5 min read
If the only evidence Ms Lipman can bring to the table “proving” the need for sex education in orthodox schools is a story from a friend of a friend cited in a book then she really had to dig deeply.
It is no secret that the Torah does not permit intimacy outside marriage. In order to prepare for every aspect of marriage – physical, emotional and psychological - young men and women are more than adequately prepared by teachers who themselves have undergone extensive training.
For example, the United Synagogue trains a huge cadre of marriage education teachers on a regular basis. This training was formulated and is run by Rebbitzen Rachie Binstock. This training has been lauded internationally where she has been invited to replicate her tuition.
We have our guidebook on intimacy in relationships; we do not need legislation to tell us what to do. We do however welcome opportunities to discuss relationships in an age appropriate way in order that all our school pupils graduate from school with a clear outlook as to what constitutes healthy, functional, respectful relationships whether with their friends, future business colleagues or in marriage.
Judith Nemeth, Executive Director, NAJOS
Jennifer's Lipman's thoughtful article (JC, Feb 17) raises important issues , but her viewpoint is problematic. She writes “Yes parental choice is important but, in a community with such opposition to sex education in the classroom, do we really think it will be taught objectively and without judgement behind closed doors?” Does her value judgement that ultra orthodox parents will not do a good job really give her the right to impose her view on parents who strongly object to compulsory SRE? By all means, approach the parents in the ultra orthodox community and try to persuade them of your viewpoint, but do not by pass them and impose something on them which goes so much against their ethos and values.
M Stamler, Salford M7
In last week’s report on Jewish Women’s Aid you stated that “anecdotally, Jewish women wait longer [before seeking assistance from domestic abuse services] because of stigma within the community and their families, because of feelings of shame, and of course to protect their children.” This unfortunate turn of phrase may inadvertently discourage affected women from seeking help. Every woman wants to protect her children and do what is best for them. However, remaining in an abusive relationship does not “protect children”. It has been widely accepted that witnessing domestic abuse is highly damaging to children. The national Women’s Aid charity states clearly on its website “All children witnessing domestic violence are being emotionally abused, and this is now recognised as ‘significant harm’ in recent legislation.” According to the NSPCC, children exposed to domestic violence are more likely to have behavioural and emotional problems, including depression, anxiety, aggression and anti-social behaviour. What a shame the JC did not take this opportunity to directly challenge the myth that it is better “for the children” for a Jewish woman to remain in an abusive relationship.
Gabrielle Joseph, London NW8
Your timely front page report on the increase in reported domestic abuse (JC 17/2/2017) reflects the Prime Minister’s intention, announced on the same day, to bring in new legislation to tackle this ‘life shattering, abhorrent crime’.
The statistics from the JWA account for only a small proportion of Jewish women who are silently suffering in an abusive relationship – often with children who are also victims themselves.
Some women will, after putting up with the abuse for years, eventually find the courage to tell a friend; the rabbi or other prominent members of the community. Unfortunately, because this is the first time it has been drawn to their attention, they will misguidedly advise the woman to try and preserve her marriage and remain at home.
At the same time, her abusive husband will be trying to coerce her into staying with him, portraying himself as the victim of his own upbringing; describing the abuse as just an ‘argument’; ascribing his behaviour to alcohol or claiming that he has now ‘changed’ and things will be better. As she has nowhere else to go, his wife will often return to an ever worsening and potentially violent situation.
It is therefore essential that women who are brave enough to tell people that they are living in fear should be immediately guided to organisations like Jewish Women’s Aid so that they can receive the professional help and support that they so desperately need.
We are gradually becoming a community that is able to acknowledge that abuse does occur within some of our families. We therefore have a duty to support the JWA and enable it to meet the growing demand by increasing and developing the vital services that it currently delivers.
David Shinegold, Worthing BN11
These Charedi men, supposedly representatives of their society. disgust me. Their behaviour is diabolical and cannot and should not be tolerated by either we normal and law abiding passsengers or the cabin crew.
Why should anybody have to move to accomodate their demands. Let them book their seats in two's or three's in advance. As for the individual who plugged his phone or whatever into the steward's control panel, he should face a whopping fine and be banned from flying EasyJet for life.
His action was totally irresponsible and in my opinion he should have been escorted off the plane there and then. These "Gentlemen" must learn to abide by the rules and not cause these disturbances and inconveniences to other passengers and the crew who must dread being allocated these flights.
Brian Cohen Manchester M25
I fail to understand the problem with Charedi gentlemen not wishing to sit next to women on flights. When most of us travel with family or friends we book adjoining places. to ensure that we sit together. The group mentioned in the article were a wedding party, so there were several men. Why could they not book adjoining seats?
Thea Valman, London NW11
The scenes aboard the EasyJet flight that you report should not surprise many of us.
At a recent visit to a well-known North West London Kosher Supermarket, I witnessed the cashier needing to prompt a “Please” and “Thank You” from two young attendees of a well-respected Orthodox school.
The concept of simple politeness was alien, if not bemusing, to them.
Martin Kaye, London N12
I was amazed to see in print in the JC (10 February), the remarkable poems and drawings of my mother (Doris Englebert) and her sister Alice, composed over a hundred years ago when they were children attending the Cheder at The Liberal Jewish Synagogue.
That the children's work survived and has recently been digitised for all to access on the Internet is incredibly exciting. For me, personally, it has brought new insight into aspects of my mother's childhood during the First World War.
Joan Mushin, London NW11
Dr James Vaughan (JC Feb 17) reports that in 1981 John Robinson’s infamous telegram “Can Israel Survive?” was summarised by the Foreign Office’s Oliver Miles. Miles wrote of “Zionist ingenuity and ruthlessness” which might prevail in the short term.
Miles was not the unemotional and objective observer he claimed to be. An Oxford educated Arabist, his Foreign Office postings included Jordan, Yemen, Aden and Saudi Arabia, before he was appointed Ambassador to Libya in 1984.
In 2004, Miles was instigator of an ill-judged open letter to Tony Blair, expressing what The Sun described as "poisonous views” on the Government’s Middle East policies. Five years later, he questioned the appointments of Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Lawrence Freedman to the Iraq inquiry panel, citing their Jewish background.
Stuart Lyons CBE, London SW10
Carpets of the faith
In preparing another edition of my book “Jewish Carpets” (1997) may I impose upon the hospitality of your column to ask if any of your readers have any photographs or records of any carpet bearing any Judaic symbols or Hebrew or Yiddish writing, would they most kindly let me know.
Anton Felton
(e-mail: antonfelton4@gmail.com)
Herzlia Pituach, Israel