“THE Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia opposes any legislation to legitimise same-sex marriage. This is not intended to show any discrimination against the gay community, but simply to uphold the sanctity and purpose of marriage, which is the union of man and woman not only to express their love for one another but also to bring future generations into the world.

The institution of marriage and family life, as defined and practised for thousands of years as between a man and a woman, a father and a mother, respectively, is far too important and essential to the bedrock of society and civilisation as we know it to be undermined by those who presume to redefine its essence. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs.

That prospect is unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate. We call upon Australians to stand opposed to any attempt, whether judicial, legislative or religious in nature, to bestow the sanctity of marriage upon same-sex couples.”

The letter is sure to raise ire in the Jewish community and justifiably so. First, although the name suggests that it represents all rabbis, Rabbi Freilich’s organisation of rabbis is only representative of the Orthodox variety. By choosing the name that they have and making public statements, the organisation (henceforth I will call them by their acronym, ORA) give the impression that they represent rabbis from all Jewish streams. This is a general problem with ORA and in this case they misrepresent the views of rabbis from other Jewish streams. For example, Australian Progressive Judaism has an official stance in support of same-sex marriage.

However, an even more important principle is at play here. It is broadly true that same-sex marriage does not exist within Orthodox Judaism. (There are exceptions to this but they are not the norm – for example, recently Steven Greenberg, who is an openly gay rabbi who was ordained at Yeshiva University, the major Modern Orthodox rabbinical school in New York City, conducted a same-sex marriage.) Nonetheless, even if Orthodox Judaism does not support same-sex Jewish marriage, this is no reason to oppose same-sex civil marriage.

Whilst in their letter ORA express concern that they will risk legal sanction for failing to conduct same-sex marriages, this is clearly a red herring. Orthodox rabbis do not face legal sanction for refusing to conduct interfaith marriages, and thus would not face legal sanction for refusing to conduct same sex marriages.

Judaism is not usually an evangelical religion. It is generally agreed (even or perhaps especially amongst the Orthodox) that the vast majority of Jewish laws do not pertain to non-Jews. For example, ORA would not lobby against Australian public buses running on Saturdays or restaurants serving non-kosher food. Therefore, opposing civil same-sex marriage, particularly in a country where most people are not Jewish, is not founded in Jewish law. Perhaps Australasia’s Orthodox rabbis are taking their cues, not from Jewish tradition, but rather from the American Evangelical Christians who have been doing their best to impose their beliefs and values on others for a number of years.

Unfortunately, this letter is not an isolated case. The position against same-sex marriage that Rabbi Freilich refers to in his letter was publicised earlier this year. ORA have also made a statement opposing surrogacy in Queensland. One of the reasons that they provide is that allowing surrogacy for prospective parents who are not in a heterosexual marriage normalises homosexuality. To an Australian Human Rights Commission consultation about sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity discrimination, ORA similarly expressed views against same-sex marriage. They also expressed concern about introducing federal legislation protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity. In short, ORA have engaged in a prolonged campaign against the rights of same-sex attracted Australians.

ORA is made up mainly of congregational rabbis, and many of their congregants are ‘traditional’ Jews, who are probably unaware that their religious representatives are making political statements of any sort and typically would not support their homophobic agenda. It is time for those Jews who attend shuls whose rabbis are members of ORA and who oppose discrimination on the basis of sexuality to speak out against ORA’s homophobic campaign, and perhaps to withdraw their synagogue memberships. ORA should stop trying to interfere with the civil rights of others, and limit their political involvement to advocating for the rights of Orthodox Jews.

A scene from the film

By Rachel Sacks-Davis & Anthony Frosh

The Jewish tradition was born in journey. From Abraham and Jacob to Moses and the Israelites, our mythic ancestors were wanderers whose encounters with God almost always occurred en route. Since the destruction of the Temple, however, although the Jewish people have moved across the globe, journey has not been part of religious practice.

