Following this episode, we were contacted by some of the organisation’s senior members who were concerned that such coverage could jeopardise the community’s security, and indeed we willingly removed a comment that inadvertently disclosed some confidential operational matters. Furthermore, after meeting with these representatives, we explained that we had no anti-CSG agenda, and where there had been negative articles or commentary, we were merely publishing content that had been submitted to us.

We encouraged them to submit a positive article about the CSG. However, they were of the opinion that when it comes to security matters, any uncontrolled publicity is bad publicity, and that’s fair enough. We agreed that failing any extraordinary incidents, there was little to be gained from running further CSG focussed articles.

However, with the huge double page spread in The Age today, this is clearly a topic that will again have the community talking. The main question raised being, What is the ideal balance between perceived security needs and the cost of Jewish education and community infrastructure?

It’s certainly time to have a community debate, and the comments section of Galus seems like a good place to start.

Please refrain from disclosing any security-relevant operational matters.

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.

CSG advertisement, Rosh Hashana 2009

By Almoni

What the *&@%&*!!

First it came in a personally addressed envelope (where did they get my address from?!). Then it fell out of the Jewish News.

You know what I am talking about. That flyer from the Community Security Group, meant to scare the hell out of me and everyone within an eruv distance of Caulfield. And not just to scare me, but to scare me to hand over money, anything from $18 (chai) to $5,000 and up.

If you haven’t seen the leaflet, there’s a bull’s eye on one side, with a kid’s face showing through, and a picture of some gratuitous anti-Semitic vandalism. I’ve seen other CSG ads playing off the natural fear of grandparents for their grandchildren.

What is going on with an organisation that markets fear and weakness rather than a positive message of community capacity or trust and support in professional law enforcement authorities?

There are definitely crazies out there, but that is not the point. Should we be supporting a secretive, unaccountable, and privatised approach to what appears to be anti-terrorism policing?

There is no public information available on a number of issues including:

1. How is this organisation governed?
2. What and who provides training whether in Australia or overseas, including firearms training?
3. What are its financial accountability processes?
4. By what code of professional ethics does it abide?
5. It is a registered security agency?
6. Does it have oversight and complaint mechanisms? And what are they?
7. What contact is there with foreign security agencies, including conflicts of interest?
8. What mechanisms are there to protect data integrity?

Of particular importance, is the CSG able to show that it has prevented what it deems to be anti-Semitic incidents? Or, is it all for show for wannabees with earpieces?

Don’t expect any answers: it’s run by the JCCV and it is hard enough to find out accountability information about the JCCV. It’s far easier to find out information about ASIO.

I’m concerned.

Editors’ note: Right of reply from an appropriate member of the CSG or JCCV is welcome. Please contact us by email: editorial at galusaustralis.com

The following is a guest post by a former member of the CSG who has previously commented on this blog under the nom de plum “Former CSG Insider.”  Their authenticity as former member of the CSG has been verified by the Sensible Jew editors.

Please note that this is a guest post and does not necessarily represent the views of Frochel or the SJ editorial committee.

Last week, a guest post by the now well-known photographer Jono David elicited a comment by a reader of this website concerning the alleged ‘blacklisting’ of a member of the Melbourne Jewish community.   The comment read as follows:

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine – let’s call him Josh – agreed to take a good friend of his from uni – let’s call her Aliya – on a tour of the Jewish sites of Melbourne. Aliya and Josh had been in the same study group for some time and had shared many interesting debates and discussions on religion, culture, society, etc. Aliya happened to be a religious Muslim who wore a hijab. Josh, a non-observant Jew.

So one Saturday morning Josh picked up Aliya from Balaclava station and they drove down Carlisle St, discussing Jewish customs such as kashrut, dress, prayer, Shabbat, etc. Josh drove Aliya past some of the major synagogues in Caulfield to further familiarise her with Jewish traditions. For example, he pointed out the external architectural features that are typical of synagogues, and explained the various shuls’ ideological and religious differences.

As they were passing one particular shul, Josh thought he noticed one of the CSG guards – an acquaintance of one of his siblings, who he knew by name – observing him and Aliya in the car closely, but a second later they were well past the building and he forgot about it.

Josh’s sibling later informed him that he (Josh) had been ‘listed’ on some sort of blacklist of people of ‘note’ to the CSG, simply because he had driven past the shul with an obviously Muslim passenger in the car with him. (His sibling had heard this directly from a member of the CSG.)

Josh thought his sibling was joking – he had gone to a Jewish school, been involved with various youth groups and communal organisations. He was known and respected by many people in the Jewish community. Why would anyone assume he was doing anything suspicious simply because he had a Muslim passenger in the car, particularly when he and the CSG guard on duty knew each other?

Without being aware of all of the details, I was aware of this incident.  The reader who wrote up this anecdote, named the Jewish person with the pseudonym of Josh, implying that this person was male.  This person was in fact female.  I am not sure if the reader was misinformed of the details, or if they deliberately wrote it up as such in order to further protect the identity of the allegedly blacklisted individual.  The reason I draw attention to the gender of the person is that a religious (hijab wearing) Muslim woman riding in the car alone with a young Jewish man is a more unlikely (and thus more suspicious) sight than a religious Muslim woman riding in the car alone with a young Jewish woman.

