Charedi dictionary excludes church, mosque, penis and vagina

Stamford Hill's ultra orthodox Jewish (Charedi) community has published a dictionary that left out hundreds of words including church and mosque as well as penis and vagina.

"Notorious" article on Charedi men cleared by Press Complaints Commission

This blog has more than once referred to an article written by Jewish Chronicle columnist and historian Geoffrey Alderman - mainly as an example of how heated the debate between different sections of the Jewish community can become.

Joe Lobenstein and sinister motives

A letter from former four-times Hackney Mayor Joe Lobenstein MBE is in the latest Hackney Gazette. In it he said he detected a "sinister motive" in  Nigel Lewis's letter about Charedi Schools in Stamford Hill.

Whatever that sinister motive may have been, Lobenstein never pinned it down.

Instead, after listing Lewis' complaints about a Charedi "closed-shop" and "coup" Lobenstein justified his attack on Lewis with one point, that Charedi kids don't commit crime.

He said that a look at the figures would show "that not a single pupil of Charedi schools in Hackney has ever appeared before a juvenile court or has been accused of any vices which are unfortunately so rampant in society today."

By complete coincidence, just yesterday I was in touch with former Hackney blogger Ben Locker who wrote a piece about this particular argument back in 2007. I'm posting his full blog post on a separate page for future reference.

Back in 2007 Locker wrote: "I was astonished by the argument one person put forward that Stamford Hill has a miniscule crime rate, thanks to the Orthodox Jewish community: even going so far as to say “when did you last hear of someone mugged by an Orthodox Jew?” Apart from the fact that it ignores a problem with unrecorded crime in the Haredi community, what on earth has that got to do with planning law?"

His astonishment was not shared by another Hackney blogger and member of the Charedi community "The Shaigetz" who said: "I, sadly, am less astonished. I have been hearing that justification, in its various forms, since I was twelve. Our superior children do not take drugs, wear ripped jeans or sport nose piercings, therefore we should be allowed to …[fill in the blank]."

(More recently Charedi youths were not immune to benefiting from the recent riots and The Shaigetz had interesting observations on the subject of unrecorded crime )

Lobenstein wrote a piece in the Jewish Tribune in which he criticised Geoffrey Alderman for being rude about Charedi schools in Stamford Hill: "Mr Alderman must have been dreaming when  he wrote that visiting the vicinities of Cranwich Road, Amhurst Park, Fairholt Road and Bethune Road, led him to believe that matters had turned ugly."

"Again, sheer and utter nonsense."

"I claim slightly superior knowledge over that of Alderman when describing Fairholt Road because I have lived there for approximately seventy years. The only school on Fairholt Road is St Thomas Abney School which belongs to the Church of England. No Jewish school is located in Fairholt Road."

Although he did mention "Planning application for the conversion of one local residence into a children's nursery is currently pending" I'm not sure if he was referring to Gur School at 85 Fairholt road which had already been running for more than six months with no planning permission.

In the same column - penned under the name Ben Yitzchok in the Jewish Tribune (May 2011 - pointed out to me by Geoffrey Alderman) - he also said: "Not a single school is operating without having obtained planning consent which invariably takes account of reaction of neighbours, traffic implications, health and safety regulations."

At the time the Gur school, in the road in which he lives, was operating without any of the above.

A couple of weeks ago the Hackney Gazette reported that the Gur school which got retrospective planning permission in July had failed to meet the conditions which came with it: "The council has since served several enforcement notices which have been ignored."

Does school row expose 'Charedi coup'?

The first Hackney Gazette of 2012 features a letter and a news story both of which raise concerns about schools for ultra orthodox Jewish (Charedi) children which have opened illegally in and around Stamford Hill.

Some of these schools have been granted retrospective planning permission but usually with conditions attached.

A Google search suggests at least three similar cases (any more please let me know and I will amend if there are any updates.)