Not so for Muslims, for whom the pilgrimage to Mecca remains one of the core religious obligations. Recently, a special screening was held of Journey to Mecca: In the Footsteps of Ibn Battuta at the IMAX in Carlton. Several members from the Jewish community, particularly from the JCCV, were in attendance at the invitation of the President of the Islamic Council Victoria (ICV), Hyder Gulam.

As the subtitle suggests, the film focuses on the Hajj undertaken by Ibn Battuta, the famous 14^th century Moroccan Berber traveller.  At a little over 20 years old, he leaves behind his comfortable life as a law student in Tangier, setting out on a Hajj that sees him travelling close to 5000km to Mecca by foot and on camel-back in a journey lasting 18 months.

Whilst Ibn Battuta’s 14^th century Hajj was much closer in time to us than our biblical forefathers, his experience of travel was surely much closer to theirs. The isolation, danger and vulnerability that marked his journey surely also marked theirs. And the spiritual gifts that so explicitly mark the journeys of our forefathers are also implicit in Ibn Battuta’s Journey to Mecca.

As is typical of IMAX films, the cinematography is breathtaking and the IMAX theatre set-up makes you feel as though you are present on the journey with Ibn Battuta. This is a unique opportunity for non-Muslims who are not usually permitted to enter Islam’s most holy city, and may also find it rather challenging to trek through the deserts of North Africa and Arabia.

Finally, Jewish film buffs will find a familiar voice. The film is narrated by Ben Kingsley, famous for his Oscar winning portrayal of Gandhi, but also having played several key Jewish characters including but not limited too Itzhak Stern (Schindler’s List), Moses, Otto Frank (Diary of Ann Frank) and even a senior Mossad commander (The Assignment).

Journey to Mecca: In the Footsteps of Ibn Battuta is currently playing at the IMAX theatre in Melbourne.

Member of Knesset, Tzipi Hotovely, was a speaker at last year's Limmud-Oz in Melbourne

By Anthony Frosh & Rachel Sacks-Davis

Advocates of boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, Vivienne Porzsolt and Peter Slezak, have had their applications to speak at Limmud-Oz next month in Sydney denied. Limmud-Oz Program Director, Michael Misrachi, explained that this decision was made because BDS includes advocating a ban on Israeli academics and performers whereas Limmud-Oz supports engagement with Israeli academics and performers.

Porzsolt has called on Limmud-Oz to reconsider their decision, which she warns, “can only, once again, bring ridicule and contempt on the Jewish community.” Since receiving the email informing her that her application to speak at Limmud-Oz had not been successful, Porzsolt has contacted a number of publications including Galus Australis regarding the incident.

Despite Porzsolt’s claim that BDS “is not aimed at individual writers and academics but at academic and cultural institutions,” it is unclear why advocates of BDS are not themselves boycotting Limmud-Oz, which not only hosts Israeli speakers, but is associated with Limmud International, a global organization encompassing branches in Israel amongst other places.

In response to the claim made by BDS advocates that BDS distinguishes between individuals and institutions, Misrachi said, “The distinction they draw between boycotting institutions and individuals is disingenuous. If the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is boycotted, it affects academics from the institution. The reality of the BDS campaign is that it is part of a calculated attack on Israel’s legitimacy.”

Regarding the decision by Limmud-Oz, Porzsolt alleges, “the Jewish community leadership has chosen to oppose the free expression of ideas and misrepresent the facts.” Limmud-Oz has responded to these allegations, stating that they do “not deny that proponents of BDS have the right to express their views to whomever they like. But that right does not impose an obligation on [Limmud-Oz] to provide them with a space to do so.”

In a statement, Limmud-Oz has added that it does not “shy away from the tough issues or from challenging points of view.” It points out that there are a number of sessions at Limmud-Oz that tackle the very issues of BDS and criticism of Israel.

Michael Brull, who states that he is against BDS but supports targeted boycotts against settlements, claims that Limmud-Oz have “dis-invited” Vivienne Porzsolt and Peter Slezak from presenting on the “grounds of inadequate loyalty to the Israeli government.”

