Who's a Jew -v- Who's a Brit

Interesting Fact: I am not British. I am Irish, born to an Irish father and a British mother. Despite having lived in the UK for most of my adult life, having paid taxes and observed and paid the price (only minor motoring offences) for breaking British laws I am not automatically entitled to be classed as a British citizen or to become naturalized as a British citizen.
In order to be apply for naturalization in Britain there is a seven part test as follows:

• you are aged 18 or over;
• you are of sound mind;
• you intend to continue to live in the United Kingdom;
• you can communicate in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic to an acceptable degree;
• you have sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom;
• you are of good character; and
• you meet the residential requirements

Exact details can be found on the UK Border Agency web-site

The two most interesting ones are the requirement of knowledge of life and being of good character. If you can show you know what it is to be British and are law-abiding you should be fine.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling that a Jewish school was in breach of Race laws by refusing entry to a boy whose mother had undergone "conversion" under the auspices of Progressive Judaism. This judgment has been lauded by civil liberties campaigners and the reform and liberal jews. However, without wishing to disrespect the Lords of Appeal, their judgment is flawed and will hopefully be overturned by the House of Lords.

The real question that this case is considering is:

Who defines who a Jew is?

And it is for this reason I have set out above the criteria for deciding whether someone can become a British Citizen. I do not argue with those criteria nor with the fact that it is for the British Government to decide who can and cannot become British citizen.

Similarly, I would strongly argue, it is not for the British courts to decide who and who is not a Jew. The Court of Appeal did not rule that it was unlawful to have a school who only admitted Jews. Rather it decided that the basis on which the school decided who and who is not a Jew was unlawful. If allowed to stand such a decision undermines the basis of any faith. But ignoring that argument, the Court of Appeal's decision that the school's basis was unlawful was also wrong.

JFS (the school in question) is bound by the Court of the Chief Rabbi in deciding on the eligibility of a proposed student. The Court of the Chief Rabbi likely defines a Jew as someone:

• whose mother was born Jewish; or
• whose mother converted to Judaism; or
• who has him/herself converted to Judaism

True, on that basis someone whose mother was born Jewish but not practicing in the slightest would be allowed in whereas someone whose mother was not born Jewish, had never converted but kept all the laws would not be allowed in. But this does not preclude someone from converting and therefore does not, of itself, amount to discrimination.

As part of the conversion process which takes, I believe, up to 7 years (not disimilar to the minimum period of residency in the UK required for British citizenship) convertees must agree to abide by all the laws and regulations and show that they mean it (not dissimilar to the requirement of knowledge and good character for British Citizenship).

Now, would you expect a conversion to be allowed of someone who is not prepared to commit to all the laws and regulations? I assume not in the same way as you would not expect citizenship to be granted to someone who refused to agree to follow the laws of Britain or club membership to be given to a member who refused to follow the club's rules.

Ah, you will say, but this person's mother did convert. Wrong, she converted to a religion called Progressive Judaism which is fundamentally different from Orthodox Judaism. In doing so she did not agree to be bound by and follow all the laws orthodox Jews are bound by. Should I be entitled to set-up a new religion which has some similarity to Islam but changes the rules to suit my feelings and views and then claim that anyone who says I am not a Muslim is discriminating against me? Of course not - the only people who can define who is a Muslim are the Imans and religious leaders.

That progressive judaism started some time ago (reform judaism started in the early 18th century) does not change the fact that it is a new religion that has sought to throw off the boundaries and restrictions imposed by orthodoxy to appeal to the masses' need to assuage their guilt on failing to follow the rules and laws.

In summary, if the law allows a school to permit entry only to Jews the Courts have no right to turn that position on its head by ruling that anyone who calls themselves a Jew must be permitted entry. Anyone is entitled to convert to Judaism but they must agree to accept the laws that come with the name - M's mother was not prepared to accept such laws and so chose to become a Progressive Jew. If I created a new country and called it New Britain (sic) and named its citizens British I think they would be given short shrift if they tried to enter Britain claiming to be British citizens. Being Jewish is no different.