Torah V'Yirah, 91 Amhurst Park.

Beis Trana, at 186-194 Upper Clapton Road. (Both discussed in a Jewish Chronicle piece )

The Gur school in Fairholt Road (Another Jewish chronice piece).

The Gazette's news story covered the Gur school which got its planning permission in July but with conditions that it has failed to meet. The Gazette said: "The council has since served several enforcement notices which have been ignored."

The school has now appealed against the conditions of the temporary planning permission.

The letter in the Gazette is about another school, the Torah V'Yirah at 91 Amhurst Road (The Gazette originally wrote this story on December 16). On Tuesday 10 January the Council's planning committee will vote on whether this school should be granted retrospective planning permission too.

Council officers have recommended refusing permission and under normal circumstances this matter would not have gone before a committee. But a petition of 10 councillors has forced it on to the agenda on Tuesday.

Two councillors who sit on the committee (Ian Sharer, Leader of Hackney Lib Dems and Michael Levy, Leader of the Conservative Group) ) have put their names to the petition calling for the schools argument to be heard and not refused on the basis of the officer recommendation.

Nigel Lewis' letter to the Gazette also referred to a meeting with Hackney Councillors in June 2011 - this included Abraham Jacobson (Lib Dem), Ian Sharer (Leader of Hackney Lib Dems), Simche Steinberger (Conservative), Michael Levy (Leader of the Conservative Group) and Benzion Papier (Conservative) as well as Linda Kelly (Conservative) and Dawood Akhoon (Lib Dem) who have all signed the petition.

Lewis' letter described the June meeting as "a Charedi-run closed shop determined to stifle local democracy".

He added that: "The recent petition likewise appears to be the prelude to an intended coup, in which large areas of Hackney's planning will henceforth be managed with Charedi interests uppermost, irrespective of other people."

This may sound a bit insensitive but tensions around planning and  the Charedi community have dogged Hackney politics for years. During the last Mayoral election Andrew Boff, Conservative member of the London Assembly and candidate for Mayor of Hackney, criticised this blog for suggesting that the Conservative party sometimes behaved like an ultra orthodox Jewish lobby group in Hackney: Reply to Andrew Boff.

A couple of years ago Mayor Jules Pipe criticised Cllr Simche Steinberger for putting the interests of the Charedi community ahead of other Hackney residents.

This is how he described it later in an interview with Blood and Property: "I believe that it was the adopted principle of the entire Hackney Conservative group to oppose the Council’s clarification of planning policy regarding residential extensions. In my opinion, in attempting to negotiate the removal of the item from the Cabinet agenda in return for his acquiescence to allowing an urgent item that lowered council housing rents, he put furthering his group’s political position above operating correctly as Chair of Overview and Scrutiny."

The other side

The debate about ultra orthodox Jewish education facilities has been rumbling for a while in Hackney and the Council has been criticised for not acknowledging the problems faced by its fastest growing community.

Rabbi Abraham (Avraham) Pinter, a regular spokesman for the community and principal at Yesodey Hatorah School led a campaign to turn the site of an old Hackney School into a school for ultra orthodox Jewish pupils rather than turn it into residential homes.

At the time he told the Jewish Chronicle that the site represented "a unique opportunity for the Charedi community in Stamford Hill to have improved purpose-built educational facilities. More than 20 per cent of Hackney's under-16s come from the Charedi community and many of our existing schools are old fashioned, sub-standard residential buildings.

He said: "It is an absolute scandal that the educational needs of the fastest growing part of Britain's Jewish community are being ignored by Hackney Council," he claimed. In other words something needs to be done about schools in the community and until then illegal ones will probably keep popping up.


General tension

The ultra orthodox Jewish community seems to have a rocky record in terms of community cohesion. It is often criticised by the mainstream Jewish media here. Between Christmas and New Year the BBC reported stand-offs in Israel as the wider Israeli population protested against demands for gender segregation.

