Leaders of ultra-Orthodox Jewish group in London threaten to ban women from driving

[muriel_volestrangler]

The Hasidic Jewish school is run in the Ultra-Orthodox Belz tradition and it was the source of a nationwide controversy after making what is thought to be the first formal attempt to ban women from driving in Britain.

Parents with children here – and at its sister school, Beis Malka – received a letter last week demanding that mothers cease to drive to its gates or risk having their offspring expelled. The letter, which was signed by leaders from Belz schools and endorsed by the group’s rabbis, said that having female drivers went against “the traditional rules of modesty in our camp.”

The letter said that there had been an increase in “mothers of pupils who have started to drive,” leading to “great resentment amongst parents”. It added that children would be banned from their schools from August if their mothers drove them there.
...
The school would not comment, but pointed to a statement from the directors of Neshei Belz – Organization of the Women of the Belz community in London – which said: “As Orthodox Jewish women belonging to the Belz community in London, we feel extremely privileged and valued to be part of a community where the highest standards of refinement, morality and dignity are respected. We believe that driving a vehicle is a high pressured activity where our values may be compromised by exposure to selfishness, road-rage, bad language and other inappropriate behaviour.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/leaders-of-ultraorthodox-jewish-group-in-london-threaten-to-ban-women-from-driving-10282949.html

Someone has asked the government to investigate; a lawyer on the BBC said a mother might have a civil claim under equality legislation, but it's not clear if anyone wants to start a lawsuit.

The new Tory government is going to bring in an 'anti-extremism' law; whether it would label an entire private school as extremists who work with children is unclear:

The controversial extremism bill is designed to “stop extremists promoting views and behaviour that undermine British values”. It will include powers to “strengthen the role of Ofcom so that tough measures can be taken against channels that broadcast extremist content”. This is despite warnings from the cabinet minister Sajid Javid that home secretary Theresa May’s initial proposals threatened free speech. Details of bans on extremist speakers on university campuses are also expected. The bill also includes the introduction of employment checks, enabling companies to find out whether an individual is an extremist so he or she can be barred from working with children. This is alongside the already announced proposals for banning orders, extremism disruption orders and closure orders to be used against premises used to support extremism.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/27/queens-speech-2015-guide-to-bills-and-other-measures

[SheilaT]

1. I really wish all of those women

would tell the leaders of their group to go fuck themselves, and then leave that branch of Judaism entirely. It's more than likely that these people can set whatever rules they want about who can attend their school, and if they want to ban children of women who (gasp! The horror!) drive, then they can.

I can never understand why so many women willingly stay in oppressive groups.

[cbayer]

4. I don't understand either.

The letter of endorsement from the female members is unequivocal.

I think the pressure of being completely ostracized from their community and family may be what keeps them from walking away.

[trotsky]

2. It's strange that religious extremists hate each other...

when they have so much in common. Hatred of women, homosexuals, free exchange of ideas, etc.

[cbayer]

3. As much as I object to these orthodox groups and how they treat women,

and as much as I would like to see a woman bring a lawsuit, labeling this as religious extremism is ridiculous.

This whole nationalism thing is being taken to the extreme in the UK, imo, and is really just bigotry in disguise.

[Yorktown]

5. "labeling this as religious extremism is ridiculous. "

Wanting to stop women from driving cars in the name of decency is not religious extremism?

Gee. I can't wait to learn what real extremists have in mind..

[trotsky]

8. Denying other human beings their full rights because of religious beliefs...

[font size=+2]is[/font] religious extremism, plain and simple. Though I wish I could say I'm surprised to see you try and minimize/defend this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Here's the BBC radio news piece on it, if you can listen to it:

it starts at 30:10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05w8dn4#auto

The question is whether a private organisation discriminating against a group is OK because it's religious. Bake a cake for a heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple; allow men to drive to a school, but not women; that kind of thing.

[cbayer]

11. Thanks~ That was a really interesting analysis.

It seems unclear whether this is a publicly funded school, and I think that's an important piece of information.

I am not convinced that this is discrimination. What we call private schools in the us, have lots of rules. Parents generally have to agree to those rules when they enroll their children and risk having their children removed if they break those rules.

Since attendance at that particular school is entirely voluntary, is telling mothers that they can't pick up their children in cars really discrimination?

I don't think the cake issue is a good analogy in general. Again, parents agree to rules when they enroll their children. The only similarity would be one in which I want to enroll my child and say up front that I intend to drive them to school. I might also say that I intend to let my daughter wear cropped certain clothes that are prohibited for girls but not for boys (for example, pants). If they tell me that they are not going to accept my child because I refuse to follow their rules, is that really discrimination?

edited to add that Theresa May is terrifying.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Yes, of course it's discrimination; they are discriminating between women and men

"Again, parents agree to rules when they enroll their children"

Except that they didn't agree to this 'rule'; and it's not about the child, or what happens on school grounds, but a lawful activity that women do outside the school.