Limmud-Oz emphasised that, “Criticism of Israel or the policies of its government similar to that levelled against any other country is entirely acceptable, and is an everyday occurrence within Israel itself. However … the BDS campaign is an attack on Israel’s basic legitimacy and harms the Jewish people as a whole, as does the singling out of Israel for unjust criticism.”

Although Brull stated that he was concerned that he too might not be welcome to speak at Limmud-Oz, the organisers have confirmed that he will be speaking at the event on a panel titled, “Beyond the Pale: Disagreeing about Israel.”

In the interests of full disclosure: In the past (and quite possibly in the future), Galus Australis has promoted Limmud-Oz events.

As a teenager, I devoured books but I don’t remember coming across one Australian young adult novel with even a minor Jewish character. I would not have expected to do so given that Jews are a small minority in Australia, so I have been intrigued to hear of two Australian young adult fiction books published within the past two years with Jewish protagonists.

Robyn Bavati’s controversial book about a girl born to an Ultra-Orthodox family, Dancing in the Dark, was reported on at Galus Australis last year. Growing up in a charedi community in Melbourne, the Jewishness of Bavati’s protagonist, Ditty, was unmistakeable and central to the plot.

In contrast, the protagonist of Zoe Thurner’s more recent novel, Dress Rehearsal, is a secular Jew called Lara Pearlman. Lara is an impulsive teenager who is in her final year of high school in a small, fictional coastal town. Set upon the backdrop of the school drama production, Dress Rehearsal is Lara’s coming of age story, and its central themes include body image, relationships with friends and family, love and lust, alcohol and drug use, and social inequality.

Although Lara’s name is very Jewish, a reader who is unfamiliar with Australian Jewish culture might miss that she is Jewish altogether. To a Jew-obsessed reader such as myself, however, there were a number of subtle but familiar characteristics that roused my Jewdar.

The most explicit reference to Lara’s Jewishness is her late grandmother’s upcoming consecration, or as it is called in the book, the ceremony for her gravestone. But there are also a number of other subtle allusions.

Lara has a complex relationship with food that is inextricable from her relationship with her mother and late grandmother. Her mother would like Lara to eat less but cooks strudels nonetheless; and her grandmother, to Lara’s mother’s chagrin, loved to feed her grandchildren homemade doughnuts.

Indeed, Lara’s grandmother’s memory is invoked repeatedly by Lara and her mother, not only with regards to food, but also regarding issues of social justice, poverty and suffering. When she thinks about these issues, Lara often refers back to her grandmother’s stories about her own deprived childhood. Dress Researsal also contains some oblique allusions to what seems to be anti-Semitism.

There is a certain pleasure in struggling to identify whether what seems to be a reference to Jewishness is indeed a reference to Jewishness, but at times I wondered whether certain Jewish characteristics had been purposefully diluted because someone – the author, editor, or another proof-reader – thought that it would make the novel more palatable for non-Jewish young Australians.

Lara’s grandmother supposedly suffered through the Depression. My father’s mother, also Jewish, immigrated to Australia as a young child and experienced the Depression, as did many other Jews of her generation. But Lara’s grandmother apparently lost her whole family in the Depression, which seems unusual and makes me wonder whether, in this case, the Depression is actually a stand-in for the Holocaust.

Similarly, when one of the characters makes what seems to be an anti-Semitic slur, saying to Lara “But then I suppose we can’t expect much from your kind,” this is left unexplained and implicit.

I don’t know whether non-Jewish young Australians would find it harder to identify with Lara if she was more explicitly Jewish, but it interesting to consider. Either way, Dress Rehearsal is a pleasure to read, and for Jews, there is an additional element of interest.

Dress Rehearsal is Zoe Thurner’s debut novel, published by Fremantle Press.

In the coming months, a branch of the New Israel Fund (NIF) will be launched in Australia. Despite its name, the NIF, which is based in the US, is more than 30 years old. Its name is a play on the similarly named, JNF, which was established in 1901 in order to support the establishment of Israel. Unlike the older fund, the raison d’etre of the NIF is based on the fact that Israel already existed when the fund was founded. Indeed, it was founded in 1979, soon after Israel signed the Camp David peace accord with Egypt, a time when existential concerns were at an all-time low in Israel. It is no mistake that a fund such as the NIF, which aims to strengthen the social fabric of the state, was founded at that time.

