In some places, homosexuality is a crime. In some places, it is punishable by death.
In the Melbourne Jewish community, it’s a veritable paradise for, “such people.” They can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, just as long as they don’t try to join the communal roof body, the JCCV. Jewish gay support group Aleph had to learn that the hard way.
And what are a few hateful comments between Jews, anyway? Aren’t our rabbis free to incite at least a little against people involved in “perversions”?
Actually, they’re not. At least not in NSW, in which anti-vilification laws mean that a few vile letters from frothing Rabbis, dedicated to opining on the private and intimate behaviours of others. (“A call for Tolerance” AJN page 
Australian GLBT Jews may not be in physical danger from other Jews, but we shouldn’t be congratulating ourselves too soon. Just because we don’t bloody the faces of people with certain sexual orientations does not make us paragons of tolerance.
Michael Barnett, head of Aleph, was kind enough to add me to his email list. This allowed me to read the JCCV’s responses to his requests for more to be done to counter the vilification of Jews in our community.
The tone of the JCCV responses displayed a combination of bemusement and obfuscation, employing a wounded tone: the JCCV was supposedly doing everything in its power to make GLBT Jews feel welcome. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
In what was a very smart move, Barnett looked to non-Jewish GLBT organisations for further support. He has had enough experience with our leadership to know that their honeyed words – on the rare occasions that our leaders actually answer an inquiry – have only one objective: to change nothing.
The involvement of non-Jews in the debate certainly jump-started matters. The community is now hearing some delightfully inclusive language from the JCCV.
The fundamental problems, however, have not changed:
1) Our leaders are not representative.
2) They do not operate in a transparent manner.
The first problem means that these men are not operating as true spokespeople for broad communal sentiment. They are profoundly insular and consultation with the wider community is anathema.
The second problem is actually more serious in this case. Our leaders say they are now doing everything in their power to improve the situation of Jewish GLBT. They talk of high level meetings and various agendas. No ordinary Jew, however, is privy to any of this.
The Melbourne Jewish community comprises only 45,000 people. Ours is not the population of a large country, or even a medium sized city. Consultation and transparency are not only manageable, they should be the default setting.
And of these 45,000 people, how many are GLBT? Theoretically, it would be extremely manageable to consult with them. From the correspondence I witnessed between the JCCV and Barnett, however, it was quite clear that Jewish GLBT were being told to back off and let the leadership handle matters in whichever way they saw fit.
The final paragraph of Levin’s article quotes JCCV president, John Searle, condemning homophobia, and affirming that communal events should and would welcome GLBT.
If Searle were really serious, he would do more than extend a party invitation. Serious engagement with GLBT would entail bringing them within all the activities he says the JCCV has engaged in on their behalf.
No related posts.
The JCCV are good at the words, what’d be really good is to see some concrete action. As I’ve said on my own blog, I’m surprised that a group of people who are often vilified and abused because of who they are, turn around and do the same thing to a minority of people within their own ranks.
Nice blog. Thanks.
Support this comment
0
What exactly does the JCCV do?
Support this comment
0
The AJN article comprised 3 columns, of which the second half, amounting to four paragraphs, were given to John Searle. It could have been Marie Antoinette speaking though, as the first three of these paragraphs contained sufficient hot air to bake a cake that the fourth insinuated we’re supposed to eat.
As for what the JCCV does, well they’re the voice of Victorian Jewry.
Support this comment
0
I feel there is also a point to be brought up about what lies beneath the crux of the article. It is not only about the treatment of the Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgenders but also the control and authority that the religious have in our community. As a secular jew, I often feel very iscolated when it comes to community events as they cater to the religious sector, as they are seen as the lowest common denominator. In order not to offend them, members of the secular, reform and conservative community bend over backwards to ensure that they feel comfortable.
As a member of the youth movement community, I feel this is ever prominent in the events organized by the umbrella bodies, such as the ZYC and the AZYC. While they try to be as pluralist as possible the fact stands that the orthodox hold a power over the community far and beyond their per centage within the population.