According to the letter — which was signed by leaders from Belz educational institutions and endorsed by the group’s rabbis — there has been an increased incidence of “mothers of pupils who have started to drive” which has led to “great resentment among parents of pupils of our institutions”.

They said that the Belzer Rebbe in Israel, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has advised them to introduce a policy of not allowing pupils to come to their schools if their mothers drive.
...
While many Chasidic women do not drive, this is thought to be the first formal declaration against the practice in the UK.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/136878/stamford-hill-sect-bans-women-drivers

The 2 schools are independent:
http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=100294
http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=100295

"If they tell me that they are not going to accept my child because I refuse to follow their rules, is that really discrimination? "

If a baker says they're not going to bake a cake for you because you're LGBT, is that really discrimination? Yes.

[cbayer]

13. BSA doesn't allow women to be scout leaders.

Are they discriminating?

I went to a all women's college.

Were they discriminating.

Father's weekend at that college did not allow mothers.

Was that discrimination?


Now I think the rule is ridiculous, but the women in the sect apparently don't. If one or more of them decide that it is something they want to challenge, then they have the legal right to do so.

But I don't think the state has any cause to get involved at all.

A minister is permitted to refuse to perform services for a variety of reasons and it is not considered discrimination. Saying you will not provide a good to someone because of who they are (your cake example) is different.

At any rate, if this is deemed religious extremism under the proposed law, that will be frightening. Is there any point at which the state should not be permitted to interfere with the functioning of a private organization?

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. "the women in the sect apparently don't" - apart from the increasing numbers who were driving

and are now being told what to do in their private life, or their child will be chucked out. Whether they are willing to publicly oppose the school and its religious 'ruling' is another matter, of course, because discrimination and bigotry depend on public shaming and outcasting. But the evidence that some mothers thought 'women must not drive' was ridiculous is there - they did drive.

"Saying you will not provide a good to someone because of who they are (your cake example) is different. "
Why is it different when it's a service (educating your child) rather than a good like a cake?

[cbayer]

19. I base my assessment of the women from the sect on their very clear

statement and from the interviews in your linked piece.

I have seen nothing from any woman that objects, though they may exist. If so, I support their right to challenge the rule, but I don't think it is the purview of the state to do so.

I wonder if your reaction would be different if this were not religiously based. You did not respond to my examples of the boy scouts or a women's college.

This is a site that does not permit republicans. Discriminatory?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. As I said, we know some of them want to drive, because they do drive

Their existence is not in doubt.

The boy scouts do not reject members, or leaders, based on one of their parents doing a legal activity. Women's colleges do not throw out women when their parents take up something that no-one can point to a rule about. DU does not ban people whose mother is Republican.

I'm not sure if it's the state's purview to challenge this; for the sake of bringing up the children in a non-bigoted atmosphere, perhaps it is. Perhaps Ofsted inspections should just label the school as 'sexist' and "teaches bigotry to boys and self-loathing to girls". That leaves prospective parents freedom of choice, while sticking to the truth and openness.

[cbayer]

24. Some may drive but may agree not to drive to the school.

As I have said, I haven't seen a single person who has said they object to this particular rule, but if they do then they have recourse.

Your ideas about state control are kind of scary. Do you agree with Theresa May? When people start talking about controlling how children are brought up, I get very nervous.

From what I understand the educational system in the UK is rife with white, male privilege that I would find much more threatening than this particular issue. Should we label those schools as 'sexist' and "teaches bigotry to boys and self-loathing to girls", because that is very much the truth.

Be careful what you suggest. It could very well get turned around on you, because your judgements about what are and are not appropriate ways to raise a child are not necessarily the right ones.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. What thing that Theresa May said are you asking about?

"if they do then they have recourse. "

Well, the BBC legal correspondent (I called him a lawyer earlier; I'm not sure of his qualifications) thinks they do. But it's not certain. No, you haven't seen them, but you know they exist, because they drive.

"When people start talking about controlling how children are brought up, I get very nervous. "

When people start talking about controlling how adults behave, I get very nervous. I'm against the discrimination.

"that is very much the truth." Really? Schools that would throw out kids based on a mother doing something perfectly normal, while happily accepting the fathers doing it? You ought to give us details.

"your judgements about what are and are not appropriate ways to raise a child are not necessarily the right ones" - I'm confident they are better than religious loons who decide that driving is un-lady-like, and a reason to expel a child.