The NIF is an umbrella fund that provides grants to seed social initiatives in Israel. Over the three decades in which it has been running, it has supported numerous initiatives for immigrant groups (Jewish and non-Jewish), Arab Israelis, women, GLBT people and other minorities as well as initiatives that promote religious tolerance, civil rights, social welfare, and the environment. In other words, the NIF supports a broad range of social initiatives that are largely uncontroversial.

Nonetheless, in the last decade, as existential concerns in Israel have resurfaced, there has been some criticism of the NIF in Israel, the US, and more recently, Australia. The vast majority of criticisms of the NIF that were circulated in Australia recently through the AJN and email campaigns were based on misunderstandings of what the NIF does and stands for. The NIF is a Zionist organization, which aims to fulfil the tenet of the Israeli Declaration of Independence that refers to equality of social and political rights for all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.

It is not clear whether those in Australia that want to malign the NIF will reiterate their criticisms as NIF is launched down-under. Yesterday, a press release from NIF Australia announced that Robin Margo, a former Rhodes Scholar and the immediate past president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, has been named as their inaugural chair.  In other words, Margo’s “Jewish establishment” credentials are beyond reproach. It will be interesting to see how the right-wing members of the Jewish community organizations and media respond to the NIF under Margo’s leadership.

For related articles on Galus Australis see:

• The NIF Controversy, a Chance for Closure
• The Article that the Jewish News Refuses to Print

By

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and the Organisation of Rabbis Australasia (ORA) have made their submission available on the ECAJ website.

For those who do not want to read the entire document, the report in the AJN (20/5/2010) was accurate, and the submission proposes that ORA be given legal rights to define which foods can be labelled, ‘kosher.’ If ORA are not to be given these rights, ECAJ and ORA prefer that the status quo be maintained and that ‘kosher’ is not given any legal definition.

The submission does not say how ORA will decide which kashrut certificates will be approved.

Criticism of the submission can be found on Galus Australis, the Sensible Jew, and AJN watch.

It's ok as a board game but not a way to determine kashrut.

By Rachel Sacks-Davis

In a move that can only be interpreted as anti-competitive, Kosher Australia and associates have applied to the government for exclusive rights to decide who can label a product, ‘kosher’. As reported in the AJN this week, the application was made in the context of an Australian Government Food Labelling Review. If the proposal is accepted, restaurants, food products and caterers whose hechsher is not approved by the new federal kashrut body, will not be able to call their product kosher under Australian law.

It is not clear how this would affect imported kosher products, although presumably the hypothetical kashrut body could take fees for allowing a foreign kashrut authority to claim kosher status on our shores. It is clear, however, that the move would make it very difficult for any competitor within Australia.

At a time in which Kosher v’Yosher, the main Orthodox competitor to Kosher Australia in Victoria, is growing, and a new competitor to the New South Wales kashrut authority has also emerged, it seems as though the major kashrut associations are trying to co-opt the Australian government in order to stifle competition.

Certainly, there does not seem to be any consumer driven motivation for limiting the use of the word ‘kosher’ under Australian law. Unlike in the US, there is no trend toward using the ‘kosher’ label without a hechsher. This means that food that is labelled kosher in Australia is under some sort of kosher supervision. It also means that the consumer can see who the supervisor is by examining the hechsher.

The proposal is also not driven by halachic concerns. There is no precedent in Jewish law that favours secular legal entities taking responsibility for kosher labelling. To the contrary, allowing secular courts this type of jurisdiction is non-traditional and can only limit Jewish religious freedom in this country.  Perhaps next a congregation will require the approval of a federal government body to call themselves a synagogue (I hope I’m not giving anyone ideas here!)

Notably, the government’s Food Labelling Review is being undertaking in order to improve transparency around food safety and nutrition. Given that kashrut is related to neither food safety nor nutrition, it seems unlikely that the proposal will be successful. Nonetheless, given that it is also unlikely the review committee has expertise in either Jewish law or Jewish communal politics, this proposal should be of concern to Australian kosher consumers.

