Posted on 12/18/2009 7:58:30 PM PST by Steelfish
Our Human Rights Culture Has Now Become A Tyranny The Supreme Court this week effectively made the Jewish religion illegal.
Charles Moore
This Government has exalted secular human rights over all belief systems Strange things happen in the English law, but I have seldom read a stranger opening to a judgment than the following, handed down this week by Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, the President of the Supreme Court. "The seventh chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy records the following instructions given by Moses to the people of Israel, after delivering the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai," Lord Philips began. Then he plunged into how God, having smitten the enemies of Israel – Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites – in a manner highly satisfactory to the Jews, now demanded that His people observe proper marriage customs in return.
How did a question which involved only God and the Jews, and which was decided roughly 3,500 years ago, come before Lord Philips and his eight fellow jurists sitting in 21st-century London?
The answer is that sacred text of modern times, the Race Relations Act of 1976. The Jewish Free School (JFS), a very successful secondary school in Brent, is run along Orthodox Jewish lines. A dispute arose about the admission of a boy known as M. M's mother became Jewish by conversion, but only after giving birth to M. According to Orthodox rules (see that chapter of Deuteronomy), Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.
The Supreme Court, however, decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. He was excluded on racial ground...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
"This is a rather big decision. Lord Rodger, one of the dissenting judges, said that it "leads to such extraordinary results, and produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools, that one cannot help feeling that something has gone wrong". Actually, it goes wider than that. The court is effectively saying that a religion's way of defining its own membership, practised over 3,500 years, is illegal"
Mom, don’t send your kid to that school anyways. He’s gonna get beat up.
The side effects that socialism must produce to work should be obvious, but most people aren't chess players who can figure out the likely consequences of their actions.
Socialism and tyranny go together like white on rice!
This won’t have been the first time England has made Judaism illegal in it’s land.
Looks like nothings changed in the last couple of hundred years. Give it time and I’ll expect to see England begin to expel it’s Jewish population (after confiscating all their money and possessions, of course).
They are going to have to add an equivalent to our First Amendment to their constitution. Don’t think this is going to stop with Jews. Churches will be next.
To try to give us this abomination of a bill on the eve of the celebration of Our Saviors birth is a blasphemy.
Several things come to mind.
From Canada Free Press article 2 or so years ago quoting a muslim: We will use their laws [equality] against them to force our way.
From English Revolution writings (which I cannot locate alas your help if you know): What good is it if I can’t control my land.
From Libertarians about property rights & that the owner should be the one to call the shots.
Maybe its not possible to have Rule of Law in diverse society. Maybe the diversity that’s needed is nations each with their its own standards and customs.
Maybe we have a philosophical impasse.
The left’s idea is de facto, universal homogeneity: all workers, military, medical providers, farmers, etc., are in unions earning the according to rank. The only manager is the state. The “diversity” consits of headgear, clothing, hair style (gang colors so to speak) allowed by authority to demonstrate “diversity.”
The right’s idea is everybody doing as they like in private (disputes to be resolved in civil courts) but in public adherance to public law regarding safety and property rights.
The problems arise when the state defines subsets of the population and seeks to redress grievances not on behalf of individuals but on behalf of “classes.”
Agree.
Since religion is an essential ingredient of culture, multiculturalism does two things. It demands that the host culture (its laws, traditions, holidays, rituals, dress, etc) recognizes alien cultures on par with the host culture and concomitantly recognize all religions as equal. Hence Obama’s monumental concession “We are no longer just a Christian nation...”
This is the recipe for the new tyranny that has gripped Europe and is now sweeping over swaths of the United States aided by our government at all levels- executive, legislative, and judiciary with the media in chorus.
Steelfish:
I like your terminology:
“multiculturalism ... demands that the host ... recognizes [the] alien ... on par ....”
“... [T]he new tyranny that has gripped Europe and ... the United States ... government ... executive, legislative, and judiciary .... media ....”
Rather descriptive of some species of cuckoo — laying eggs in the nests of other birds which kill the young of the host.
So, the question, how does the host survive intact?
Your remarks suggest (and I believe) the greatest contamination is the ruling class.
How do we protect ourselves without breaking our own rules: Common law grand juries? Jury nullification?
Although Moore’s general conclusions in this article have much to be said for them, he’s oddly chosen to hang his argument on a rather poor example. This case was essentially a dispute between two wings of British Judaism, one of which chose to go to the secular courts. It’s hard to claim, therefore, that the judgment is ‘against religion’.
I believe in the US the Courts would have thrown out this matter on the basis that it is not within their jurisdiction to decide such issues. I wonder why the British Courts simply had not deferred the matter to the Jewish Rabbinical Council.
Under Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution Congress has PLENARY power over immigration. They can do a few things.
1. Void the provision of the Kennedy Legislation of 1965 and allow for immigration strictly to those from Christian (European) nations.
2. Enforce the current immigration laws. More than one half of current illegals are those who overstay their visas and don’t go back.
3. Put an end to chain migration where US citizens can sponsor father, mother, brother, and sister.
4. Under s. 5 of the 14th Amendment Congress can pass legislation to end the anchor-baby catastrophe by legislating that those born to illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the US. You don’t need a constitutional amendment for this.
I speak as an ultra-conservative Catholic immigrant citizen myself from South Asia.
You can bet the farm that if M were applying to a muslim school and was rejected in this manner; the boys in the black skirts would be too afraid to rule against the imam. But they are not afraid to stomp on true peace loving religons.
It was one of the parties, not the Court, which chose to invoke the Human Rights Act in a religious matter. The Court then had little choice (albeit, as it would seem from some of Philips's comments, with reluctance) but to make a judgment on how the facts of the case should be interpreted in the light of the Act. Had one of the parties not chosen to take a religious dispute to a secular court, the Human Rights Act would never have come into it.
Could one bring a human rights claim for gender discrimination against a Catholic Seminary? or a Catholic College that refuses admissions to non-Catholics or homosexuals?
Pass on that one - I’m not a lawyer. And by the way I’m not in the least trying to defend the Human Rights Act - simply saying that there are far more egregious examples of perverse outcomes produced by the application of this Act than the one Moore happens to have chosen, in which the main responsibility, to repeat, lies with the plaintiff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.