190 Jewish School 'racism' case catches Jews by the very anti-Racism law they devised

Jewish School 'racism' case catches Jews by the very anti-Racism law they devised

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that children who have converted to Judaism, but who are deemed "Gentiles" by the Orthodox (on the ground of Descent, ie Race), must be admitted to Jewish schools.

This news item is of great importance, as indicated by the OPINION columns against the Supreme Court ruling.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls, a cabinet minister close to Gordon Brown, has tried to scare Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, Sikh, Muslim, and Hindu schools by saying that THEIR admissions policies will be affected too (items 10, 13, 15. Do a search on "Balls").

Item 16, about the different kinds of Jewish schools, relates to 1999. Extrapolating what it says to 2009, in conjunction with item 13, one finds that there are 38 State-funded and 60 Independent (fee-paying) Jewish Schools  in the United Kingdom today.

Why should the State fund ANY Jewish schools? Most Catholic schools receive State funding, but there are also elite Catholic schools which do not.

But this ruling shows that the Jewish schools are Race-based rather than Faith-based.

The issue is the more important because minority causes (Children's Rights, Feminism, Gay Rights etc), with their anti-Authoritarian stance, are eroding discipline and standards in Comprehensive Government schools - which most children attend. As a result, to be sure of a good education, many move to a "Faith" school.

There is disproportionate Jewish involvement in such minority causes. But Jewish schools enable them to escape the ensuing breakdown in discipline and standards.

The story does not seem to have been reported at Google News in the UK (I checked yesterday and today). But it shows up there if you search for it, eg "Jewish school":
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

To search Google in the UK (select "pages from the UK"):
http://www.Google.co.uk/

(1) Jewish School 'racism' case catches Jews by the very anti-Racism law they devised
(2) Supreme Court rules that Jewish school admissions policy broke Race Relations Act
(3) British Court forces Jewish Schools to Admit Gentiles - Israel National News
(4) We must now apply a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish - United Synagogue president
(5) Supreme Court says that school's test of who is a Jew is based on descent (race) not religion
(6) UK law Defective - Jerusalem Post OPINION
(7)  Human RightsTyranny: Supreme Court effectively makes the Jewish religion illegal - Telegraph OPINION
(8) ‘A Christian solution for a Jewish school’ - Jewish Community Online
(9) School gave admissions priority to children it deemed Jewish by birth - The Lawyer
(10) Faith schools 'may face ban on selecting by religion' - Daily Mail OPINION
(11) There's much to regret in this ruling - Guardian OPINION
(12) Faith schools may not select the intake according to ethnicity - Independent OPINION
(13) 38 state & 60 private Jewish schools must tear up Admissions policies
(14) Board of Deputies of British Jews says "a matter of deep concern"
(15) Faith schools could be outlawed after Jewish test case - Children's Secretary Ed Balls
(16) Applies to 38 State-funded (38) and 60 Independent (fee-paying) Jewish Schools

(1) Jewish School 'racism' case catches Jews by the very anti-Racism law they devised

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 18.12.2009 12:54 PM

{Comment by 'Martin'} OUTCOME OF JEWISH FREE SCHOOL 'RACISM' CASE

[Extract from below BBC report on outcome of case]:

    ".......The boy has a father who is Jewish by birth and a mother who is Jewish by conversion.
         "But the conversion ceremony was conducted by a Progressive rather than an Orthodox synagogue which is not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.
         "The children of atheists, and practising Christians, were allowed to attend as long as their mothers were considered Jewish....."

[End of extract]

In other words, membership by blood-line and not by by confession of faith. "This is not racist" say the leaders of the Jewish establishment.

Like Alice, most Jews are living in a 'Through the Looking-Glass' world of their own. For us to notice and question them about it is "anti-semitism".

In this instance the Jews find themselves caught by the very law (The Race Relations Act) which they, in the form of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, devised and floated in the 1950s as "The Group Libel Bill" to compel Britain to adopt multi-racialism.

The restrictions of this law against the freedom to choose ("discrimination") were intended by the JBD to apply only to the White-Gentile majority, not to the Jewish community.

But the biters have bit themselves -- on the bum. They will now have to contemplate another law: The Law Unintended Consequences.

If they become depressed, as we have been depressed for decades, they might think about this proposition:

The only way they can enjoy the freedom to choose is to cease their constant campaign to deny the rest of us that same freedom.

This is, after all, our country. They only own the politicians, the media and a few senior police officers.

Happy Christmas/Yuletide everybody.

Martin.
{end comment}

(2) Supreme Court rules that Jewish school admissions policy broke Race Relations Act

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8415678.stm

BBC web site - Wednesday 16th December 2009

Jewish school loses places fight

[Caption to photo of Menorah candle stick: People are Jewish both by race and faith]

The Supreme Court has ruled a Jewish school in London did act unlawfully by refusing places to pupils it did not consider to be ethnically Jewish

Court president Lord Phillips said the school broke race relations legislation by restricting its admissions.

The case against the JFS was brought by a man whose son was not given a place because he was not regarded as Jewish under rules set by the Chief Rabbi.

The parents were angered at having their Jewish status questioned.

Lord Phillips, the president of the Supreme Court, said the justices had come to a split decision on the matter, five to four.

'Not racist'

"The majority of the court has concluded that the JFS admission policy does discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin and is, in consequence, unlawful," he said.

---------------------------------------------
The closeness of the court's judgement indicates how complex this case was.
                              -- Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks
---------------------------------------------

"A minority disagrees, considering that the admission requirement is exclusively a religious requirement and does not depend on ethnic origin."

But he stressed that while the school had acted unlawfully over its admissions, it should not be regarded as racist.

"The majority have made it plain in their judgments that the fact that the JFS admission policy has fallen foul of the Race Relations Act certainly does not mean those responsible for the admissions policy have behaved in a way that is racist, as that word as generally understood."

The school went to the Supreme Court after three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled in June that the entry criteria had racially discriminated against the boy, known as M.