At the end of last year Geoffrey Alderman, historian and columnist for the Jewish Chronicle, raised tensions when he claimed it was "well known that charedi men are notorious harassers of the opposite sex." (Republishing this comment has offended a reader - see comment below - but the context and a response from Rabbi Pinter are included in the link, I'm hoping that's enough to justify repeating Alderman's claim which is not there because I believe it but to demonstrate that this debate has become very heated within the Jewish community itself. Anyway, if you have a problem with this please let me know via comments below.)

Justified or not, is there any way to usefully address these issues before the effects of a poorly performing economy fray tolerance levels?

Tension over Charedi sexual harassment claims

A claim that Charedi men "are notorious harassers of the opposite sex" has raised the stakes in a long-running stand off between Professor Geoffrey Alderman and Rabbi Abraham Pinter.

The two men often provide polar opposite arguments about Hackney's Charedi community.

Alderman's run-ins with the 'ultra orthodox Jewish' community have taken in a range of topics from schooling and statistics to "selfishness". Pinter has usually provided the rebuttal.

However tensions were raised to a higher level last week after Alderman wrote a piece in the Jewish Chronicle which said: "It is, however, well known that charedi men are notorious harassers of the opposite sex."

His comments appear to have prompted an organised campaign against him and the newspaper.

Rabbi Pinter told Blood and Property: "Alderman makes an appalling statement of collective libel. In his emails to you he clearly recognizes that he has made an error and should have chosen his words more carefully. However, it is unacceptable for him to try to get out of his problem in private emails to you. He must apologise for the collective libel and then I will be happy to respond."

The article was first discussed by fellow Hackney blogger, If you tickle us, and comments under the post included a pre-written letter to the Press Complaints Commission which the anonymous author hopes will be sent en masse by enraged Charedim. It describes Alderman's views as "unfounded, defamatory and discriminatory".

The same comment also provided an anonymised pre-written letter for the attention of the Jewish Chronicle calling for Alderman's "suspension as (a) writer for the JC pending the results a full investigation" due to his "continuously hateful conduct towards Charedi Jewry as a whole."

Blood and Property asked Alderman if his comments were meant to single out Charedi men as worse harassers of women than other communities or human beings in general.

He said: "That is not what I was saying. I don't know if there is necessarily a higher instance of harassment of women in Charedi communities than in the general population, I don't have statistics to show that, but that's not the point I was making.

"What I was saying is that they - the Charedim - set themselves very high standards which, I'm very sorry to say, they do not reach. They say they are closer to God than any other jewish group and yet this sort of thing still goes on."

Blood and Property asked if it was reasonable to expect any one community to behave better than another one and criticise them if they didn't. Alderman said: "It is they, - the Charedim - who set the standard they seem incapable of reaching. It is obvious to me that growing up in that sort of community does not make you any better than any other person. Do me a favour: ring up Rabbi Pinter (Avrohom Pinter) and ask him why this is so."

Ask him: "Does growing up in your community make you any better - as a Jew - than me? "

As stated above, Pinter told Blood and Property: "Alderman makes an appalling statement of collective libel. In his emails to you he clearly recognizes that he has made an error and should have chosen his words more carefully. However, it is unacceptable for him to try to get out of his problem in private emails to you. He must apologize for the collective libel and then I will be happy to respond."

Alderman said he didn't have a problem with the formal treatment of women in the Charedi community saying that the women were often the bread winners. He added that when he got married in the Lea Bridge Road synagogue in Clapton in 1973 a number of his wife's relatives, Chardim from Stamford Hill - came to the wedding and they themselves offered a neat loophole to the gender segregation problem - by asking that each family sit as a group at each table.

Alderman also pointed out that the content of his column was discussed, edited and approved by the newspaper before publication so any division between himself and the newspaper over the piece was unlikely.

Democracy problem in Stamford Hill on the mend?