Support this comment
0
I’m struck by an irony here.
You have said that JCCV is not representative, in part because its structure does not offer proportional representation to members of the community, but is rather a roof body, in which one org = one vote.
I agree with you that as a Jewish org, Aleph should not be denied membership of the JCCV. However, if they were admitted, and given the size of the Jewish GLBT community, they would end up being (proportionately) over-represented! In your ideal world of proportional communal representation, their voice would actually be quite small.
On what basis do you claim that the Orthodox have a “stranglehold” on the JCCV? Is it the case that the member orgs of the JCCV are mostly Orthodox? Or current and past Presidents?
The Beth Din is now operated under the auspices of the COSV, an org that is a roof body of Orthodox shuls. If you want a conversion that is acceptable to the Orthodox community, that’s the only place to go. If not, you can shop elsewhere.
I don’t think the term “opt in” is appropriate here. Does one need to “opt in” to our system of government to be a part of it? It is there, and occasionally it decides (either of its own accord or after pressure from the public) to reform itself and change/improve. Of course you can only force reform if the lines of communication go two ways.
Support this comment
0
It’s completely unfair to compare optional memberships like religious beliefs, sporting affiliations, social clubs, with something like a minority sexual orientation. Gay people don’t “opt-in” and can’t “opt-out”. Much like women, disabled and racial minorities need protection and representation in society, the same applies to sexual orientation and for that matter gender identity.
Please don’t try to work out how many people are GLBT based on the size of a social group and what sort of representation we might need.
Michael.
Support this comment
0
Michael,
My comment about “opt in” was directed towards SJ’s view on the role of communal leadership, and comparing that to government. As Jews, we are all automatically part of the leadership structures that are in place.
No matter what our system of leadership/representation, surely it would be in the interests of the GLBT community (like any minority group) to be transparent about their size and needs, so as to make their case for appropriate representation.
Support this comment
0
David, I think my use of “opt-in” (and “opt-out”) may have been independent of your usage of the term. Sorry for any confusion there.
There is no way to define the size of the number of GLBT people in the community. There is no ‘their needs’ but ‘our needs’ David. It’s affects you and your family and friends as much as anyone else.
I don’t know what your personal situation is, but lets say you have children or grandchildren. Do you honestly know their sexual orientation? Do they? There is no way to define the size of the number of people who will be requiring any form of ‘representation’. GLBT people are in every family in one way or another, whether you know it or not. Due to community pressures and attitudes this is quite frequently invisible, sadly.
I actually find the term ‘representation’ in the way that it is being bandied about somewhat offensive or perhaps even distasteful. Whichever organisation it is, either the current JCCV or it’s successor, that realises that GLBT people are an integral and worthy part of the community and not some embarrassing group of defectives, must have as part of it’s constitution a mechanism for nurturing and representing GLBT Jews. This may be a committee or an advisory group, formed from specialty representatives. This wouldn’t be just limited to GLBT Jews, but other integral minorities in the community.
Michael.
Support this comment
0
David Werdiger, are you kidding me about over-representation?
I could not believe that this is what you were trying to argue. “Given the size of Aleph”
Are you aware that the most conservative estimates place the world homosexual population at 2-3% of the populace? Were Aleph admitted to the JCCV they’d be 1 organisation out of 48. Or, roughly 2% representation.
That’s a conservative estimate. Did you know that a peer-reviewed study in New Zealand found that more than 20% of males had anonymously reported homosexual feelings, but very few of those 20% of people identified as homosexual?
This has wider implications for needing an LBGT organisation on the JCCV in order to assist those who are confused about their sexual feelings and require guidance in the matter.
I’m sorry to say that your “sweep-it-under the rug” and “you’re an insignificant minority” approach smacks of the 1950s approach that resulted in so many homosexual men marrying into loveless marriages to “look normal” before blowing their brains out years later due to unspeakable depression at being so awfully stimgatised by society.
I am mortified that this approach to LGBT prevails in modern-day society.