School 'disappointed'

Chairman of governors at the school Russell Kett said the school and governors were disappointed at the ruling.

"We must now set about establishing a more workable solution for a Jewish practice test to be used for admissions in 2011.

"JFS School felt it had no alternative than to continue to press for its test of 'Jewishness' to be based solely on orthodox Jewish religious law, rather than on a series of factors which themselves have no relevance under Jewish law, but which seem to support the notion of a test of Jewish practice required by the English legal system."

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said the matter required "careful reflection and consultation" and instant reactions would be inappropriate.

"The closeness of the court's judgement indicates how complex this case was, both in English law and in debated issues of Jewish identity.

"Our office will be working closely together with the schools, the United Synagogue, the Board of Deputies and other interested parties to consider the implications of the verdict before making a full response."

Jewish mother

The 12-year-old boy was refused a place at the JFS (formerly known as the Jews' Free School) in Brent, in north London.

The boy has a father who is Jewish by birth and a mother who is Jewish by conversion.

But the conversion ceremony was conducted by a Progressive rather than an Orthodox synagogue which is not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.

The children of atheists, and practising Christians, were allowed to attend as long as their mothers were considered Jewish.

Although Liberal Jews say faith is about belief rather than ethnic origin, Orthodox Jewish supporters of the school said the Supreme Court's ruling risked infringing their human rights by interfering with the way they have always been defined.

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the impact of the ruling on other faith schools was likely to be limited as Judaism was relatively unique with its close relationship between faith and ethnicity.

(3) British Court forces Jewish Schools to Admit Gentiles - Israel National News

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/176642

British Court Forces Jewish Schools to Admit Gentiles

Reported: 13:09 PM - Dec/16/09

(IsraelNN.com) The British Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a Jewish school’s decision to only accept Jewish students is unlawful. The decision was made after a London Jewish Day School refused to admit a boy whose mother is not considered truly Jewish according to Torah Law because she underwent a conversion conducted by the Reform movement.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135687.html

U.K. court: Jewish school racially discriminatory for excluding convert's son

By Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters , By Assaf Uni

Thu., December 17, 2009 Kislev 30, 5770

The British supreme court ruled yesterday that a London Jewish school was guilty of racial discrimination for refusing to admit a boy whose mother was a Jew by conversion and not by birth.

The Jewish community in the U.K. is up in arms over the ruling, claiming it constitutes a gross interference in determining who is a Jew.

The nine judges sitting on Britain's highest judicial body said the popular JFS school in north London broke the law by using ethnicity in admissions.

However, they said the faith-based school, which has received outstanding ratings by government inspectors, had not been racist in a pejorative sense.

The court dismissed the school's appeal of a lower instance's ruling. Equality campaigners and the boy's parents welcomed the verdict, which means Jewish schools in Britain can no longer base admissions on ethnicity.

But Jewish leaders said the verdict, passed by a narrow five-to-four majority, showed the difficulty in applying modern law to 3,500 years of Jewish tradition, and warned it could have an impact on other Jewish organizations.

The case arose after the school refused to admit a 12-year-old boy whose father was a practicing Jew and whose mother had converted to Judaism at a non-Orthodox synagogue. This conversion process is unrecognized by the Office of the Chief Rabbi of Britain, and the school rejected the boy's application saying that his mother was not Jewish, and therefore the boy was not either.

The school, which is over-subscribed, gives precedence to children recognized as ethnically Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi. The school is one of four dozen state-funded Jewish faith schools in Britain.

The family went to court and several instances rejected the parents' suit.

In July, however, an appeals court overturned the previous rulings, stating, "The admissions policy should be based on the faith itself, not origin."

Backed by the Jewish community, JFS appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled yesterday that the school had discriminated against the boy on the basis of his ethnic origin.

Russell Kett, chairman of governors at JFS, formerly the Jews' Free School, said they were disappointed by the decision.

Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said the implications of the verdict would need careful consideration.

"The closeness of the court's judgment indicates how complex this case was, both in English law and debated issues of Jewish identity," he said in a statement.

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said they had not wanted to interfere.

"The commission believed that it had to intervene in order to preserve the same protection against racial discrimination for Jews as for anyone else - not least at a time when anti-Semitic groups are active across Europe," he said.

(4) We must now apply a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish - United Synagogue president

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOOPdG0kuKVntV8BlamzI-nxQ4GwD9CKJNG04

Supreme Court: London Jewish school discriminated

By SYLVIA HUI (AP) – 1 day ago

LONDON — A Jewish school discriminated against a child when it refused to admit him because it did not recognize his mother as Jewish, Britain's highest court ruled Wednesday.

Critics said the decision interfered with longstanding Jewish tradition and imposed secular standards on who belonged to the faith.

London's prestigious JFS, formerly known as the Jews' Free School, gave preference to children who were Jewish according to principles defined by Britain's chief rabbi.

The 12-year-old boy, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was not given priority because although his father is Jewish by birth, his mother converted at a progressive synagogue not recognized by Orthodox Judaism. The chief rabbi did not recognize her conversion, and the boy therefore was not recognized as Jewish.

Five judges of the nine-member Supreme Court ruled that the school's policy amounted to racial discrimination, upholding an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal.

The lower court decided that because Jews are defined as an ethnic group in British law, denying a child admission because his mother is not Jewish constituted racial discrimination. The school appealed that ruling.

Orthodox Jews and the school said they were disappointed by Wednesday's judgment. The school said it now would admit students according to tests of their religious practice, such as how often they attend synagogue, their level of Jewish education and family communal activity.

Nonetheless, the school argues that such tests are irrelevant to Jewish law. Orthodox Jews say anyone with a Jewish mother is a Jew by birth, regardless of whether they actively observe the faith.

"Essentially we must now apply a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish," said United Synagogue president Simon Hochhauser in a statement.

"The closeness of the court's decision underlines the inherent difficulty in applying the complex modern law of discrimination to an ancient religion," he said.

Wednesday's judgment ordered the school to pay most of the family's legal bill, which was not specified.