It is hard to tell how significant this may be but an election is due to take place for a parent governor at the Yesodey Hatorah Senior School for girls.

Here's an extract from If you tickle us we will laugh:

.... News reaches me that, to the consternation of those who dictate our way of life, Yesodei Hatorah Secondary School will be holding elections for a Parent Governor.

And if that isn’t enough, apparently a species of the fairer sex has had the temerity to stand for the position. I mean, what is the world coming to if a woman can try and elicit votes from parents which include men (though one wouldn’t think so when attending open days, parent evenings, graduation ceremonies or any other school activity except if it includes a visit by the PM or a few police officers when the men all miraculously appear)?

How, we all ask, has it come to this? Where have we gone wrong? Is this the result of a (non-existent) fair admissions policy? Is it the influence of having, G-d forbid, parents with tops which indicate a shape beneath and skirts which hint at legs ambulating within?

Some of the school's decisions about admissions were recently overruled after being appealed by parents.

Geoffrey Alderman, a commentator on the community, took an interest in the issue. Meanwhile the school's principal (I think), Rabbi Abraham Pinter, provided some comment on the situation, as did the learning trust.

Some of the issues about democracy and the Ultra Orthodox Jewish community have been discussed on Blood and Property before - they also surfaced in the last council meeting when Labour councillors more than implied that the political representatives for the community (the Conservative Party) were not doing an effective job (The suggestion was that the long-running dispute about loft extensions had over-ridden issues concerning the poorest members of the Ultra Orthodox Jewish community who have failed to use the benefits to which they are entitled.)

If anyone was at this event: http://www.thejc.com/community/local-news/40616/hackney-councillors-support-local-limmud this evening (Sunday) it would be great to find out what was said.

Apparently "Liberal Democrat Ian Sharer and Conservative Simche Steinberger will be part of a panel discussion on how their Jewish values led them into politics."

Cuts could cause Jewish influx into Hackney state schools?

Hackney's largest and fastest growing ethnic minority - its ultra orthodox Jewish community - is mainly self-catering when it comes to education. Most ultra orthodox Jewish children are educated in private schools.

But could this be about to change if, as expected, various government cuts hit this community hardest? (Effects of housing benefit cuts discussed here while East London Lines describes possible effects of child benefit cuts) When compared to neighbouring boroughs like Tower Hamlets, where the largest minority relies on state education, has Hackney got-off lightly?

These broader issues appeared during discussions about an admissions dispute at Hackney's only state-funded Jewish secondary school: the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School. The school had 231 pupils aged 11-16 when its most recent (July 201) Ofsted Report (an interim check) in which it retained its 'outstanding' rating.

In contrast to Hackney's silent Academies - Mossbourne and Petchey - Yesodey Hatorah spokesman, Abraham Pinter, provided some background during a telephone conversation. The bulk of his replies were consistent with answers officially provided by the Learning Trust (I've noted any differences in the answers).

The exchange below also includes some comments from Jewish historian and columnist on Jewish matters for the Jewish Chronicle and the Guardian, Geoffrey Alderman, who is involved in the dispute and pointed it out to Blood and Property.

The bulk of the answers come from the Learning Trust.

Blood and Property: I've been told that some parents who applied for their daughters to go to the school were originally denied but were then accepted after an appeal process. Were you aware of this?

Learning Trust: Yes

Blood and Property: If so, is it possible to get any details about these cases what the issues were?

Learning Trust: We are not able to discuss individual cases involving students. Yesodah Hatorah is an oversubscribed school. In line with other schools they follow the Learning Trust co-ordinated admissions process. (Abraham Pinter said that not all the schools places were full)

Blood and Property: Do you know of any complaints about the admissions process at Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls school? Are they more common than in other Hackney schools.

Learning Trust: The school has told us that there had been one complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman which was later withdrawn following an unsuccessful appeal.