[cbayer]

26. Hey, I've got an idea.

Don't send your kids to this school, but leave other parents alone unless you have reason to believe their kids are being abused.

Thinking that driving is un-lady-like and reason to not accept a child into your school is not abuse any more than deeming those with religious beliefs that you do not share "loons" is.

Nice talking to you. Despite your high level of confidence in your superior judgement, I am very glad you are not in charge of the world, muriel (please take that in the ribbing way that it is intended).

[trotsky]

28. "I am very glad you are not in charge of the world"

As are a whole bunch of people that you aren't either, with your willingness to defend discrimination and bigotry as long as it happens in the context of someone's religious beliefs. Oh and please do take that in the good-natured ribbing way.

[beam me up scottie]

31. But it's not discrimination and bigotry unless cbayer says it is.

I am not convinced that this is discrimination. What we call private schools in the us, have lots of rules. Parents generally have to agree to those rules when they enroll their children and risk having their children removed if they break those rules.

Since attendance at that particular school is entirely voluntary, is telling mothers that they can't pick up their children in cars really discrimination?

Just when you think she's set the bar as low as it can go, she goes and posts something like that.

Just fucking wow.

[cbayer]

20. One other thought here.

If this sect is so conservative that they make rules like this, it would seem very important for parents to make a decision about whether they wanted their child in that kind of educational program.

Forcing them to let women drive up to their gate is not going to change anything about the essential base of this group or this school.

I would think if you object to that rule, you are going to object to a whole lot of other things.

Do you think the state should shut them down as religious extremists? Somehow I think that might be exactly what you would like.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. The BSA didn't allow gay kids or scout leaders either, because they were and are

a hugely screwed up organization at the national level.

[trotsky]

18. You're wrong once again, cbayer.

Boy Scouts to Allow Women to Be Leaders
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/14/us/boy-scouts-to-allow-women-to-be-leaders.html

and
http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/women-scouting.html

1988 - In February, the BSA National Executive Board voted to remove gender restrictions on all adult volunteer leadership positions. BSA removed gender requirements for all adult leadership roles in Scouting.

Fairly recent (1988) so maybe you hadn't heard yet. Slow Internet, yada yada.

Not that the BSA don't still have issues but that's not one of them.

[beam me up scottie]

34. "Fairly recent (1988) so maybe you hadn't heard yet. Slow Internet, yada yada."

Absolutely clueless - hilarious.

[Lordquinton]

43. i had a female scout leader

My mom was a scout leader. Maybe you should check your facts before posting.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. "I am not convinced that this is discrimination" - well you've staked out a new low

in your steadfast defense of the faith.

[trotsky]

16. Be fair, Warren.

Her defense of the genital mutilation of children - ONLY if it's part of a religious "tradition" - is lower than this.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. good point.

[beam me up scottie]

35. I missed that, can I pls has link?

[trotsky]

44. And the Internet shall provide...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=36745

OK for religion, not OK for anybody else. Modus operandi.

[beam me up scottie]

45. So according to cbayer circumcision is cruel except when it's done for religious purposes?

And she'd be fine with female circumcision if it's also part of a religious ceremony.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

[trotsky]

46. The notion that religious beliefs are "special" and deserve extra accommodations...

helps enable the worst abuses. It's disgusting.

[Yorktown]

47. Reminds me of that Sam Harris anecdote

He was discussing with a female member of the President's Ethics Committee

(she's been sacked since, but I haven't managed to identify her, it would have been fun)

SH asked her if she believed it would be OK to let some people poke the eye out of one children in three, if it was in the name of a book they held sacred.

That lady said yes. and she was on the President's Ethics Committee.

[truebrit71]

37. I'll make it easy for you. Yes it is discrimination

Try it another way, if they tried to ban black people from driving would that be discrimination?

[Lordquinton]

39. "I am not convinced that this is discrimination."

And that about sums it up.

Is it because you've been up so late? You've been posting completely oppisite your usual schedule, can't sleep?