Rabbi Yaron Gottlieb has published a letter that he wrote to his local MP protesting the proposal, and I would encourage others to make their views known. Unfortunately, Kosher Australia and associates have only publicised their plan after the final date for submitting a formal submission to the review. I am not sure whether or not this was intentional, but it does make it difficult for other Jewish groups to make their views known.

Finally, it is disappointing that the largely secular AJN (20/5) supports the proposal. Do the AJN really have any insight into the interests of the kosher consumer? Perhaps this is simply a case of one establishment organisation supporting another, but one does wonder whether AJN staff actually wrote their own editorial or whether it was simply a cut and paste job from a kashrut authority’s press release.

Peter Wertheim’s reply to this article is here, and for those who are interested, there is a petition against the proposal here.

Image source: CrownHeights.info

Outsider, Rachel Sacks-Davis, and insider, David Werdiger, comment on the expulsion of the “Moshiach Dancers” and related controversies at Yeshiva Shule. Click here to skip straight to David’s insiders’ view.

Outsider’s view
by Rachel Sacks-Davis
It’s 6pm on Wednesday the 28^th of January, and I’m on my bike at the corner of Inkerman Road and Hotham Street, on my way home from work. Three men are dancing in circles on the corner nearest the Yeshivah Centre; they are wearing yellow t-shirts and jester hats, and waving an enormous yellow flag. Evidently, their widely publicised ‘excommunication,’ has not dampened their spirit.

In June last year, when Frosh and I wrote our “Ode to the Moshiach Dancers,” we were aware that these four joyous if unconventional men were a source of embarrassment for some Jews outside of the Lubavitch community, but we did not realise how controversial they had already become in their own community.

Shortly after writing the article, I was told that the moshiach dancers were considered to be quite mad. Unfortunately, I got the impression that this perceived madness elicited derision rather than compassion; so the following Shabbat when I walked past the dancers on my way to shul, I made an effort to be particularly friendly to them.

Of course by now, anyone who reads the AJN knows that on January 10 this year Rabbi Telsner, the dayan of Yeshivah Shule, released a notice effectively excommunicating the dancers. Rabbi Telsner’s notice reached my inbox via a friend who is not a chabadnik, but nevertheless suggested that perhaps Chabad had “finally come to its senses” by distancing itself from these extremely messianic elements.

The secular staff writer at the AJN seemingly concurred, writing that when the moshiach dancers broke the fast of the 10^th of Tevet, they had “gone too far.” This struck me as being somewhat ironic coming from a secular person, who it is fair to assume, eats on the 10^th of Tevet as a matter of course.

The two Chabad commentators who wrote in the same edition of the AJN cast the moshiach dancers as eccentrics and cult members respectively. Neither expressed sympathy for the small group who are by all accounts a bit different from the norm.

It would be remiss not to mention the context in which the moshiach dancers had become unpopular, and certainly they had raised the public profile of an extremely controversial and divisive issue – Chabad messianism. (For some insight into this controversy, see David Werdiger’s blog post and subsequent comments on the “Yechi” debate at Yeshivah Shule.)

Nonetheless, it seems fairly insensitive to excommunicate a small group of “eccentrics,” with no real influence on the mainstream congregants at Yeshivah Shule. Moreover, whilst the excommunication might be partially related to the dancers’ explicit messianism, explicit messianism persists at Yeshivah Shule amongst its more mainstream congregants. In the weeks following the excommunication, a movement from within the Yeshivah Shule congregation petitioned Rabbi Telsner to take down the sign that hangs in the shul proclaiming (or at the very least praying) that the late Chabad Rebbe is the moshiach, but Rabbi Telsner has announced that the sign will not be removed.

Insider’s view
by David Werdiger
The so-called “Moshiach Dancers” have been largely viewed within the Yeshivah community as meshuga’im – crazies – not as much due to their extreme ideology regarding Moshiach, but more for the way they choose to express it, whether through loud defiant declarations and dances in the shul itself, or more recently their regular expressions of free speech in the street.