Nevertheless, the fact that the same hijab-wearing woman (in an area of Melbourne where the hijab is not a common sight) was seen in a car cruising by a number of synagogues should rightfully raise a moderate amount of suspicion amongst the CSG officers on duty, who would have been in communication via radio.

My criticism of the way the CSG handled this incident is not that suspicion was aroused, but rather the way this suspicion was handled.  I must confess that I do not know what this so called ‘black-listing’ involved.  What I do know about the incident is that the young Jewish woman in question was never actually approached by any CSG personnel for a debriefing.

From what I know about the background of the Jewish woman concerned, we can rule out that she would be knowingly in cahoots with some nefarious terrorist organisation.  If there was any reason for the CSG to be concerned, it would be that the woman in question was unwittingly recruited (befriended) to aid such an organisation.  I’m certainly not saying that this was likely the case (most likely both the Jewish and Muslim woman were totally innocent in their intention), only that it would be a legitimate concern for the CSG, which they should have followed up on.

Someone from the CSG should have got in contact with the Jewish woman to ascertain the background facts and assess the risk of the situation.  However, this was not done.  Rather, the woman was apparently derided behind her back, and any investigation that took place, if any, did not involve interviewing the Jewish woman, who would obviously have been the best source of information.

Like the Jono David case, this is another example which highlights the dysfunctional nature of CSG intelligence gathering and decision making.

I am a freelance documentarian of Jewish communities worldwide (www.JewishPhotoLibrary.com). My mission is to contribute to the preservation of Jewish communities by documenting them photographically. I recently spent a month making arrangements for a photo tour of Australia’s Jewish Communities (AJC), the first of several visits to document every synagogue, Jewish cemetery, and aspects of Jewish life Down Under. My 80 or so query emails initially met with plaudits and approvals. Then responses turned to “no thank yous” and permission retractions (though not all). I was confounded. Then a few kind souls brought Community Security Group (CSG), an organization that oversees matters of security within the AJC, to my attention. In short, I was ultimately left with no choice but to cancel my project.

This letter has two aims: 1, to highlight CSG’s inflexible policies and underhanded procedures, and, 2, to encourage discussion by ordinary members of the AJC on matters of security, access, documentation, and community image.

“Whilst the CSG does not consider Mr. David himself to be a security concern,” emailed Gavin Queit of CSG Victoria to all Jewish communities, “the subsequent publishing of such photographs does pose a risk to the Jewish Community. As such, it is our recommendation that Jono David be denied permission to photograph Victorian Jewish institutions.” In a follow up email to me (after I had initiated contact), Mr. Queit stated that emails were “sent to all Jewish community institutions in Australia (by the CSG’s in each state) [sic].” A similar email had also been, unbeknown to me, sent by David Rothman, head of CSG Sydney.

There was no reason to inform anyone, much less everyone, that my work “poses a security risk” (Gavin Queit) because there is indisputably no such evidence. In fact, I challenge anyone to name a single incident — worldwide — where photographs played an integral part in an attack on a synagogue or a Jewish institution.

While I have on rare occasion been denied photo requests, I could never have imagined being blacklisted on an entire continent. CSGs emails at once sabotaged my project and, for all intents and purposes, maligned me, a fellow Jew, as a threat to the AJC. Their words are, in effect, defamatory. I am open to photo conditions. In the extreme, I am happy to document an institution and keep the images safeguarded for at least a generation. But, alas, I was deemed unworthy of even a courtesy email. I fail to understand such treatment.

I am a stranger in every community I document. Naturally, verifying and vetting outsiders is necessary. Jewish community security concerns worldwide are justified and do not need explaining. I do not “map out” synagogues or other Jewish institutions. Nor do I not make images available if an institution has issues with said images. No exceptions. I am aware of a recent rise in anti-Semitic sentiment in Australia. But documenting Jewish life is important even in times of adversity — perhaps more so. By restricting documentation, the AJC is going to wake up in a generation and realize there is no photographic, no film, and no video record available to them. That is a real shame. CSG’s blanket no-photo policy, therefore, is actually a detriment to the AJC. Moreover, a hyper-sensitive security measure is a victory for the terrorists. But by photographing a vibrant community, the Jewish people win.

Perhaps the AJC ought to ask itself just what CSG is aiming to achieve. Do they wish to see the AJC go underground? Do they desire shutting down community websites which, contrary to their own “advice”, display for the world vital community information such as addresses, names, maps, prayer times, events, even photographs similar to those I wish to take? Does CSG desire stopping the presses too? The Australian Jewish News, and publications like it, is a portal into the life and times of the AJC. It is replete with community news and affairs past, present, and future — information that can be employed by the savvy terrorist. What is the point of “securing” a Jewish community, particularly in a free nation, if it cannot thrive openly? With so much Jewish history destroyed over the millennia, why surrender now? Jewish communities of the world have always been resilient in times of adversity and always emerged stronger because of it.

I am not giving up on Jewish Australia. I hope the AJC is not giving up on itself. Isaiah 41:6 says, “Each helped their neighbor and everyone said to his brother, be strong and courageous.”

Jono David
www.JewishPhotoLibrary.com
jono@gol.com
Osaka, Japan

(Note: as this is a guest post, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial staff.)