religion is the only rascist issues here.

the post is not rascist.

"If they want wire fences why don't they go to Auschwitz and stay there"

That's hate speech, not free speech. Why don't you read the editorial guidelines if you want your articles to stay up.

Or go and make your own website where you can spout your racist filth.

Since most of you probably do not know what is actually being referred to, let me explain. Jewish laws pertaining to what can or cannot be carried on the Sabbath depend upon when you are in a "walled town" or in open country. This isn't a question of breaking Sabbath rules but changing which rules apply.

London was (at one time) a "walled town" and thus automatically an "erev" area. However it is no longer so becasue the defensive walls are gone. Just as with many walled towns built along a river where the river itself served as defense on that side, the river "counts" as a boundary. And so would a railroad embankment, etc. Even a very low wall counts -- any physical demarcation. These days it's common to simply string a wire marking the boundary. A wire up out of the way is not in anybody's path while a low wall could be tripped over (I'm not up on these things but I think a "wall" only has to be about 8" high to "count").

It allows "observant" Jews to carry food to each others houses (as long as somebody in the community began that process before sundown). That's it. It's a purely ceremonial demarcation of "town boundary". Not a physical fence (though of course a real fence would "count").

That is what the author of this piece was objecting to.

The bland descriptions of an Eruv as ceremonial, and merely returning to a pre-existing situation, are I am afraid misleading.

The exemptions from religious restrictions were meant to apply within a household, and then extended to a "family compound" with a definite boundary.

Attempts to avoid the restrictions lead over the years to this concept being stretched further and further until it has now reached a pitch which, to the lay observer, seems an utter perversion of the original concept.

Whole areas of cities around the world are now included in these religious zones, sometimes bigger than one or two square miles.

In order to preserve the fiction of an enclosed compound an actual physical boundary has to be put together, partly from existing boundaries, and partly by constructing them. However fragile in places, this boundary must be physical, and it must be continuous. Every Friday it must be physically examined along its entire length by a rabbi and certified intact and valid for the coming weekend. This authorises the breaking of certain sabbath rules, for that particular weekend. The authorisation must be promulgated each friday to the faithful, whether by telephone, email, or in person.

If a break is found which cannot be repaired in time, then the rules may not be broken that weekend.

The boundary must span every roadway, railway, path etc with a lintel and uprights to form a pretend doorway.

These features are usually constucted of thin "fishing" line. The boundary elsewhere may be fishing line slung between post of religiously approved size, spacing and colour. Other parts of this religiously consecrated boundary will be parts of the property of unknowing local residents - a wall of your house, part of your garden fence, etc.

In order further to underpin the fiction of a single domain, there is a need for the entire area to be under the ownership of the Jewish community which will use it. This is obviously a problem, which is usually resolved by the local council drawing up a legal document transferring to the jewish community a special sort of ownership (limited to religious purposes) of the entire area. In creating on recent central London eruv, the council held a ceremony in which this certificate of ownership was presented to the Rabbi.

Eruvs now exist in pratically every major city of the western world, and more are being created every day.

Frequently local residents form groups to object to their own building being consecrated in this way without their permission for purposes of which they disapprove, but nearly always they are defeated by accusations of anti-semitism, and arguments that this is a trivial matter, of no concern to anyone but the jews involved.

My personal view is that Eruv proponents can't have it both ways. If things of the spirit are trivial, then they don't need an Eruv. If things of the spirit are significant, then others are entitled also to take these consecrations and pseudo-purchases as having spiritual significance - a significance which they may find deeply disturbing, and a threat to their own spiritual possession of their property.

That bit about Auschwitz (in the first article) is one of the most unpleasant things I've ever read on this site.

Well it's disgusting that Jews can mark out their territory when it isn't even theirs. How dare they. Mind you, they already run this country so taking over whole sections and fencing them off and "owning them" is the next step I suppose. It's like an infestation of rats excreting to mark out their territory. Nobody else dares do this so why do they have the right.

How dare YOU claim that Jews cant use North London for their religious space you bigot!

You wouldn't dare say this if militant anti-fascists knew you. People would think twice about joining the Nazi BNP if they knew it'd earn them broken limbs!

When a parasite infects a host, it need to be purged with the utmost speed and efficiency. Jews brought Germany to its knees with their covetous and insidious infiltration of society. The Germans gave them a chance to leave all german territory. Many did and survived. Those that refused to go were suffered the consequences of their stubborn refusal to obey any law but their own.

I would like to comment on the post here about limbs being broken. I find it quite shocking that its always the leftists that prattle on endlessly about how they are opposed to violence and how they are pro free speech and yet it was communists that invented propaganda and its always the reds that threaten the use of violence, use anarchy and destruction to make quasi political statements and who restrict freedom of speech by having 'no platform' stances on any group thats to the right of militant socialism. No wonder the right is doing so well and the left so poorly! one is clearly seen as respectable, the other a 'left over' annoyance from a bygone era.

Read the discussions above.

Proud of yourselves now, "FreeSpeech" and "Anti-Zionist"?

Joss

Well, i guess this is it. The fascists and racists have got hold of indymedia. Will they ever be thrown off? It all depends on the vigilance of the censors. Free speech has a limit, and this is on the other side of it.

People are quite righly angry at this affront. London is our capital city, and they have no right to declare sections of it to be their own areas, whether ceremonial or not. People should be allowed to vent their anger at this and should speak out forcefully against it.

