amount to ethnic grounds under the legislation.”
This theme, that the outcome is an unintended consequence of legislation produced more than 30 years ago in a different context, recurs throughout the judgment, and is mentioned by 8 of the 9 judges. Indeed the president of the court, Lord Phillips, as early as the ninth paragraph states :”There may well be a defect in our law of discrimination.”
Personally, while I have no doubt that the racial Vilification Act applies to the O’Connell case, I’m also uncomfortable with a definition of Jewishness based ENITIRELY on race. This is Hitler’s definition. As Gedalia points out in this posting above, “Jewish identity is a national, ethnic and religious identity, all intertwined.”
It seems to me that the halachic definition is not EXCLUSIVELY racial, in the sense of Jewishness being conferred genetically. The case of a convert, clearly demonstrates this.
But even the requirment of a maternal link to Judaism is as much about the mother’s influence not just her genes: an issue of nurture as well as nature; soil as well as seed; environment as well as genetics. Modern research in early childhood development emphasises the importance of environment in the first months and years of life, on the character of the child.
Consider the following cases:
• In-utero implantation of an embryo from non-Jewish parents into a Jewish woman who gives birth and raises the child. Is the child Jewish?
• A child of non-Jewish parents adopted by a Jewish mother: at birth; at one year of age; 3 years…etc; post Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Is there an age below which the child is considered Jewish? Does attendance at a Jewish school have any bearing on this question?
Food for thought…
December 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pmShame on ugly anti Semitic Frederick Toben.
December 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pmThe Jewish god Yahweh tells us that our Jewish friends should be allowed to take what they want and leave the rest.
It is anti Semitic to question the teachings of the good god Yahweh.
As the poster of this item I have taken the unusual step of moderating (deleting some posted comments) and have elected to discontinue further comments for this thread.
It would seem the posting has dragged a few anti-Semites out of the closet. There is no room for debate unless it is reasoned debate. Hateful comments are not permitted at all. Other insightful comments that are not posted with an offensive tone, but nonetheless challenge theoligical and religious practices within Judaism, bear no relevance to this posting itself.
There are plenty of places to crusade against Judaism on the internet. This site does not happen to be one of them.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:47 pmSteve,
I do agree with what you have posted, although in answer to your food for thought I will post the Halachic view as I am aware of it.
Regarding an “In-utero implantation of an embryo from non-Jewish parents into a Jewish woman who gives birth and raises the child.” There are Poskim (Halachic Authorities) who consider the child to be Jewish, and there are Poskim who require the child to undergo conversion after birth. As far as I’m aware the accepted Halachic practice is to convert the child after birth in consideration of those who require it. (This merely constitutes immersion in a Mikva.) There are of course many Halachic concerns involved with this scenario including the child’s relationship to/with siblings, etc. Therefore in each case a knowledgeable Posek should be consulted.
Regarding “A child of non-Jewish parents adopted by a Jewish mother: at birth; at one year of age; 3 years…etc; post Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Is there an age below which the child is considered Jewish? Does attendance at a Jewish school have any bearing on this question?” Regardless of the age the child needs to be Halachichly converted through Brit Milah for a boy and immersion in a Mikva.
In many ways the education of a individual and their background can affect the process by which they are required to convert. For example, there have been cases where a person has grown up all their lives believing they were Jewish (studied in Yeshiva and all) and later on found out that they were not. In these cases there have been Rabbis who have allowed an immediate conversion instead of the 2 or more years it normally takes to learn about Judaism for most converts.
All in all the physical act of converting someone is something that is always required regardless of the knowledge or background of a person. Although in every case there are many areas of Halacha that need to be considered and each scenario is unique.
It should be noted that I am definitely not a Halachic Posek and I am just presenting the accepted Halachic view as I am aware of it.
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:15 pm“That also make me eligible to be a citizen of the world’s only Jewish State, Israel.”
You’re Jewish but you’re not living in your Jewish State? Why not? Pack your bags and go honor Lord Balfour’s 1919 “agreement” and Rothschild’s funding of WW2 to bring about pretext for the 1948 Jewish State also funded by Rothschild.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:45 pm