Support this comment
0
i would just like to butt in with a few things.
1. Firstly the term proportional representation is being incorrectly used. As is the case in most of the upper houses of parliament and the Senate , proportional representation refers to quota system of voting where smaller parties are able to have candidates elected for representation based on a minimum number of votes. This allows minority groups to have members elected without necessarily having a majority of voters (for a definitive explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ) This is not the case with JCCV
The JCCV membership is simply based on the relevant organizations having a single vote regardless of their own individual membership numbers. So being representative let alone proportional is a misnomer as the representation is based on a groups simple existence per se as being group of Jews. In fact many members of these groups may in fact belong to many of the JCCV member groups. So one may argue that they actually over represented.
Since size in not the issue, there is no need for a GLBT based group to provide any transperacy of number of members etc to be included in the JCCV. That they are simply a group of Jews with a common representative should be enough. At least in the context of the current structure.
2. SJ i am wondering why you found it necessary to juxtapose the JCCV with an attack on the Beth Din
…………. Because of this, no one is standing up and asking the hard questions about conversions or gett and the ways in which people suffer at the hands of the Beth Din……..
The Beth Din has never promoted itself as a representative body. To subvert the argument further, by injecting derisive terms such “hard questions” “suffer at the hands of” is emotive and out of context with the topic.The Beth Din is another issue altogether.
3. On a lighter note
do you mean that someone got married, then immediately needed a Gett because they forgot to convert….in which case they would not need a Gett in the first place. Sorry my silly sense of humour but it reads that way to me !
Support this comment
0
SJ,
you have pointed out that the orthodox elements of our community seem to make the non orthodox look moral deficient. Do you think that the fact that there is no clear laws about secural, cultural and traditional judaism that stem this idea of moral deficiency, or how much of it is the divided system.
I often feel that the strength of the orthodox community is in exactly that, their community. It seems very shameful, but there is no secular community groups, organizations or meaningful representational bodies (I know certain groups such as Ayeka, have tried but to say that they represent any more then a small part of the jewish community to date would be pushing the bounds of truth).
How do you feel the Jewish community should over come it’s bias with the orthodox community?
Support this comment
0
Eli, you’ve said it.
And I think there is some confusion about this.
Put simply, Aleph, like any other Jewish Community Organisation/Club deserves (nay, needs!) a seat at the JCCV table and a single vote (regardless of their being 2 or 200 members of the organisation – this is irrelevant to the strength of the vote), like every other organisation.
That is how a voice is heard.
So nu? what is the JCCV waiting for?
Support this comment
0
Michael: re: people ‘opting in’ for religious beliefs.
I don’t think any unborn child ‘opts-in’ for the sorts of identity crisis that many intermarriages and orthodox halachic approaches entail.
So while i am all too aware of the hate crimes and persecution GLBT individuals face – and I do not wish to undermine the enormity of the issue – I need to point out that religious identity is often a ‘locked in, done-deal’ – for a halachically non-Jewish child raised as a Jew – they may feel ‘no choice’ over their religious identification – that it is a ‘done deal’. If they wish to confront the issue of their religious status within the Jewish community head on – they must face the Bet Din as a non-Jew despite being raised with a cultural, religious, and historical identity where they view themselves as already Jewish….
(some will argue that a reform conversion will suffice, but that of course is up to the individual to decide. reform conversion carries with it its own set of stigma and limitations.)
If an individual converts, they face a lifetime of ‘proving’ they’re Jew enough…
no unborn child ‘opts-in’ for the sorts of identity crisis that can sometimes accompany intermarriage and halachic approaches to children of non-Jewish mothers with Jewish fathers – much in the same way that many individuals must feel that they do no ‘opt-in’ for gender identity issues and sex change surgery…. but instead integrally need the procedure to right something that they have always felt was not right in the first place.
Support this comment
0
On reflection, I would say that from a representation perspective, it might be better to think of GLBT as a “minority interest” rather a “community”. Our entire community is stacked full of minority interests that should all receive due representation.