Blood and Property: When parents appeal against the decisions of the board of governors at Hackney secondary schools is there a higher body/regulator that can judge whether a governing body is behaving properly? If so has it recently been at work at Yesodey Hatorah school?

Learning Trust: There is a statutory process for appeal. The Headteacher, followed by the Chair of Governors and finally the Secretary of State

Blood and Property: Have you had any complaints from parents about nepotism or factionalism within a school's governing body. If parents have these concerns, to whom should they present evidence, the Learning Trust? The Charity Commission? The council?

Learning Trust: There have been no complaints from named parents. The process for complaints are outlined above.

Geoffrey Alderman: I have a copy of a letter sent to the chief executive of the Learning Trust on 27 June 2010, to which there was a reply by email dated 27 July 2010.

Blood and Property: I've been told there have been difficulties in identifying who the governors of the school actually are. Should there be a formal route by which parents or any member of the community can can contact the school's governors? Or at least check that they exist?

Learning Trust: All requests for information are directed to the school This reply is unacceptable.

Geoffrey Alderman: Surely the Learning Trust knows the names of the members of the governing body. If not, how can it satisfy itself as to the appropriate governance of the school?

Blood and Property: Is the learning trust confident that there is a complete and effective governing body at the school?

Learning Trust: At the last Ofsted the school was judged outstanding. This has been achieved under the leadership of the head and the Governing body, the hard work of its teaching staff and students as well as the support of parents

Geoffrey Alderman: As a matter of fact the Ofsted inspection itself drew attention to shortcomings in the governance of the school. So this reply is being very economical with the truth. (The 2006 Ofted report gave the school's governing body a score of 3 the lowest of all its other scores got higher rated scores of 1 or 2)

Blood and Property: Is the Learning Trust aware of any investigations into admissions at the school?

Learning Trust: No

Abraham Pinter responds to Geoffrey Alderman

Abraham Pinter has responded to points raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics. In the piece Alderman says that Hackney politics are driven by religion and ethnicity, not class, as elsewhere in the UK.

Pinter says that Alderman is looking at the Hackney Jewish community as an outsider and is both out of date and out of touch.

COMMUNAL VOTING:

Perhaps the most contentious issue is whether the ultra-orthodox Jewish community only votes for candidates from within its own community.

Pinter does not agree that this issue is described correctly by Alderman and says that both of their views will be put to the test on May 6th in the Seven Sisters ward in Haringey.

Pinter said that the Conservative party had come close to defeating Labour in the ward last year. He believes that this was due to 90% of ultra-orthodox Jewish voters supporting the Conservative Party which happened to be the only party fielding an ultra-orthodox candidate. He also said that this, combined with growth in the ultra-orthodox community over that short period, should point to a success for the Conservatives.

But he said that Labour would retain the seat because of the work done by the party to improve relations with the community – particularly over planning issues.

“The Labour Party took seriously what happened and they’ve taken steps to recognise the needs of the community.”

He said: “It is a test but I am confident. We know what goes on in the community because we are a school and we get a lot of feed back.”

If Labour retains the seat it would, he believes, disprove some of Alderman's claims. The victory would be achieved despite the Labour party having no representative from within the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, while the Conservatives do.

However he did acknowledge that it is common within the community to vote for a recognisable name, but he said that if a non-Charedi candidate could prove that he or she had the community’s interests at heart, they would be supported. He said that the Labour Party in Haringey had achieved this.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN:

Pinter said that Alderman was out of touch on the role of women in the community. One of the organisation that Alderman talks about is Agudas Israel and Pinter points out that its chief executive of Agudas Israel Housing Association is Ita Symons.

He said that Symons was one of the most powerful people in the community. As a Labour supporter he said he didn't think the accolade of the Jewish community's Margaret Thatcher was a compliment, but said that the comparison had been made.

Pinter also pointed to Interlink which he said may now be a more powerful organisation: “Interlink is one of the most powerful organisations in the community and it is politically run by women. He pointed to a recent article in the Jewish Chronicle: Come on, women, lets get equal."

