to All My
Lord Brown agrees at para para. 255 quoted Munby J in the High Court case of E v JFS (Jewish Free School)  EWHC 1535/1536 (Admin)
Adopting some alternative admissions policy based on such factors as adherence or commitment to Judaism (even assuming that such a concept has any meaning for this purpose in Jewish religious law) would not be a means of achieving JFS’s aims and objectives; on the contrary it would produce a different school ethos. If JFS’s existing aims and objectives are legitimate, as they are, then a policy of giving preference to children who are Jewish applying Orthodox Jewish principles is, they say, necessary and proportionate – indeed, as it seems to me, essential – to achieve those aims . . . JFS exists as a school for Orthodox Jews. If it is to remain a school for Orthodox Jews it must retain its existing admissions policy; if it does not, it will cease to be a school for Orthodox Jews. Precisely. To this argument there is, and can be, no satisfactory answer.As we Lawyers put it "I respectfully agree" because he recognised that the decision of the Court produced an absurdity and the Law should not do that certainly not the law as propounded by a Supreme Court
There has been a lot of Internet discussion about this case and a common theme has been criticism of JFS policy because JFS, like other Faith Schools is publicly funded.
Can I just make one point crystal clear
From a Legal point of view the fact that the school is publicly funded was totally irrelevant to the decision because private Schools are covered by the Race Relations Act just as much as state schools. If the JFS was an entirely 100% private school funded entirely by the Orthodox Jewish Community the decision in the case would have been the same.
There is a valid argument over whether there should be state funded religious schools but this is not the case over which that argument should be had.
The issue in this case is whether the Courts of Britain should have the power to decide that a particular person is Jewish when the Chief Rabbi says they are not.
Within this country too, there are many areas in which the Church and the public authorities can work together for the good of citizens, in harmony with Britain’s long-standing tradition. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies – including institutions linked to the Catholic Church – need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church. In this way, such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed.
( See this Blog 7 February 2010)