Thanks Daniel for the maths lesson. The discussion that came out of my ironic observation was useful in terms of fleshing out the pros and cons of different representation models and what might be appropriate for a diverse community like ours.
Support this comment
0
David and all,
I agree entirely with your observation that “Our entire community is stacked full of minority interests that should all receive due representation”. With this in mind, I pose two questions that I feel are highly relevant to the discussion.
1. What is different between our Jewish community and any other cultural community, given the “minority interests” and the issues that face our community are, in one way or another, the same as or similar to those that face many other communities.
2. What do the “minority interests” we have in common that a peak body is going to represent them collectively for? I guess what I am asking is, what is the purpose of a peak body and why is it necessary?
Michael.
Support this comment
0
Perhaps someone can direct me to the strategy that GLTB groups are using to combat offensive positions put forward by rabbis? Are these people being openly confronted in mainstream Jewish and/or secular press and called out on their views? – I suspect most Jewish folks would find their views unsettling/offensive and community leadership would have to distance itself from them or face public backlash. (Or am I being woefully naieve here?)
Support this comment
0
Hi TheSadducee,
One aspect of my strategy is to wake up the community leadership to the issue and get them to start taking some responsibility. It’s not just rabbis though, and not all rabbis. The entire community needs to take responsibility for the problem, because the problem affects the whole community.
Another aspect of my strategy is to make the government and law-enforcement authorities aware of the issue of homophobic intolerance within the Jewish community. I have been keeping the Victoria Police Gay & Lesbian Advisory Unit up to date with the issues in the community as they are the people who can most help us when there are specific problems.
I have also raised the issue with the Attorney General’s department in relation to sentencing laws for hate crimes.
This issue cannot be singlehandedly be resolved within the Jewish community.
Michael.
Support this comment
0
Michael
Thanks for the reply.
I don’t really know very much about this topic at all. It strikes me that the most likely homophobic sentiments would be held by the more conservative elements of the religious community? Is that a fair conclusion to draw?
If that is the case, I would suspect that the rabbis (some, not all) would be the primary source of guidance for those people, especially the Hassidic groups (eg. Chabad etc)? I’m not sure what influence community leadership has with these groups? Especially if they are members of those groups or involved with them in some way? Also, they seem extremely reluctant to take on their excesses in any way (at least that I have noticed in my own experience) – perhaps a notion of community solidarity or concerns of some hostile reaction?
I agree with informing the police/AG’s but I suspect that you can only refer the most egregious public examples that come to your attention – how are you addressing the private and enclosed inculcation of these sentiments within these communities? How would you deal with this when they realise their public voice is being monitored and they carefully conceal it?
I still like the idea of exposing the offensive commentators in the public forums available – both Jewish and secular/non-Jewish. I’m fairly certain that many members of the religious communities would not be aware of some of the views held/expressed by these people and certainly wouldn’t stump up and bat for them if they became aware of them. I also consider that the official community leadership would be extremely reluctant to get into something so toxic to their personal reputations also.
I agree that this seems to be a community problem rather than an individual one. Maybe we need our own community Peter Tatchell?
Support this comment
0
TheSadducee – it’d be great to have somebody like Tatchell fighting for GLBT in the community – but are you nominating yourself – or Michael Barnett – to spend a lifetime campaigning for human rights in our community?
Personally I feel this needs to be a joint effort, not just one man, left to fight for the rights of many…
Support this comment
0
Unpleasant sentiments seem to come from all sorts of places. Here are an example of some from both inside and outside the Jewish community:
1. 13 May 2005: Luke W Martin “Sodom & Gomorrah” letter in AJN
2. 15 June 2007: “Orthodox Rabbi slams move on gay unions” in AJN
3. 07 Dec 2007: Robert Weil “AIDS DOES DISCRIMINATE” letter in AJN
4. 21 Dec 2007: Robert Weil “AIDS A GAY DISEASE” letter in AJN
5. 18 Jul 2008: Robert Weil in Vox Pop in AJN
6. 29 Sep 2008: Rabbi Dovid Freilich “ORTHODOXY AND HOMOSEXUALITY” letter in AJN
7. 10 Jul 2009: Rabbi Chaim Ingram “Gay prohibition” letter in AJN
8. 07 Aug 2009: AJN Watch “Australian Jewish News, Australian Goyish News or Australian Gayish News?” blog
Nice huh?