David Pannick, the lawyer representing the school, had argued that the boy, identified only by the letter M, was rejected because of a religious disagreement, not because of his ethnic origins.

The fact that the boy wasn't admitted "is not on the ground of M's ethnic origins. It is on the ground of a religious dispute between rabbis about who is a Jew," Pannick said.

Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, said the case raised complex questions about British law and Jewish identity that "require careful reflection and consultation."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

(5) Supreme Court says that school's test of who is a Jew is based on descent (race) not religion

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930883430&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Dec 17, 2009 1:58 | Updated Dec 17, 2009 4:29

UK court: JFS entry policy illegal

By JONNY PAUL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT

LONDON -
The British Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday against a Jewish school's admission policy after it upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that its criteria was discriminatory on grounds of race.

Jews' Free School (JFS), in Kenton, north London, lost its appeal after the court found that the school's admission criteria - that is based on the faith of the mother, as set out by Jewish law - was discriminatory.

In June, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling against the school, saying that it was illegal for it to admit pupils on the basis of whether their mother was Jewish or not and that it contravened Race Relations legislation.

"The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act 1976," Lords Justice Sedley, Rimer and Lady Justice Smith said at the time.

The ruling follows the case brought on behalf of a 12-year-old boy - known for legal reasons as "M" - who was refused admission to JFS in 2007 as his mother had converted to Judaism through the Progressive Judaism movement, which is not recognized by the school. The United Synagogue, led by the Office of the Chief Rabbi, is the Orthodox religious authority of the school.

In court on Wednesday, the Supreme Court judges dismissed JFS's appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal's decision by a majority of five to four, the closest possible margin.

All of the Supreme Court judges made it clear that JFS's admission policy was not "racist" and that the Chief Rabbi, the United Synagogue and the governors of JFS acted with great sincerity and are entirely free from moral blame. Lord Kerr described their motives as "unimpeachable."

The judgement means the Court has upheld the Court of Appeal's view that the test of who is a Jew, based on descent or conversion, as applied by any Beth Din - whether the London Beth Din or any other rabbinic authority - is an ethnically based test of descent.

No Jewish faith school can apply an admissions criteria based on whether a child is a member of the Jewish religion however defined, or based on any criteria which would require a child to be a member of the Jewish religion, for example synagogue membership.

In his judgment Lord Rodger said: "The decision of the majority means that there can in future be no Jewish faith schools which give preference to children because they are Jewish according to Jewish religious law and belief... Instead, Jewish schools will be forced to apply a concocted test for deciding who is to be admitted. That test might appeal to this secular court but it has no basis whatsoever in 3,500 years of Jewish law and teaching.

"The majority's decision leads to such extraordinary results, and produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools, that one can't help feeling that something has gone wrong."

The decision will also have an impact on other Jewish organizations. If such criteria are used in the context of employment, education or the provision of goods or services, unless the organization can rely on one of the very limited exemptions to the Race Relations Act 1976, its use will constitute direct race discrimination.

Thus the test applied by the Chief Rabbi in determining whether or not a person was "halachically" Jewish inevitably involved the ethnicity of the person under consideration and brought the test within the scope of direct racial discrimination.

In consequence, the ruling has deemed that it was not lawful for the school to use that test in determining to whom priority should be given in offering places at the school and the school could only lawfully apply a test related to religious practice if it wished to give priority to Jewish students.

The ruling has wider implications as the judges' decision means that faith schools cannot have an admissions policy based on religious law. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK thus if the school wishes to take the case further, it must take it to the European Court of Human Rights.

"The United Synagogue is extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling which interferes with the Torah-based imperative on us to educate Jewish children, regardless of their background," said United Synagogue president Dr. Simon Hochhauser. "Practice tests are anathema to the United Synagogue, which for centuries has opened its institutions to all Jews, observant or not. These practice tests have no relevance under Jewish law and serve only to support the notion of a test of religion in the eyes of the English legal system. As Lord Brown noted, essentially we must now apply a 'non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish.'"

The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said he understood the complexity of the case and that he would consider the implications of the verdict before responding in full.

"The closeness of the Court's judgement indicates how complex this case was, both in English law and debated issues of Jewish identity. I welcome the judges' vindication of the good faith in which the United Synagogue, the London Beth Din and our office have acted," Lord Sacks said.

"I likewise welcome the suggestion of the President of the Supreme Court that the issue at stake in this case may merit legislative remedy. However, these matters require careful reflection and consultation, and instant reactions would be inappropriate. Our office will be working closely together with the schools, the United Synagogue, the Board of Deputies and other interested parties to consider the implications of the verdict before making a full response," he added.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said they were "extremely disappointed" by the decision.

"The judgement makes it abundantly clear that there is no suggestion that the criteria used by JFS or the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) were racist in any conventional sense."

However, the sheer breadth of the Race Relations Act 1976 meant that JFS's admissions criteria, based on millennia of Jewish practice, fell foul of the civil law despite the "unimpeachable motives" and the "sincerely and conscientiously held beliefs" of the school and of the OCR.

The Board said it will urgently explore, after consultation across the community, the possibility of a legislative change to restore the right of Jewish schools of all denominations to determine for themselves who qualifies for admission on the basis of their Jewish status, which we consider to be a "fundamental right for our community and one with which the members of the Supreme Court had great sympathy."

"In the meantime, schools will no doubt once again confer with their governors and professional and religious advisers as to how to adapt their admissions procedures accordingly, whether this involves continuing with a process of collecting points for a Certificate of Religious Practice, or otherwise. These are obviously matters for individual schools to determine, but the Board will continue to provide as much assistance and guidance as we can."

The governors of JFS also said they were "disappointed" but must work towards finding a workable solution for a Jewish practice test to be used for admissions in 2011.

"Of those who ruled against the school, Lord Philips, President of the Supreme Court, suggested that there may be a defect in the law by not allowing the school to give admission priority, when oversubscribed, to those who are Jewish in Orthodox law, and all stressed that neither the school nor the Chief Rabbi had acted in any morally wrong way or in any racist way in the commonly held sense," chairman of governors Russell Kett said. "The unlawful discrimination relates to ethnicity and not race as such."