He said that Bella Sharer standing in the Brownswood ward in Hackney would only be a novelty if she won. He said it was common practice for wives to stand as paper candidates in seats they have no chance of winning. Unlike Ian Sharer, he does not believe the Lib Dems have much chance in Brownswood.

IS THIS A RACIST COMMUNITY?

One of the issues raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics referred to an article written in the Jewish Tribune back in 1978. Alderman said that the article had demonstrated a set of anti-black attitudes that still exist in the community, but which are not published because of the reaction from beyond the community.

But Pinter said the author of the article had been an older member of the community and that the sentiment had been that Jews should not fight battles on behalf of the black community – or they all faced the risks of a backlash.

He said that there were a number of the problems with making an argument like Alderman’s.

Pinter pointed to his own attitudes at the time: “The way I grew up, when I was an 18-year-old - 45 years ago - when I saw a successful black person, I always felt myself to have positive views, as in "isn’t it wonderful that a black person can do well here" now I think that this view might be racist because it is patronising. But that’s the way it was back then."

He said that views of society at large had changed and they had also changed in Hackney's ultra orthodox Jewish community.

He said: "I think it's worth mentioning that the Hamodia is now the main newspaper read by the community and not the Jewish Tribune, but as I said Alderman is an Historian."

Stop worrying and learn to love race politics

Ethnicity and religion drive Hackney politics, not class, says Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a leading academic on British elections and modern British Jewry.

Alderman, a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle and writer for the Guardian and the Times (profile) tells Blood and Property that politicians are deluding themselves if they don't accept that people vote along ethnic lines.

GEOFFREY ALDERMAN: I went to Northwold Road school and then the Grocer’s Company's School Hackney Downs, which, in its time was the best state school in the country. From there I went to Oxford. I am the official historian of Hackney Downs school and when I went to the school it was so Jewish that it closed on the Jewish holidays, there was no point in keeping it open. The few Christian boys there wanted to know when the Jewish holidays were so they could find out when the school would be shut.

I’m not sure if the Jewish community is larger or smaller than it was, probably larger now. My grandfather moved from Spitalfields to Hackney circa 1937 and rented the property my parents later bought in Walsingham Road. The Jewish community I grew up in in the 1950s and 60s was traditional but, on the whole, not a strictly practising Jewish community. The black hat Jews of Stamford Hill today were in a tiny minority then and they were exotic oddities.

The area began to change character in the 1960s after the Hungarian uprising which the Soviets brutally repressed. The Hassidic Jews survived the holocaust in Hungary and began to move into Hackney in the 1960s. Now they form the majority of Jews there.

But as a youngster I never saw many Hassidic Jews, may be one or two, now they form the majority of Hackney Jewry and demographically they are the fastest growing section of British Jewry. In Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington you will find families of of 11, 12, 13. This has been one of the pressures for planning permission.

In Modern British Jewry I deal with the political organisation of the Orthodox Jews in Hackney. When I was doing the research in the late 70s and early 80s it was already evident to me that the growing ultra-orthodox community (acted) through Agudas Israel, an organisation which functions as a mini-welfare state, and which publishes a weekly paper, the Jewish Tribune, .

A very important part in this community has been played by Joe Lobenstein, four times Mayor of Hackney. In my book The Jewish Community in British Politics I mention him and the pioneering work he was doing especially in reviving Conservative politics amongst Jews in Hackney.

But he, I believe, was getting ultra-orthodox Jews to vote for him because he was Jewish, not because of the party he was in. This tendency was definitely being observed by me in the late 1970s – Jews voting for Jewish candidates irrespective of their party politics.

One might ask, is this democracy? Well of course it is. These Jews are British, they pay taxes and they vote. Who are you or I to tell them how to vote? If they want to vote in a particular way then that is their right, whether you celebrate it or despise it.