When they were evicted from the shul, it was because their actions were divisive and disruptive to the broader members. The recent declaration against their Chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) by publicly eating on a fast day in breach of Jewish law was, in my view, warranted, as they had crossed a line with such an action. No matter what their beliefs regarding the imminence of Moshiach’s arrival or his identity, this gave them no right to breach halacha. As the Dayan of the Yeshivah community and arbiter of matters relating to Jewish law, Rabbi Telsner was obliged to take a stand against such action.

Going beyond that to what some people would call the core issue of the “Moshiach Dancers” is the mental health issue. As a community, we ought to help them. We have committees for financial aid, and for meal assistance during crisis times, although these things can usually be done by lay persons. To deal with a mental health issue requires a professional, so perhaps what is required in this case is a communal approach (directed by a mental health professional) that would help lead these folks to get the help they need. Deriding their behaviour is callous, but expressing public sympathy or approaching them may not have the correct effect either, as it continues to reward their actions with attention.

While the actions of a few eccentrics are what capture the imagination, the substantive issue here is actually that of messianism at Yeshivah Shul, and in Chabad generally. Regarding this, the recent coverage in the AJN regarding the Yechi sign and the petition was shameful sensationalism carrying little insight into what is really going on.

People have left Yeshivah shul because of the Yechi sign at the back. Would they all come running back if the sign was taken down? No. Would the removal of the sign usher in a new age of unity within the shul? No. The existence of the sign does not affect the vast majority of regulars (certainly not those of us who daven facing the front of the shul where the aron kodesh is) – a minority on either side of the political/ideological fence either strongly object to it, or strongly object to its removal. Whether people agree with the outcome or not, a process was followed by launching a petition, and the Dayan made a ruling. It ought to stop there. The issues facing Yeshivah shul go far beyond messianic ideology, and are largely internal.

Rachel talks about the “explicit messianism” that persists at the shul. I’ve always maintained that the issue is not black and white: rather, there is a spectrum of belief within Chabad regarding Moshiach, with extremes on either side. What everyone wants to know is this: is it reasonable to believe that the Rebbe can still be Moshiach, despite having passed away some years ago? The answer, according to many authorities, is yes. And if that might be termed “explicit messianism”, then yes, it does still exist within many mainstream Chabad communities around the world. It is also reasonable to believe that the Rebbe during his lifetime could have been Moshiach (or was “the Moshiach of his generation”), but now can no longer as he has passed away. Both of these positions are supported by Jewish theology.

No matter what one believes about specific details (and indeed, whether these details are themselves important), what Chabad brought was a public awareness about Moshiach that was largely absent from the Jewish world for many years. This is despite the fact that our daily prayers are filled with liturgy about our craving for the Messianic era. It is sad and ironic that the concept of Moshiach, which encapsulates the reunification of world Jewry, has been recently subverted as such a divisive one.

Fascism has long been associated with far right-wing political movements.  Today, when it comes to suppressing the expression of ideas, it is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish between the so-called intellectual left and the far right.

Last month, The International Centre B5 left-wing German activists violently prevented the showing of a documentary film by a Claude Lanzmann, a prominent French Jewish filmmaker. The 1973 documentary film was Lanzmann’s first film, Why Israel, about the role of the Jewish state as a homeland for refugees. This is just one of many similar instances in Europe of late, and while this phenomenon has been most intense in Europe, it has by no means been limited to the old continent. 

At the University of California, Berkeley, where one might presume that freedom of speech is paramount, there have been significant attempts to violate the right of free expression.  For example, when Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-American author and feminist who has become a Muslim apostate and strident critic of Jihadist Islam was scheduled to speak, she faced a well-organised tirade of constant heckling throughout her lecture in order to prevent her from expressing her ideas to the audience. Now you might think that a human rights activist and feminist of Arabic origin might appeal to the left-wing students at Berkeley, but it appears that if you have anything to say that might not be fully congruent with these students’ worldview, then your rights to free expression (and the rights of others who might like to hear you) are to be quashed.