"JFS felt it had no alternative than to continue to press for its test of 'Jewishness' to be based solely on Orthodox Jewish religious law, rather than on a series of factors which themselves have no relevance under Jewish law but which seem to support the notion of a test of Jewish practice required by English legal system," he added.

(6) UK law Defective - Jerusalem Post OPINION

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930881798&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Dec 16, 2009 21:40 | Updated Dec 17, 2009 23:13

Yet another defect in UK law

By LESLIE WAGNER

The momentous decision by the narrowest of margins by the justices of the UK Supreme Court on Wednesday, that London's Jewish Free School (JFS), in refusing entry to the son of a Masorti convert, had breached the 1976 Race Relations Act, will reverberate, not just across the Jewish community, but in the legislature as well.

The facts are clear. The boy, known as M is the son of a Jewish father and an Italian Roman Catholic mother who converted to Judaism through the Masorti/Conservative movement. The couple have since divorced and M lives with his father. He wished to go to JFS, the oldest and largest Jewish school in Europe.

The school is under the religious guidance of the chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, and when there is an over-demand for places, preference is given to halachic Jews over others. Lord Sacks ruled that M was not halachicly Jewish, and therefore was not eligible. M's father appealed to the school's panel, which turned him down. He then appealed to the courts which at the lower level turned him down, but at the Court of Appeal he found support. At this point JFS, the United Synagogue, the chief rabbi and the Board of Deputies appealed to the highest court, the Supreme Court which has now delivered its verdict.

The judgment is a remarkable document. It begins with a quote from Deuteronomy, as the basis of the laws against intermarriage, refers later to famous converts, such as Ruth, Onkelos and Rabbi Akiva, and throughout shows the greatest respect for Judaism and Jewish law.

"Jewish law has enabled the Jewish people and the Jewish religion to survive throughout centuries of discrimination and persecution. The world would be a poorer place if they had not" is how one of the justices put it.

THE JUDGES knew that they were handling a very hot potato. As the president of the court himself put it, the court "has not welcomed being required to resolve this dispute." The fact that nine out of the 11 Supreme Court justices heard the case, an extremely high proportion, indicates its significance. That they were split more or less down the middle five to four indicates its complexity. The president of the court, Lord Justice Phillips, supported the decision of the Court of Appeal that the JFS action breached race legislation. His deputy, Lord Hope, did not.

The case hinged on whether Jews are a religious group or an ethnic group. If they are the former, then the race legislation does not apply. If the latter, then it does. The majority decided that Jews were both!

More precisely, they accepted that the chief rabbi's and the school's decision was made solely on whether M was Jewish as defined by religious criteria. 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.

The irony is that while the authenticity of M's conversion was the cause of the case, it was irrelevant to the ruling. All denominations within Judaism use descent as the key principle, and according to the court's ruling it doesn't matter whether they follow matrilineal or patrilineal descent.

In UK law, it makes Jews an ethnic group and disallows any discrimination between one Jew and another, and of course between Jew and non-Jew.

In making their ruling the justices were aware of the delicacy and implications of their decision. The majority, 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."

The decision will have a major impact on how Jewish schools choose their pupils. Religious criteria will need to be introduced and the danger is that those from less religious homes, the very children who would benefit from Jewish schooling, may lose out. But for how long, remains to be seen. The justices have given Parliament the biggest possible hint that the law needs to be changed, and the legislature needs to rise to the challenge.

The writer is a former chancellor of the University of Derby and vice chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University. He authored the report on the future of Jewish schools for the Jewish Leadership Council in the UK. He made aliya with his wife, Jennifer, at the end of last year and lives in Jerusalem.

(7)  Human RightsTyranny: Supreme Court effectively makes the Jewish religion illegal - Telegraph OPINION

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6840557/Our-human-rights-culture-has-now-become-a-tyranny.html

Our human rights culture has now become a tyranny

The Supreme Court this week effectively made the Jewish religion illegal, argues Charles Moore.

By Charles Moore
Published: 5:28PM GMT 18 Dec 2009

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 grounds, it held.

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. This is an acute problem for Jews, who are at great pains to maintain their own rules while respecting the law of the land. It will also be used by anti-Jewish groups, which are growing in strength, to bolster their argument that Judaism is racist and that the state of Israel is the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. So the Race Relations Act, set up to help minorities, ends up punishing them.

I would argue that the judgment goes wider still. It is part of a current idea of equality and of human rights which, in the name of freedom, is beginning to look like tyranny.

When you set out general principles about equal treatment for all, regardless of race, religion, sex, age etc, people will tend to agree with them. It is a liberal principle that all are equal before the law, and a Christian principle that all are equal in the sight of God.

But when you frame endless laws according to these universal principles, you run into difficulties. It may be "discriminatory" for a Jewish/Catholic/Muslim school to prefer to employ Jewish/Catholic/Muslim teachers, but isn't it also reasonable? Isn't it fair and natural that a religious school should be free to prefer to admit children from the relevant faith, in order to maintain the ethos which is so important to its success as a school? By what morality are such things wrong?

The human rights culture which now dominates our law believes in its own morality. It sets itself above the varied experience of civilisation, and above the idea of independent nations. It decides that rights can be codified for everyone and can be applied everywhere. It is not a coincidence that our highest court has just changed its name from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court: it considers itself supreme indeed. This "human-rights" morality is much more coercive than it purports to be.

One controversial example is homosexuality. All the main faiths put heterosexual married love above homosexual acts, yet our human rights culture makes it illegal to do this. Catholic agencies are forbidden to handle children for adoption unless they will bestow them on gay couples as readily as married ones.

Another example relates to terrorism. Common sense would suggest that a nation which decides that a foreigner is trying to foment violence in this country should be free to expel him. But universal human rights, as now interpreted, forbid this if the suspect might be tortured in his home country.