May I make a general point here? I don’t think we in England, or London have yet got used to the idea of an ethnic political system. In the US, ethnic politics is so conventional they don’t bat an eyelid. There’s the Jewish vote, the Irish vote, the Italian vote. They are used to an ethnic based politics. We are not.

When I started investigating it in the 1970s everyone was talking about class and how you had to understand class. Class - it was said - was the basis of the British political system, everything else was embellishment. But I saw something else in Hackney and it was more like the situation in the US, where socio-economic class is less important and ethnicity and religion are - often - much more important.

In the book I also refer to the fact that Agudas Israel was already beginning to acquire a level of sophistication. In another book I published in the 1980s on London Jewry, I also noted how Agudas Israel had taken the trouble to rebrand itself to get resources for its community as Hackney descended into a battleground between competing ethnic factions.

It had previously described itself as Jewish rather than as representing an ethnic minority. Previously the Jews of Hackney had projected themselves as British people. Agudas Israel was sensitive to the rise in ethnic politics and said: “We’re not part of the working class, we’re an ethnic minority and we're discriminated against. We need resources."

Agudas Israel went along to the Ken Livingstone-led Labour faction that then controlled the Greater London Council. This faction paid attention. Agudas Yisroel played the game brilliantly.

I am fascinated by the relationship between the left-wing Diane Abbott and this community. On the face of it they have nothing in common. She stands for things such as democracy, free speech and women's rights. These are anathema amongst the chassidim of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill. One has only to read the anti-feminist and anti-black rhetoric put out by the Jewish Tribune to see that this is so. As for the gays, the Tribune wouldn't even dare mention the term.

I recall that in 1978 there was terrible scandal when the Yiddish Tribune ran a piece criticising Greville Janner for defending black people in Parliament. The publishers didn’t realise that other people might speak Yiddish and the following week the West Indian World translated this appalling editorial. That doesn’t happen any more, but not because the views have changed but because the Jewish Tribune knows other people can understand Yiddish."

How many Jewish councillors are women? None. Why? Because the type of orthodoxy in Stamford Hill allocates a certain role to women: to get married, have as many children as possible and to maintain a Kosher home. And in the home it is the woman who is the boss, not the man.

How many female Orthodox Jewish school governors are there? Only the minimum required by law. However they can be teachers and head teachers but they cannot be in a position of political leadership. And as far as this community is concerned there is no such thing as a female Rabbi. Outside the home it is a male dominated society. It is ruled by Rabbis, it is a theocracy. (Alderman said that this might be changing as Bella Sharer, wife of Ian Sharer, leader of the Lib Dems in Hackney, is standing in the May 6 elections.)


Every article, every advertisement in the Jewish Tribune is approved by a Rabbinical censor. If you are defamed by the Jewish Tribune you can’t go to the PCC, it is one of only a handful of UK papers that is not a member.

That said, the community is generally disinterested in wealth and its members do tend to help each other when help is needed. The men "learn" Talmud all the day and it is the women who go to work. Interestingly, this community has no problem in principle with women working and there are some very wealthy women in the community.

Whether you or I like the community is irrelevant. The community is very well organised, very hospitable and very successful. Its members may dress in ways we find peculiar, but you won't find its youngsters involved in gun and knife crime that is, alas, so rampant now in the Hackney I once knew.

A must read for Hackney politics

The Jewish Chronicle published this piece yesterday: Hacking off Hackney voters.

It sheds light on a debate that Hackney politicians tend to avoid: Do ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors put the interests of their community ahead of the rest of the borough?

Last week its author Geoffrey Alderman wrote this critique of ultra-orthodox Jewish politics: Religion or mere self interest? Last week Blood and Property asked him to comment on the relationship between ultra orthodox Jewish councillors and the Conservative Party.

In Hackney there are nine ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors, six of them in the Conservative Party.