Keep calm all you people.
Don't get so worked up.
The best way to deal with postings which you consider to be racist and anti-semitic is simply to ignore them. And certainly I agree several of those above need ignoring.

However, it is not necessary to allow these posters to prevent or deflect discussion of the genuine issues.

Always remember that any particularly offensive posting could quite possibly be put there by someone totally opposed to the opinions it puts forward. This is a well known tactic for discrediting your opponent, and deflecting discussion from real issues.

I do not know if that is happening here, but if so, it is achieving its end - as all calm discussion of the rights and wrongs of creating one or more eruvs in the heart of london has been obliterated.

Please ignore the "flames". Re-read my calm description of what an eruv is (above).
Now comment calmly on whether you think opposition to such creation is justified. If you have difficulty thinking clearly as soon as the word "jewish" is involved, pretend this is being proposed by Hindus, or perhaps Jehovahs Witnesses or some other group operating a somewhat bizarre set of extremist rules, and then seeking a way of avoiding the full burden of compliance.

Or just ignore the "avoidance" aspect if you like
.
Do you think it unreasonable that one group of people A should object if another group of people B acts to set up spiritually significant physical structures interwoven with the home environments of people A, actually incorporating the structures of their homes against their will, and involving government bodies in assigning a form of ownership over group A properties to group B.

Do not argue that these structures have no significance to any religious person of another faith. Many faiths incorporate beliefs about other faiths, and give significance (not always friendly) to their spiritual acts. The Jewish faith itself has much to say about the spiritual status of non-jews, and has christians and muslims, for instance, firmly positioned in their spiritual world view.

The only point I am making is that one religion's rituals and ceremonies of ownership cannot be assumed to be a matter of mere indifference to others.

I could for instance come up to you in the street, and conduct some ceremony of blessing or cursing over you without your permission, in accordance with my religion. You might well with your rational mind consider this ceremony to have no effect. But this does not mean that you could not find it frightening, disturbing, or intrusive. Other people's rituals definitely have the power to make us feel like this, particularly if claiming to be exerting spiritual control over communal spaces we are forced to use, or even extending into our personal territory and making claim to include the very fabric of our homes.

I put it to you, in all seriousness, that many people can feel disturbed, violated and affronted by having their homes included in an eruv. And this does not in anyway indicate that such people may necessarily have any racist feelings or hostility to any minority groups. Any group wanting to ritually claim some sort of sacred space is welcome, surely, to do so within the confines of its own private land.

It is not in my opinion entitled to include other peoples homes against their will.

The only sense in which I will recognise anything peculiarly "Jewish" about this situation is that I do not think any other grouping would have a cat in hells chance of succeeding with something like this. The only racism is in the reverse direction. In that this particular group continues to claim the special privileges of "victimhood" long after it has ceased to be appropriate. It is the cry of "anti-semite", which goes up whenever special privileges are questioned, which constitutes the only racism in this situation.

I ask you again - would any other religious group be allowed to do this ? Unless you are willing calmly and seriously to ask yourself this question, and perhaps debate it here, then it is you who colours your opinions with race, and it is you whose postings we should quietly ignore.

its my opinion on this issue that freedom of religion should include the right to worship. However, once that right starts to interfere with other peoples rights to freedom of speech, relgion, privacy etc then a boundary line (no pun intended with regards to the eruv) should be drawn. I have no problem with normal christian worship going on in a church, islamic practise in a mosque, jews doing whatever they do in their synagog etc. Where i draw the line is when one group starts acting with arrogance or attempts to force its rights over that of others. Religion should not be used as a mask for arrogant superiority. Yes jews should be allowed to worship in london, NO they should NOT be allowed to set up this boundry demarcation that 'contaminates' other religious buildings or properties. As an atheist I have contempt for most relgious activity but am willing to tolerate it if it doesnt interfer with my life or cause disorder. The editorial comment makes some good points... one of the most important is that saying you disagree with the eruv and think its unacceptable isnt antisemetic... its common sense to not want such a thing. And its true that if any other religious/racial group insisted on something similar then they'd more then likely be ignored. Coupled with the fact that it seems that a cry of ' oh opposition is anti semitism' overides local peoples property law rights. That cant be right. On the same level, whilst it isnt anti semitic to oppose this bouncary demarcation (actually if it was attached to my property without my consent i'd cut the string or whatever), on the other level it is anti semitic to make commments liking jews to parasites or vermin. What people need to do is not get so wound up about this boundary demarcation... if you dont want it, write to the local boroughs where its to be placed and tell them that you will take legal action regarding your property law rights if they insist on attaching any thing to your property or 'enclose' your property within the boundary demarcation.

I think, rhet, that the reason this topic comes up now is that a group of residents in the Borough of Barnet has been fighting this through the courts for the last two or three years, and was finally defeated a few months ago, partly by accusations of anti-semitism.
The eruv began construction in August 2002 I believe. I do not know whether it is yet operating.
A bit of web-searching should tell you much.

The problem with multi-culti is this sort of thing. It's inevitable that different racial groups with different destinies and different things that benefit them will clash, and result in oppression of all races in order to force them together into one. This is what the Jews love because they are so racially concious. We need to dismantle to global/internationalist/multicultural society and world-system, and return as many people as is feasible to their lands of ethnic origin, where they will enrich their own countries and where all the races may help themselves rather than step on eachothers feet.

End multiculturalism, end race wars.