A third relates to charity. Until 2006, it had been accepted from time immemorial that the advancement of religion or education was a charitable purpose. Under the Charities Act of 2006, however, this assumption was removed. All charities now have to prove that they serve a "public benefit", and the Charity Commission decides what that benefit is, according to criteria which it calls "modern". These are hard to understand, but they appear to involve social engineering. Woe betide the charity which provides fee-paying education.

Even a self-described "hairy Lefty" has noticed that something is amiss. In his interview with this paper a week ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said: "The trouble with a lot of government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem." There is now a strong secularist agenda working its way through our public authorities. There is a even a group of militant secularists, preposterously called "Brights", who want to drive religion out of the public sphere. Already you can see it in rows about a nurse who prays with a patient, or about sex education, or even about what to call Christmas. Government ministers flatter individual religious leaders – indeed, many Jews feel that the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who was given a peerage by Gordon Brown, has become too much of a No 10 favourite to defend his community properly. But it is this Government which has exalted secular human rights over all belief systems, and made laws to enforce them. And Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has led a culture war against faith schools, especially Jewish ones, for their policy on admissions.

I am not pretending that these questions are easy. You need, for example, to resist Islamist attempts to advance the cause of sharia as a way of creating a parallel legal order (oppressive of women) in this country. But if you really do see religion as the problem in society, you are pulling out the threads which have until now held our culture together. You are undermining the largest single motive for providing schooling, nursing, child care and help for the old and poor. You are turning this country into a colder place, where it is "always winter, but never Christmas".

(8) ‘A Christian solution for a Jewish school’ - Jewish Community Online

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25167/jfs-a-christian-solution-a-jewish-school%E2%80%99

JFS: ‘A Christian solution for a Jewish school’

Judges criticise UK race laws as the Supreme Court rules against school’s entry policy

By Joshua Rozenberg, The Jewish Community Online, December 17, 2009

Jewish schools have been operating an unlawful admissions policy for more than 30 years, the Supreme Court concluded this week.

In a 5-4 ruling, the UK’s most senior judges dismissed an appeal by JFS against a ruling that the leading Jewish school had broken the Race Relations Act when it refused to admit a boy whose mother’s conversion was not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.

The boy, known only by the initial M, was allowed to join the school after the earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal. He and his father are members of a Masorti synagogue in London.

M’s father, who also cannot be named, said the Race Relations Act, as well as protecting Jews from prejudice, “also provides for the fair and equal treatment of all children within our educational system”.

The family’s solicitor, John Halford, said the ruling represented “a definitive end to six decades of exclusion of children who are devout in their Jewish faith, but considered by some to be not quite Jewish enough to enjoy the benefits of their community’s leading faith school”.

Of the nine judges who sat to hear the appeal by JFS in October, only two found wholly in the school’s favour. The other two in the minority found for the school with strong caveats.

One of the minority judges, Lord Brown, said that if the arguments put on M’s behalf were correct, JFS — and all other maintained or independent Jewish schools where admission depended on religious law — “have been operating an unlawful directly racially discriminatory policy for upwards of 30 years”.

Jewish schools, if oversubscribed, would now have to select “by reference only to outward manifestations of religious practice”, Lord Brown added. “The Court of Appeal’s judgment insists on a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish.”

Lord Rodger, the other minority judge, described this as a “concocted” test that “might appeal to this secular court but ... has no basis in 3,500 years of Jewish law and
teaching”.

The finding that the school was guilty of direct discrimination against M on the grounds of his ethnic origins was reached by a majority of five judges, headed by Lord Phillips, the court’s president.

Two of the four minority judges took the view that JFS was guilty of indirect discrimination because it had failed to demonstrate that its policy was proportionate.

But Lord Phillips stressed that nothing in his ruling “should be read as giving rise to criticism on moral grounds of the admissions policy of JFS in particular or the policies of Jewish faith schools in general, let alone suggesting that these policies are ‘racist’ as the word is generally understood”. Other judges agreed.

But accepting that the court’s ruling “risks upsetting a policy of admission to Jewish schools that, over many years, has not been considered to be open to objection”, Lord Phillips said that “there may well be a defect in our law of discrimination” because it provided no defence of justification.

Those doubts were shared by Lady Hale, another of those who found against JFS. Perhaps, she said, the Jewish people should be allowed to follow religious laws that had allowed them to survive centuries of persecution.
“But if such allowance is to be made,” Lady Hale continued, “it should be made by Parliament and not be the courts”.

She suggested the Equality Bill, currently before Parliament, could be used to amend the Race Relations Act.

But the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was given permission to put arguments to the court in support of M, welcomed the ruling and gave no indication that it would support a change in the law.

Trevor Phillips, who chairs the commission, said it intended “to work with the Chief Rabbi and other faith leaders to ensure that the broad interpretation of the Race Relations Act will not interfere with any family’s opportunity to choose an educational environment supportive of their beliefs”.

Lord Sacks welcomed the suggestion by Lord Phillips that “the issue at stake in this case may require legislative remedy”. But, the Chief Rabbi added: “these matters require careful reflection and consultation; and instant reactions would be inappropriate.”

The Board of Deputies said it would explore the possibility of a legislative change, “urgently and after consultation across the community”.

Last updated: 4:48pm, December 17 2009

(9) School gave admissions priority to children it deemed Jewish by birth - The Lawyer

http://www.thelawyer.com/bindmans-and-blackstone-win-supreme-court-victory-in-jewish-school-case/1002966.article

Bindmans and Blackstone win Supreme Court victory in Jewish school case

The Lawyer

17 December 2009 | By Katy Dowell

The Supreme Court has upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that it was illegal for a Jewish school to refuse entry to a boy because his mother was not recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.

Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC was instructed by Bindmans partner John Halford to represent E, the father of a 12-year-old boy known as M, in his attempt to have his son admitted to the Brent-based JFS school.

The school had an oversubscription policy that gave priority to children it deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith.

Rose argued that the policy contravened the Race Relations Act.

