Bindmans and Blackstone win Supreme Court victory in Jewish school case

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Readers' comments (11)

  • "his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith" You are born into an ethnic/racial group but not born into a faith.

    Those who subscribe to Judaism in either it's religious form or it's secular one seem to be able to be able to switch alternately from faith one time then swap over at another and have identity as an ethnic group. (I recall the prosecution of Lady Birdwood in the early 90's under the Race Relations Act which concerned her publications critical of Jewry.)

    I find it difficult to comprehend a "faith" school where you have to have the correct ethnicity for both parents except where ethnicity is the key component and faith is deeply associated with that ethnicity.

    This is similar to Christianity being historically been deeply rooted among European nationalities since late Roman times.
    Though Christianity has become more and more a universalistic belief, as the belief in its European heartlands eroded, (and for many, Christianity "died") a secular identity was retained for the rituals of the rites of passage.

    This is the opposite of what has happened to Judaism, where, whilst many Jews became secular, there was no shift to the conversion of outsiders either in an Ethnic or religious sense. If anything the sense of a separate identity has become more intense with the Holocaust providing a rallying point of that shared identity and separateness.

    Personally I cannot see how anyone can defend an exclusivity of ethnic identity in schools admissions policy for a "faith" school when the BNP has had to change it's criteria for admission for entitlement to qualification of membership by deleting it's British Ethnic exclusivity clauses as this attracted the Equalities Commission to pursue a court case against them as that clause was considered discriminatory on the grounds of race.

    Whether you agree or not with the State being able to dictate the membership of private organisations is one thing, you can be against that in principle, but you can't (or shouldn't be able to) pick and choose as to whether the law applies to you or not by virtue of the one having more power, influence, status or reputation than the other.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)