Michael.
Support this comment
0
There is a clear misunderstanding of what the JCCV is or should be. It is a hangover from the older Jewish Board of Deputies, which was adopted from the British Jewish Board of Deputies, which almost undoubtedly sprang from a need for a single public face when Jewish communities have traditionally had so very many organised groups. The role of this body would be to comment on those issues that are common to member groups, but those groups guard their own independence and power … in that sense it isn’t any kind of leadership role. Clearly, the more groups with more diverse views the less the common ground and that body becomes more than useless. The Americans cover it by only representing “major Jewish organisations” and undoubtedly have a minimal membership numbers requisite. Here, to the best of my knowledge, there is an exclusively Jewish requisite. Let me explain in my terms. I belong to a Jewish Toastmasters group. I don’t expect my group to be represented on the JCCV because for that we have Toastmasters International, and there is also nothing specifically Jewish about our Toastmasters activities, beyond that the speeches tend to have a Jewish flavour with Yiddish words thrown in.
Where Aleph is concerned, and perhaps Michael can answer this, does it already belong to a GLBT roof body? In my world, if a person’s gay identity is protected by a gay roof body, and their Jewish identity is protected by a Jewish roof body, then they are completely covered. Beyond a Jewish membership, what is specifically Jewish about Aleph’s activities (in other words, how different is it to my Toastmasters group)?
I am particularly bemused in light of Michael Barnett’s leter to Bob Stensholt (State MP for Burwood) which he has copied to Rob Hulls (Attorney General), Michael Danby (Federal MP for Melbourne Ports), Scott Davis (Victoria Police Gay & Lesbian Advisory Unit) and John Searle (President, JCCV), in which he totally tears into the JCCV, the Orthodox, and the bulk of the Jewish community. With such statement as “These are just two recent
examples of the strong homophobic attitudes prevalent in the Jewish community” being featured in the letter, would I be wrong in assuming that Aleph’s cause is a missionary one to convert community thinking on this single issue of gays, rather than any desire to advance the interests of the Jewish community? And should it have a place on the JCCV for this reason alone? And would any group relating every decision to its own single issue (one already covered outside the community) not be a paralysing influence?
I know that these are not politically correct positions to take, but I was never much of a PC person. I do think the community should do far more in terms of assimilating gays. I also recognise that those people for whom the issue is an article of faith won’t change. I think Aleph makes a huge mistake in making the issue so political and so in your face, and a softer approach would achieve far more. What SJ says, in the next posting on the Kyle Sandilands issue about Vic Alhadeff and Jeremy Jones is doubly true here. If it was my vote, I wouldn’t be voting for Aleph to have a seat on the JCCV, but would certainly advocate for far greater public acceptance of GLBT.
Support this comment
0
Morry, I wouldn’t wish for a suicide in your family. Would you?
Support this comment
0
For everyone’s information:
On September 1 2009 Suicide Prevention Australia released their position statement on “Suicide and self-harm among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Communities”.
Quoting from the media release for the launch of this position statement:
Quoting a particularly pertinent section of the position statement:
The Jewish community leadership and in fact anyone who disapproves of homosexuality needs to understand that intolerance of homosexuality directly impacts on people who are not heterosexual. This position statement shows there is strong evidence that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are up to 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals. [See also coverage in the Sydney Star Observer]
This is an extremely serious and urgent problem and the community needs to treat it with appropriate gravity. Continuing to stand behind outdated biblical prohibitions is quite simply unacceptable.
Michael.
Support this comment
0
I am more than a little bemused by your posting Morry. If looking after the continued health and welfare of the people in our community isn’t “advancing the interests of the Jewish community” then I think you and everyone else who shares your values needs to take a good look at themselves and wonder what the heck your priorities are.
Support this comment
0
Morry,
While your comment is historically correct, it’s fair to say that the JCCV have in recent attempted to find a greater role as a Jewish peak body/voice of the community. That is one reason they changed their name from the archaic VJBD.
I wonder (a) how your test of membership applies to other member orgs, and (b) what *reason* Aleph were given for their rejection.
You raise an interesting point in general regarding JCCV’s membership policy. Barbara Szwarc did a study several years ago for JewishCare which set down some guidelines for what it should or shouldn’t do, based on a matrix of need vs “Jewishness” (I’m grossly simplifying here). An example of its application is that where government were providing a service that didn’t need to be ethno-specific, JewishCare acted in a referral role rather than electing to be a direct service provider.
Support this comment
0
Michael, firstly, I wouldn’t “wish for a suicide” in my family, and that’s a particularly low blow. I do have gays in my immediate family whom I love dearly, and would want them no harm. I further made the need for greater acceptance within the community abundantly clear. If, God forbid, they were contemplating suicide, are you suggesting for a second that Aleph having a seat on JCCV will somehow prevent that? I would hope that it is rather the help they might get from the various help lines and/or family, and I would hope, that if suicide is such an issue, the Gay community would have long ago established help that they could turn to, and would be far more effective than Aleph advocacy on the JCCV. State call lines with trained professionals springs to mind … because it is indeed a general issue, not Jewish specific.
If you were actually advancing the health of the entire Jewish community we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I take your point that it would be wonderful if all elements of the Jewish community were totally acccepting of gays, now back to the real world, where we don’t pretend that this isn’t a general malaise, and that in all the articles you’ve presented there isn’t a single one that is Jewish community specific.
As to my values, I’ve honed them for a very long time, and they fit me like a good pair of jeans, and I’m more than happy with them. Like my jeans, they’re allowed to be different to yours.
David,I’m reasonably sure that criterion of Jewish content is set in stone, and would point to the acceptance of the AJDS into the JCCV at around the same time that Aleph applied as evidence of that. The AJDS, especially at that time, held political views that were abhorrent to most of the Jewish community, but their activities were singularly Jewish. For the record, at that time they were heralding their stance, in full page ads in the Age, that Israel abandon being a Jewish state and become a democratic state for Jews and Palestinians alike … the “one state solution”.
It is also undeniable that some members threatened to leave the JCCV if Aleph was admitted. It’s a double whammy. Wouldn’t it be nice to have been a fly on the wall?
Support this comment
0
Morry,
You raise a very good point: does Aleph want to be a member of the JCCV to be more accepted or recognized, or to be able to more effectively perform its community role? Fortunately, Michael is part of this discussion, and is able to respond.
Unfortunately, no-one from the JCCV is part of this discussion, so they are less likely to explain who gets in and who doesn’t. There is no criteria for membership on its web site. Certainly, pressure from some members would have had an impact on their decision.
Support this comment
0
For the record, I have no current desire for Aleph to have a seat on the JCCV. I do however have a desire for the community to realise it has a serious problem and I want the community at every level to start taking action. Why should it just be me who gives a damn *and* tries to effect change.
I ask everyone, what are *you* doing? It’s not my responsibility to look after the community, but I am prepared to stick my neck out and make a big noise about it. I give a big damn.
Michael.
Support this comment
0
Morry,
You accept that there are Jews who are gay, some of them are ‘out’.
What about the ones that are not out? The ones that would like to live their Jewish faith and be part of the community. From some quarters they get nothing but contempt and hatred. Imagine a young lad struggling with his sexuality, he lives in an orthodox household. He hears and sees the vilification that is served up against homosexuals. This is the sort of behaviour that may lead a young person to suicide. It’s a very common story.
Surely the community has the duty to protect its own?
Support this comment
0
If anyone is wondering why there is no documentation that is Jewish community specific, perhaps we can start by asking Prof. Andrew Markus why his Gen08 survey of the Australian Jewish community didn’t gather data on sexual orientation. I’d like to know why.