In June, a Court of Appeal panel of three chaired by Lord Justice Sedley ruled: “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act 1976. If the discrimination is direct, as we consider it is, it cannot be justified.”

The Supreme Court gathered nine Supreme Court Justices to hear the case. The case centred on whether the oversubscription criterion constituted direct discrimination on grounds of M’s ethnic origin or indirect discrimination which was not proportionate and so not objectively justified.

The court was split on the matter five to four.

Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him.

Lord Phillips said: “The majority of the court has concluded that the JFS admission policy does discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin and is, in consequence, unlawful.”

Nevertheless, it was stressed that the school was not acting in a racist manner. Lady Hale SCJ highlighted: “No one in this case is accusing JFS (as the Jews’ Free School is now named) or the Office of the Chief Rabbi of discrimination on grounds of race as such.

“Any suggestion or implication that they are “racist” in the popular sense of that term can be dismissed.”

Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker and Brown were dissenting with Lord Rodger and Brown stating that they would have allowed the appeal by JFS in its entirety.

Stone King Sewell partner Richard Gold instructed Blackstone Chambers’ David Pannick QC for the appellant, JFS. Blackstone’s Ben Jaffey was instructed by Farrer & Co partner Anne-Marie Piper to act for the co appellant, the United Synagogue.

In the Court of Appeal Pannick had represented the United Synagogue with 11KBW’s Peter Oldham representing the governing body of JFS.

One Essex Court’s David Wolfson QC was instructed by Teacher Stern Selby to act for the Board of Deputies of British Jews as an intervener. Also appearing as interveners were:  Cloisters’ Robin Allen QC instructed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission; Matrix Chambers’ David Wolfe instructed by Leigh Day & Co partner Richard Stein for the British Humanist Association; and Thomas Linden QC also of Matrix Chambers was instructed to act by the Treasury Solicitors for the secretary of state for children, families and schools.

(10) Faith schools 'may face ban on selecting by religion' - Daily Mail OPINION

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236340/Faith-schools-face-ban-selecting-religion-court-finds-Jewish-school-racially-discriminated-applicant.html

Faith schools 'may face ban on selecting by religion' after court finds Jewish school racially discriminated against applicant

By LAURA CLARK

Faith schools could lose their right to select pupils on religious grounds following a landmark legal ruling, it emerged last night.

The Supreme Court yesterday backed an earlier judgment that the JFS Jewish school in North London had racially discriminated against a boy by denying him a place because his mother was not born in the faith.

The heavily oversubscribed school stipulated in its admissions policy it would give priority to children whose mothers are Jewish or who have converted under the Chief Rabbi's rules.  

JFS, formerly known as the Jews' Free School, racially discriminated on the basis of faith, says the Supreme Court

This is because Judaism is passed on through the maternal bloodline, or through conversion. Although the mother had converted, it was not recognised by the Chief Rabbi because it had been in a progressive rather than an orthodox synagogue.

The boy, a 12-year-old known only as M in the case, challenged JFS's refusal to admit him.

A Court of Appeal ruling that the school's policy amounted to racial discrimination, since Jews are an ethnic group, was narrowly backed by the Supreme Court judges, by a margin of five to four.

Some 50 Jewish schools which operated similar admissions policies have already rewritten their rules.

But in a submission during the longrunning case, lawyers for Education Secretary Ed Balls warned of 'wide ramifications' for other faith schools.

They said Christian, Muslim, Sikh and Jewish schools could all be forced to give equal priority to non-believers or pupils of other faiths to avoid breaking race discrimination laws.

(11) There's much to regret in this ruling - Guardian OPINION

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/17/jfs-appeal-ruling-jewish-school

There's much to regret in this ruling

The supreme court's decision means synagogues will continue to bear a heavy burden. But we can make the new rules work

Naftali Brawer

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 December 2009 08.00 GMT

Yesterday the supreme court upheld a ruling which has posed profound difficulties for the Jewish community. The decision, made in June this year, determined that the JFS, a Jewish state school, could no longer admit pupils on the basis of Jewish parentage. This significantly impacted the Jewish community in general and my synagogue members in particular. As a trustee of Yavneh College, another state-funded Jewish school, and the rabbi of one of the country's largest and youngest Jewish communities, I had a front row seat at what became a very heated, difficult and potentially divisive community debate.

The ruling presented us with an unprecedented challenge. Because the basis on which we have always defined ourselves had been judged illegal, we were suddenly made to draw up a religious practice test for prospective pupils.

From the very start this represented a serious religious problem. Orthodox Judaism has always defined its members on the basis of birth to a Jewish mother or sincere conversion through a recognised rabbinical court, which is a very arduous process. Even if we could conceivably devise a test that would encompass the full range of Jewish practice it would in no way help to define who is a Jew. That is because Judaism is a state of being, it is an existential definition acquired at birth or through the visible sacrifice and commitment of conversion. It is not conferred on the basis of ticking boxes on a form. Nor for that matter does the inability to tick such boxes, due to lack of practice, mean that a born Jew is to lose his or her Jewishness. Any practice test would be devised simply to comply with what had become the law. No one remotely acquainted with Orthodox Jewish theology believed for even a moment that it was a genuine method of determining Jewish identity.

In the end, after much agonising and debate, we decided to set the bar for the religious practice test as low as possible. The reason for this was that we were concerned that the alternative of a two-tier system, where first priority would be given to those pupils able to meet the challenge of a detailed religious practice test and second priority to the remainder, would be interpreted as an assertion that there were two classes of Jews; one observant, the other non observant. This is a notion that is utterly false and to our thinking repugnant. A Jew is a Jew regardless of religious commitment and practice. There are certainly more committed Jews and less committed Jews but that in no way defines their Jewish identity and essence. In the end we were not prepared to give even the impression that some Jews were more Jewish than others.

While it was the school's responsibility to determine the nature of the religious practice tests, the burden of administering them fell to the synagogues. For small to medium-sized congregations with anywhere from half a dozen to several dozen children applying to Jewish schools the process was manageable. For a congregation of our size with arguably the largest membership of children it was overwhelming. Close to 300 children would be coming through our doors in order to register for their CRP (certificate of religious practice) and this was in addition to the hundreds of parents and children who regularly worship at our synagogue on a Saturday morning. Despite the challenges of administering a fair and efficient process during the busy high holiday festival season, our synagogue lay-leadership, professional staff and volunteers did an outstanding job.

Looking back over this period there is much I regret. The ruling against JFS cost our schools and synagogues dearly in terms of money and time – a cost that will continue to be borne as a result of the supreme court decision. The ruling betrayed a deep ignorance of Jewish theology and law and an appalling insensitivity towards the Jewish community by deeming racist its definition of Jewishness (though the supreme court, thankfully, has made clear that it did not in fact consider the JFS' admission policy racist). I regret this whole sorry episode but I do not, for a moment, regret the way we responded to it. We did the right thing. We ensured that Jewish education remained inclusive.

(12) Faith schools may not select the intake according to ethnicity - Independent OPINION

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-religion-not-race-is-the-key-1842969.html

Religion, not race, is the key

Thursday, 17 December 2009

The Supreme Court's ruling that a Jewish school was guilty of racial discrimination for refusing to admit a child whose mother was not regarded as Jewish can be seen in a narrow and a broader context. It is welcome in both.

In the narrow context, the ruling effectively distinguishes between religious and ethnic criteria for admission to faith schools. This means that where a school is oversubscribed, it may not use race as a deciding factor. Faith schools are faith schools; they may not select the intake according to ethnicity.

This could be seen as presenting a particular problem for Jewish schools, because religion and ethnicity are so closely bound together as to be almost synonymous. The child in this test case had a Jewish father and was brought up in Judaism. But his mother was a convert and not considered Jewish according to criteria set by the Chief Rabbi. The distinction drawn by the Supreme Court means that where, as in this case, there might be a contradiction between faith and ethnicity, religion must be the decisive factor for admission to a faith school.

The judgment might be seen, and perhaps will be in some quarters, as a secular authority challenging the Chief Rabbi on what constitutes Jewishness. It should not be seen in this way. This is a ruling that applies to a particular, and quite unusual, circumstance. The court is not contesting the authority of the Chief Rabbi in matters of Jewishness, it is establishing what may and may not be grounds for selecting pupils to attend a faith school.

Even if the narrow aspect of the ruling probably has limited ramifications – similar contradictions are unlikely to arise with Church of England, Catholic or Muslim schools – the broader context is still important. Although reached by the slenderest of majorities, this judgment means that no school, faith school or any other, is above the law of the land. For the court to have upheld this school's admissions policy could have been seen as permitting race to be used as a qualification for school admission, and so the thin end of a dangerous wedge. This was a complex case, but one where a different ruling could have conveyed a highly undesirable message.

(13) 38 state & 60 private Jewish schools must tear up Admissions policies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6827724/Faith-school-admissions-in-doubt-after-ruling.html

Faith school admissions in doubt after ruling

The power of faith schools to select pupils along religious lines has been thrown into doubt following a controversial Supreme Court ruling.

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Published: 5:51PM GMT 16 Dec 2009

All Jewish schools in England are already being forced to rewrite admissions rules after the court upheld an earlier judgment that a school in north London racially discriminated against a boy.

He was rejected from JFS – formerly the Jews’ Free School, in Brent – because his mother was not born Jewish.

It is thought the ruling will force most of the 38 state and 60 private Jewish schools to tear up their entry policies as admissions were not based solely on the child’s faith. The court said this amounted to racial discrimination.

But lawyers acting for Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, warned that the judgment “potentially impacts on other schools that give preference to members of particular faiths” because religion was “closely related” to ethnic origin.

In some areas, Christian schools may be “largely or exclusively white”, the Government said in a submission to an earlier court hearing.

“If membership of a religion in that area is regarded as ‘closely related’ to one ethnic group rather than another, it may be that admissions arrangements will fall within the ambit of the… decision,” the document said.

Mr Balls insisted that action could be taken to allow England’s 7,000 Christian, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Jewish schools to continue selecting along religious lines.

He said: "We are going to need to look carefully at the implications of this, and all faith organisations will as well. We must make sure that the role of faith schools is properly protected in our state education system. Any further steps which have to be taken should only be taken once we have studied the judgment."

The school went to the Supreme Court after three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled in June that the admissions rules were unfair. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court failed to overturn the decision.

Lord Rodger – one of nine Justices who heard the case – said the decision meant “that there can in future be no Jewish faith schools which give preference to children because they are Jewish according to Jewish religious law and belief.”

“Jewish schools will be forced to apply a concocted test for deciding who is to be admitted [that] has no basis whatsoever in 3,500 years of Jewish law and teaching,” he said. “The… decision leads to such extraordinary results, and produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools, that one can’t help feeling that something has gone wrong.”

After the hearing, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it was “extremely disappointed by this decision”.

It said it would lobby for a law change to allow Jewish schools to apply admissions rules based on the faith of children’s parents, which was a “fundamental right for our community”.

But the move was welcomed by groups opposed to faith schools.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, chairman of Accord, which lobbies for a major overhaul of faith schools entry requirements, said: "We hope this ruling will serve as a wake-up call to faith schools by showing that religious admissions rules must conform to the law of the land, though we will continue urging for all faith schools to stop discriminatory policies entirely. Taxpayer funded faith schools should serve not just themselves but also the community around them.”

A boy - named only as M – was rejected because his mother was not born a Jew. She converted to the faith but this was not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.

It is a basic principle that a child is not recognised by the OCR and other bodies as Jewish unless his or her mother is Jewish.

JFS argued that its admissions policy giving preference to Jewish children when the school was oversubscribed was lawful because it was based on religious and not racial criteria.

(14) Board of Deputies of British Jews says "a matter of deep concern"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5640295/School-ruling-will-cause-admissions-chaos.html

School ruling 'will cause admissions chaos'

Dozens of faith schools will be forced to tear up their admissions policies following a landmark court ruling.

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Published: 8:00PM BST 25 Jun 2009

Almost every Jewish school in the country has been plunged into chaos after the Court of Appeal found one school in north London racially discriminated against a boy.

He was rejected because his mother was not born Jewish.

Legal experts said the case would leave schools operating similar admissions policies open to appeals from parents.

They insisted it would not directly affect England's 6,700 Anglican and Roman Catholic schools.

But it will inevitably focus attention on the admissions arrangements of all faith schools which have been criticised in the past for lacking transparency.

Oona Stannard, chief executive of the Catholic Education Service, warned that it set a dangerous precedent.

"I am really extremely disappointed by this ruling," she said. "It is highly regrettable that this has happened because it says that the state is interfering in what constitutes membership of a church and religious group. It is a highly regrettable situation and I hope the Jewish community will be successful in appealing this."

Thursday's case centred around JFS, formerly the Jewish Free School, in Brent.

A boy - named only as M – was rejected because his mother was not born a Jew. She converted to the faith but this was not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi.

It is a basic principle that a child is not recognised by the OCR and other bodies as Jewish unless his or her mother is Jewish.

JFS argued that its admissions policy giving preference to Jewish children when the school was oversubscribed was lawful because it was based on religious and not racial criteria.

But judges ruled that "the requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act".

Speaking after the hearing, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it was "a matter of deep concern" and would affect most of England's 38 Jewish schools.

"The Board of Deputies is deeply concerned by the potential ramifications of today's Court of Appeal judgment for Jewish Faith schools," it said in a statement. "The effect of this judgement is that Jewish schools will not be able to give preference to applicants on the basis of their faith (as permitted by law) applying the criteria that have always been used by Jewish religious authorities."

John Halford, representing the boy's father, urged the state school to admit M, now aged 12, in the light of the judgment and not pursue a further appeal to the House of Lords.

Faith schools in general are allowed to give preference to children of their own faith if they are oversubscribed.

Two other legal experts told the Telegraph that Christian faith schools would largely be unaffected because they admit on the grounds of pupils' practising faith - normally whether the child has been baptised or is a regular churchgoer - not parental circumstances.

(15) Faith schools could be outlawed - Children's Secretary Ed Balls. Affects 38 Jewish schools & 60 Jewish independent schools

Faith schools could be outlawed after Jewish test case, says Balls

Tim Ross

London Evening Standard
28.10.09

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23761621-faith-schools-could-be-outlawed-after-jewish-test-case-says-Balls.do

Faith schools could be stripped of the right to select pupils on the basis of their religion, the Standard has learned.

The Government fears that a landmark court case means 100 state and private Jewish schools are breaking race laws by choosing pupils who conform to their beliefs. Many Christian, Muslim and Sikh schools could also be forced to give equal priority to non-believers or pupils of other faiths.

Lawyers acting for Children's Secretary Ed Balls are urging the highest court in the land to protect the centuries-old tradition of schools educating children on religious lines. The minister's warning comes in a submission to the Supreme Court in the case of JFS, a Jewish school in Brent, which is fighting to overturn a ruling that it broke the Race Relations Act.

If the judges refuse to support JFS, formerly the Jews' Free School, hundreds of other faith schools could be forced to abandon religious selection in its current form. Mr Balls's statement to the Supreme Court, seen by the Standard, says: "The case raises issues of considerable public importance."

State faith schools in London achieve some of the best exam results. Many receive far more applications than they have places and so select pupils from the same religious background.

JFS is oversubscribed and gives priority to children who are deemed by the Chief Rabbi to be Orthodox Jewish. The 2,000-pupil school rejected a 12-year-old boy, known only as M, because his mother had not converted to Judaism in an Orthodox synagogue.

In June, the Court of Appeal said such a decision was "a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act". But the school argues that it is central to whether a child is seen as Jewish. The case goes to the heart of whether being Jewish is a religious or a racial matter.

Mr Balls said the ruling hits admissions policies of 38 Jewish schools. "It is also likely that the admissions arrangements of approximately 60 Jewish independent schools are unlawful," he added.

The Appeal Court ruling suggested JFS's admissions policy indirectly discriminated on racial grounds as most people defined as Jewish by religion were also Jewish in ethnic origin. This was wrong and may have "wide ramifications", Mr Balls said.

(16) Applies to 38 State-funded (38) and 60 Independent (fee-paying) Jewish Schools

The following webpage relates to 1999.

Extrapolating what it says to 2009, in conjunction with the above articles, one finds that there are 38 State-funded (38) and 60 Independent (fee-paying) Jewish Schools  in the United Kingdom.

Why should the State fund ANY Jewish schools? Most Catholic schools receive State funding, but there are also elite Catholic schools which do not.

But this ruling shows that the Jewish schools are ethnically-based rather than Faith-based.

http://www.jpr.org.uk/publications/publication.php?id=138&sid=140

The future of Jewish schooling in the United Kingdom

... However, the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) defines independent schools in a different way and, hence, there are 49 Jewish independent schools on the Independent Schools' Register, with 8,904 pupils.(4)

Number of pupils Number of Schools
Type of school
Nursery 1,830 43
Primary 11,610 46
Secondary 9,090 42
Special educational needs (SEN) 110 4
Geographical location
Greater London 16,230 86
Rest of Britain 6,410 49
Religious affiliation
 Progressive 520 10
Central Orthodox 12,030 62
Strictly Orthodox 10,090 63
Funding basis
Voluntary-aided (state) 11,760 34
Independent (private, fee-paying)
10,880 101 (49)
Total 22,640 135 (83)

... Parental attitudes began to change during the 1960s, when the Labour government started to abolish selective secondary (grammar) schools. School standards were deemed to have fallen with the introduction of comprehensive schools, and a negative reaction to the growing proportion of recent immigrant ethnic minority pupils may also have acted as a spur in some urban areas for the provision of Jewish primary and secondary schools.