Australian universities have similarly not been immune from this denial of freedom of expression. Anecdotally, at a university public lecture that one of us attended recently, the professor delivering the lecture could only cite her own intuition in defence of her argument, but nonetheless spoke in angry tones at audience members who dared to challenge her hypothesis. In our experience similarly dogmatic attitudes are regrettably all too common in Australian universities, and especially humanities departments.

In the Australian Jewish community, we can also see that the far-left have at times shown a disconcerting lack of pluralism.  One self styled radical left Jewish blog has in its mission statement

“We’re hoping people will disagree with us, pushing us to consider other ideas and ways of thinking.” 

However, this is immediately qualified with  

“…we’re not liberals – we’re not guided by arguments of ‘freedom of speech’. This is a blog… that we’re carving out for critical, progressive thinking.”

Got that? If you’re not what is deemed by the editors to be progressive, then your ideas are not worthy of being published, not even in the comments section.

As editors of a Jewish magazine, you might expect that we’ve received many requests to censor people’s comments because they were perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel etc.  However, the fact is that up to this point (kineynahora), we have not received a single such request.  On the other hand, we have received several requests (and even the odd demand) from ‘progressive’ correspondents requesting that we remove comments that the correspondent deemed not to be ‘progressive’ enough.

As always, we remind the correspondent that we are not so wise as to be the arbiters of which ideas are valid or invalid.  After all, whole societies have accepted ideas that the majority of people now consider to be morally repugnant (and vice versa). It’s time these so-called progressives look in the mirror and ask themselves the question: what makes them so insightful that they feel they can arbitrate in this way?

Not the kind of community participation that the author has in mind. Source of image: Gothamist.com

By Rachel Sacks-Davis

Last week Galus Australis ran a column by Almoni criticising a recent Community Security Group (CSG) advertising campaign. Although I did not agree with the content of Almoni’s article, I was surprised at the number of commenters who challenged not only the content but the validity of discussing online anything related to the CSG. Not only was there reticence toward online discussion, but some commenters claimed that there should be no critical discussion of the CSG at all.

In the words of one commenter, Mark, “Anyone from OUR community who is critical of CSG for any reason is a naive and confrontational ignoramus. Subjects like this SHOULD NEVER be aired publicly. [Commenter’s emphasis.]” Another commenter, Shmuli, writes “discussing our security in this type of open forum makes me quite distressed.” These commenters seem to believe that any discussion of CSG poses either a security risk or a public relations disaster.

Interestingly, the proposed moratorium on discussing the CSG does not appear to have originated from the organisers of the CSG themselves. Certainly, the CSG’s recent advertising was widely distributed through the Australian Jewish News, a publically available newspaper. Clearly those who organised the advertising campaign do not consider their existence to be a secret; nor should they.

Nonetheless, a culture of secrecy has been promoted by some CSG volunteers for a number of years. Anecdotally, I remember some volunteers who felt they could not tell their Jewish friends when they had CSG training, despite the fact that those same friends regularly saw them standing outside shuls. This culture is problematic and it contravenes the ethos stated on the CSG blurb on the JCCV webpage, “Communal security is everybody’s responsibility.”

Collective responsibility for community security should not just involve collection of funds, but rather broad participation and education about risk. This latter point is important because the vast majority of violent anti-Semitic attacks in Australia take place outside of major functions, synagogues, and Jewish schools, which are the main loci of formal CSG presence.

Given that this is the case, and that anti-Semitic incidents have increased in Australia in recent years, I believe that one of the most valuable things that the CSG could offer the Jewish community is community education directed at empowering regular community members to recognise risky situations, and better equipping them to respond, for example, through self-defence classes. This type of education could be targeted at groups who are most likely to become victims of anti-Semitism such as those who wear religious garb and are thus most easily identified as Jews.

From this perspective, the recent CSG advertising campaign may not have been productive because rather than provide community members with researched and useful information about security risks and measures, it opted for an image that suggests that every community institution is under threat.

The CSG leadership should encourage volunteers to be open about non-sensitive security information and CSG activity. This would promote broader community involvement and empowerment, and might also be a valuable way of engaging potential donors.