Prof. Markus and one of his assistants came to my house, talked with me for an hour on how they can best consult with GLBT Jews and find out how to best fine tune the survey to respond to our needs. His team then met with a dozen or so GLBT Jews, asked plenty of questions and came away with a better understanding of what was important to us.
Come the survey, the only hint of a question about anything to do with GLBT issues was to do with feeling disconnected from the community. How apt!
There may well be a million reasons why there was no data was gathered about GLBT Jews, but as far as I’m concerned, and I’m far from alone in this sentiment, because of this the survey was absolutely pathetic.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was pressure from the funding organisations of the survey, which incidentally included the JCCV (a shining beacon of inclusive enlightenment) and the (NSW) JCA.
So, when people say there are no documents talking about these issues from the perspective of the Jewish community, you might want to ask why.
Support this comment
0
[...] [SOURCE] [...]
Support this comment
0
Michael,
Thank you very much for clarifying the official stance on Aleph and the JCCV. I’m sorry I didn’t ask the question earlier – it would have saved us all a lot of discussion that now looks quite academic.
Support this comment
0
The AJN article comprised 3 columns, of which the second half, amounting to four paragraphs, were given to John Searle. It could have been Marie Antoinette speaking though, as the first three of these paragraphs contained sufficient hot air to bake a cake that the fourth insinuated we're supposed to eat.
As for what the JCCV does, well they're the voice of Victorian Jewry.
Support this comment
0
Edders, hi and welcome.
Your conclusions echo my sentiments exactly.
While I’m not a member of the GLBT community, that doesn’t absolve me or any other Jew from being appalled by the treatment they’ve received.
But their treatment is also crucial as a canary-in-the-coal-mine indicator of transparency, accountability, and participation for Australian Jews in general.
Many apolitical, non-Orthodox Jews secretly feel that their lack of religiosity indicates a moral deficit.
Because of this, no one is standing up and asking the hard questions about conversions or gett and the ways in which people suffer at the hands of the Beth Din. But to an extent, any Jew going to the Beth Din for a ketuba and then gett, or a conversion, is opting in to their system.
Where none of us opts in, is in the Orthodox stranglehold over the JCCV.
In fact, none of us opts in to the JCCV at all. Yet they speak to government, media, and other communities on our behalf. I can’t understand how we as a community have allowed this situation to go on for so long.
Support this comment
0
Gentlemen, please keep it nice.
Michael, Morry’s attitudes may not align with ours on this matter, but from his previous comments, it’s clear he’s an intelligent person of immense good will.
Morry, please keep in mind the sensitivity of this subject. It can be very difficult for us to imagine the isolation that GLBT people can suffer. Our community owes it to every sector to ensure their safety and inclusion.
Support this comment
0
David, I have emailed the JCCV and all other major communal organisations numerous times, inviting them to put their case here.
Only two people have ever replied: Danny Lamm (in a short, polite email that did not continue discussion), and Geoffrey Zygier, in a series of considerably less polite emails.
As you well know, David, diversity of opinions is encouraged on this blog.
While I am intolerant of abuse (racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny etc.) or content-free personal attacks, I would always encourage anyone from any of our organisations to put their case on this blog. I have always made that clear.
Indeed, when Ben Carlill, an employee of AIJAC, wrote in comments that I had misread his intent and had consequently arrived at an incorrect assumption about his political views in one of my posts, I not only responded to his comment, but I emailed him, and then published his comment as a post in its own right, because fairness dictated that he be able to set the record straight, and should be able to do so with maximum visibility.
When people are prepared to engage in open dialogue, I always respond in good faith, and have demonstrated this time and again.
This blog is not exactly difficult to find. Had our leaders any interest in defending their positions here, I’m certain they would find this a place committed to genuine inquiry, as well as robust debate. At the moment, they simply choose to retreat ever further into their offices, and away from any sort of genuine public discourse.
Support this comment
0