[struggle4progress]

6. Nicky Morgan condemns Orthodox Jewish sect's female driver ban

... Nicky Morgan, .. also .. minister for women and equalities, said .. the Department for Education may launch an investigation into the order issued by the Belz sect, which runs two schools in Stamford Hill ... Outside the schools .. the Guardian found parents .. broadly supportive of the decree ... “My mother drives, my mother-in-law drives, if my wife wanted to drive, she could drive tomorrow, we could take our children to another school ... This isn’t Saudi Arabia, no one’s going to be punished, or whipped or whatever, or even ostracised” ... “If you ask me why exactly there is a ban, I’m not sure,” Judith said. “But we trust the rabbis, who have been studying this for many, many years. The Jewish religion says we women are precious jewels, we are not subjugated and oppressed.” No one had taken their children out of school as a result of the letter, she said ... The Board of Deputies of British Jews distanced itself from the decree, saying the letter was from a marginal and unaffiliated group ...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/29/nicky-morgan-orthodox-jewish-women-driver-ban-belz-london

[struggle4progress]

7. London Based Belz Chassidim Criticized by UK Jewish Feminists

... UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, Dina Brawer, told the Jewish Chronicle that the “draconian ban” is only about “power and control of men over women” ... The Jewish Chronicle said that some of the wives of some of the rabbis backing the ban do actually drive. One woman, who asked to remain anonymous, said the proposal “disables women” because “the more kids they have, the more they need to drive”. And of the rabbis she said: “They say one thing, they do another.”

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/314396/london-based-belz-chassidim-criticized-by-uk-jewish-feminists.html

[struggle4progress]

9. Orthodox aristocracy: how the Belz dynasty was founded

The founder .. was .. Shalom Rokeach .. who was inducted as the rabbi of Belz .. in 1817 ... With the outbreak of World War II .. Belz .. was occupied by Nazi Germany ... Belzer Hasdism was nearly wiped out by the Holocaust ... Rebbe Aharon .. laid the groundwork for the spread of Belzer Hasidism through the establishment of schools and yeshivas ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3100674/Orthodox-Jewish-sect-compared-Saudi-Arabia-banning-women-London-driving-barring-pupils-school-dropped-mothers.html

[struggle4progress]

21. I have great confidence that the people of the UK can sort out this matter without our help

[cbayer]

27. Think of the children!!! We should definitely intervene here and make sure that

these children are saved from this terrible fate!

[struggle4progress]

29. The UK has a history of tolerating eccentrics and exiles

Some religious ideas of the Jewish communities in London's Stamford Hill may seem strange to us, as moderns, but the history of the cultures there might shed some light on the conservatism of the groups

The Hasidim appeared in Poland in the eighteenth century and spread as Russian anti-semitism threatened Jewish life there; the situation continued to deteriorate in the nineteenth century; and the twentieth century brought the Shoah, from which only a small fraction of Poland's Jewish population escaped, mostly by fleeing to Soviet-occupied territories, where anti-semitism was also widespread

Post-WWII Hasidic communities with European roots were likely to include significant numbers of people whose families had vanished into the Nazi extermination factories; and perhaps rebuilding their almost-annihilated culture, by encouraging insularity and a high birth rate, has since been a top priority

Despite their conservative and patriarchal tendencies, many of their teachings are interesting:

A rabbi named Zusya died and went to stand before the judgment seat of God. As he waited for God to appear, he grew nervous thinking about his life and how little he had done. He began to imagine that God was going to ask him, "Why weren't you Moses or why weren't you Solomon or why weren't you David?" But when God appeared, the rabbi was surprised. God simply asked, "Why weren't you Zusya?"

[cbayer]

33. Yes, but there tolerance seems to have worn thin the last few years.

[pinto]

30. Sort of a minor aside, but this recalled an ironclad cultural custom for women in my life. -

Both my grandmothers, one a Texas Episcopalian. one a New England Irish Catholic wore white gloves and hats on Sundays. Without fail. My Irish grandmother would look out the window and give a dismissive ,"No hat or gloves on a Sunday" when she spotted a woman out and about sans gloves or a hat.

Hardly the same scale as this situation but I think it points to a huge cultural component of some faiths, regions, and traditions.

[cbayer]

32. When I was growing up there were many women who did not drive.

And the hat and gloves on sunday was de rigueur.

Cultural customs are often very slow to change.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. "And the hat and gloves on sunday was de rigueur."

So you are in your late 80's?

[struggle4progress]

38. Hats and gloves were formal wear for women into the 1960s

[Warren Stupidity]

40. "And the hat and gloves on sunday was de rigueur."

No it wasn't. Not in the 60's. Not in the 50's. It hasn't been since at least WWII. Of course if one meant "de rigueur" for the rich and extravagant, sure. Also, "many women didn't drive"? That's bullshit too.

[struggle4progress]

41. Perhaps you have simply forgotten just how conformist US society was into the early 1960s

The "beat generation" called itself that because it really felt "beat" by the conformists

[Yorktown]

42. And unquantified statements take a long time to check

Cultural customs are often very slow to change.

What type of cultural custom? Attitudes to religion, drugs and music, same patterns?
Slow: define
Very: define
What type of change? Gradual? Brutal/gradual? same rythm/pattern for all categories?