Alderman said: "All I would say is that the ultra-orthodox communities in Hackney are much less interested in party dogma than in what the parties can do for them. That's not to say that they aren't interested in dogma, rather that it's a secondary consideration."

Planning restrictions have been the community's main concern as they prevent large families from extending their homes. This issue also consumes a lot of the energy of Hackney's Conservative Party.

The issue is likely to heat up again after a planning victory for Ultra Orthodox Jewish families living in Haringey. One commentator told the Jewish Chronicle "It sets an excellent precedent" adding that she hoped Hackney Council would do something similar.

Professor Alderman refers to Blood and Property's interview with Jules Pipe and a stand-off the Mayor had with Cllr Sime Steinberger over exactly this issue (links in the interview).

Alderman also noted Pipes comments about communal voting. The mayor told Blood and Property: "... personally I think communalism is very unhealthy. People should be looking at the manifestoes and candidates of the different parties and voting for the ones who seem to have the best ideas, qualities and relevant experience. It is unhealthy for democracy if people vote for candidates from their own community for that reason alone and not on merit. It is also unhealthy for community cohesion – whilst there are specific communities within Hackney, we are all part of one wider civic community."

This seems to clash slightly with MP Meg Hillier's views on the issue. In her interview with Blood and Property, she said that self interested communities is what politics is about.

"Blood and Property: Do you expect communities to be self-interested for a multicultural system to work?

Meg Hillier: We have a party system in this country and people will look at what policies work for them. People don’t necessarily vote down ethnic lines. They wouldn’t necessarily vote for a Vietnamese councillor because they are Vietnamese or for a Turkish councillor because they were Turkish or African councillor because they were African. People tend to vote more for the party of their choice and I think that’s healthy.

Blood and Property: And if they weren’t doing that, would you say it was unhealthy?

Meg Hillier: Lots of people vote for parties, but of course a lot of people don’t have parties, they float, and there are many factors in their decisions. There are lots of people who will vote for the same party, not necessarily mine, for years and years. Others vote for one party one year and another the next and they have different reasons for voting. Rarely is it a personality decision. My view is that there is very little personality voting and it is more on the big issues and wider concerns.

Blood and Property: Does it matter if you have large, politically active communities, that do act with a certain level of self interest – or promote issues that affect this community?

Meg Hillier: That’s what politics is about."

Geoffrey Alderman concluded his piece in the Jewish Chronicle with this warning: "Jewish "communalism" is a major trigger of anti-Jewish prejudice. It may look clever but its victories, purchased at a high price, are invariably short-lived."

FOR REFERENCE:
Last week Blood and Property interviewed Geoffrey Alderman (I have yet to write it up). He lived in Clapton (Walsingham Road) from 1946 to 1973 and was educated at Hackney Downs School (He is the school's official historian) before going to Oxford. Alderman now holds several academic posts in the UK and the USA. Try geoffreyalderman.com or his reference in Wikipedia which includes controversies he has sparked over Islam, Palestine and Harold Pinter.

On page 364 of his book Modern British Jewry (1992), Alderman writes: "The UOHC and kindred ultra-orthodox communities have also grown in size. The most visible manifestation of this expansion has been the post immigration, particularly from Communist eastern Europe, of adherents of various pietistic (and, some would say, excessively narrow-minded and anti-intellectual) chassidic sects, each following a particular rabbinical dynasty, all reconisable by a very distinctive style of dress... and each family doing its very best to bring into the world as many children as possible."

Until relatively recently, in Hackney and the UK in general, the distinctively dressed ultra orthodox Jew was a rarity. In Modern British Jewry, Alderman noted how most Jewish historians paid them little attention: "Who, at the time of Sir Israel Brodie's retirement (1965), would have predicted that Lubavitch chassidim would have found employment within the United Synagogue, or that "Lubes" would have featured, as they clearly must, among the opinion-formers of British Jewry?"