09 July 2016

No to the Eruv

Camden should not be allowed to sow religious division.

By John Watson

Perhaps it is because my family converted to Christianity some generations ago but, although I am a Jewish, I had not previously heard of an “eruv” and had to turn to Wikipedia in my efforts to understand how it works. Apparently, it is a sort of avoidance scheme, a highly technical way around the law. In this case, however, it is not tax law which is being avoided but restrictions under Rabbinical law dealing with what you can do on the sabbath.

The rules which the eruv seeks to mitigate are ancient ones and, as I understand it, are based on passages in the book of Exodus. If you are sufficiently orthodox you must not, on the sabbath, move certain things from your house or private property into a public space. That is very inconvenient, particularly as, on the strictest view, those things include wheelchairs, walking sticks and medicines. They can also include keys unless built into items of clothing. In addition to all this there are restrictions on what can be done in a public space which do not apply to private spaces.

As you would expect, different parts of Judaism take different views on these restrictions and it would be a brave man who went further and tried to unravel the intricacies of Jewish religious law. For the purpose of this article, it is only necessary to say that the rules are inconvenient for those who take a strict view of their religious obligations and particularly for those of them who are disabled or sick. One solution to this difficulty is to expand the private area. If it takes in the neighbouring streets in addition to your house and garden, then the restrictions will have far less practical effect. That would make matters a great deal easier all round.

This is where the eruv comes in.  Treated as a common area of private property, it can be included in the private premises of the Orthodox Jews who live within it.  For it to work in religious terms, however, it has to be physical and not merely notional. To some extent that can be achieved by using existing walls and architectural features. Where these do not exist, the gaps have to be filled by some sort of fishing thread, albeit running between high poles so that it is well out of the way of those using the streets.

Now let’s leave the exotica of religious theory and go instead to Camden where there is a proposal for a new eruv which would take in much of Finchley Road, Primrose Hill and Hampstead.  That would obviously be a major convenience to the Orthodox community, and indeed they propose to pay for it, but to make it effective the thread must cross public roads.  Is that acceptable or not?  Camden Council have approved an eruv for Brondesbury; now they are going to have to decide whether to approve another one.  There are very good reasons why they should not.

The first goes to the terms on which, for the last at 360 years or so, the UK has welcomed the Jewish community. Of course the ride hasn’t always been a smooth one. From time to time there has been virulent anti-Semitism – probably the worst being the Mosley demonstrations in the East End in the 1930s. There is a certain amount of anti-Semitism still and much has been written recently about the extent to which it permeates left wing politics. All that being said, however, Jewish immigrants are well absorbed into the mainstream of British life, a fact well demonstrated by the way in which the Jewish heritage of Mr Miliband, a contender for the office of Prime Minister at the last election, hardly touched the public consciousness. The late Bernard Levin encapsulated it neatly when he compared anti-Semitism to something nasty in the gutter. If, as a Jew, you spend your time trying to sniff it out you will no doubt find it but, if you don’t, you probably will not be conscious of it all.

How can a commitment to that sort of progress be reconciled with any form of colonisation of the streets for the Jewish faith? It is true that the proposals are not invasive. Indeed most people would not even notice the fishing wire stretched over their heads. Still, there will be areas in which a British authority, Camden, is encouraging Jews to concentrate by making it easier for them to live there.

Amongst the evidence given to the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, which published its report “Living with Difference” in December 2015, was the following passage by an Indian immigrant:

“My dream as a Hindu has always been to live in a small English village as another villager. To work hard, to be a good father, to be a good and active citizen, to go to the local church to celebrate the Almighty in His glory, to be a good neighbour and, yes, to have a couple of pints of warm beer on the way home. Why a dream? Will the village accept me for what I am?”

Idyllic, to be sure and, even with the Jewish community, about a level of acceptance which is not always there. Still, it is an aspiration for all to work towards, and measures which encourage communities to live together in a particular place go exactly the wrong way.

The second point is a more practical one. Although the proposal will not impact at all on the convenience of the public, Camden will still be creating a religiously privileged zone. Suppose some lad, fuelled with too many pints as he leaves the pub, decides to shimmy up one of the posts and to cut the fishing wire. Will it be treated as a silly prank resulting in little practical damage, or will there be a great hoo-haa about an anti-semitic attack with the race relations industry in full cry? We know the answer to that one, don’t we? And what happens when other religions say that they want some special treatment on particular streets where their numbers dominate? Well, I can see a reason for accommodating the Church of England; the number of worshippers may be relatively small but at least they represent the cultural mainstream. But Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormon? the Seventh Day Adventists?  Should they all be able to assert special claims in areas where they have large followings?  Safe spaces for their disciples, perhaps? A right not to be offended?

No, we want none of this. We are a tolerant nation and what people do in their own homes or on their own land is their affair, but we should brook no spreading of religious privileges or restrictions into the public space. Camden should turn down the application.

If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.

Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet