21 Sivan 5779 / Monday, June 24, 2019 | Torah Reading: Korach
 
dot  Add to favorites   dot  Set as homepage  
 
   
    Create an account    |    Sign in
  
    My Account     Orders History     Help
 
 
  My Country:  
  United States   
 
   Language:  
  English   
 
   My Currency:  
  US Dollar   
 
   
Home Page Breslev Judaism Society Family Spirituality and Faith Torah Portion Holidays and Fast Days
   Land of Israel     Jewish World     Noahide World     Jewish History             
 
  More  
 
 
 
Current Affairs  
 
HomeSocietyCurrent AffairsThe Bomber's Veto
 
  Advanced Search
   Articles
 
   Search
 
            
 

The Bomber's Veto    

The Bomber's Veto



The unfortunate decision to withhold a building permit from the Jewish community in Sydney imposes a burden on synagogues that other houses of worship do not have to face…

 



No building permit for Australian synagogue — it might draw ISIS-supporter terrorist attacks and endanger neighbors…

 

A LOCAL council has banned the construction of a synagogue in the Bondi suburb of Sydney because it could be a terrorist target, in a shocking move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent.

 

The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places.

 

The council contended that “the site is not suitable for the proposed synagogue use as the Preliminary Threat and Risk Analysis relied on by the Applicant raises concerns as to the safety and security of future users of the Synagogue, nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians in Wellington Street.” Yesterday’s court decision (Friends of Refugees of Eastern Europe v. Waverley Council) agreed that there was a sufficient “factual basis” for the council’s position. And once such a threat “to users and the community” was shown, then “the guidelines can be used to justify modification of the development to minimize crime risk, or, refusal of the development on the grounds that crime risk cannot be appropriately minimized.”

 

Moreover, the developer (here, the synagogue) bears the burden of showing a “specific risk assessment for the site,” and thus justifying why the specific risk reduction measures that the synagogue proposed “respond appropriately to that risk.” (Here, the synagogue suggested “using landscaping to soften building form and minimize impact of security devices.”) The court concluded that the synagogue hadn’t done so. And the court also said that “It is also a valid question to ask whether the raised [crime prevention through environmental design process] is the appropriate means to address a potential terrorist threat. It would seem that a more sophisticated risk assessment process could be required for matters such as a potential terrorist threat.”

 

So while in theory this might leave open the possibility that a synagogue might be built — with much delay and expense — if measures that “minimise [terrorism] risk” are proposed to the court’s satisfaction, in practice it’s not clear that any such measures would suffice. (Recall that one possibility is “refusal of the development on the grounds that crime risk cannot be appropriately minimized.”) The risk to “nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians” from, say, a truck bomb is hard to eliminate. Perhaps placing a synagogue in a rural area that is far from neighbors would suffice — but that would banish synagogues from the neighborhoods where Jews actually live.

 

In any event, the unfortunate decision imposes a burden on synagogues that other houses of worship (churches, mosques, Buddhist temples) do not have to face. It imposes the burden precisely because synagogues are already burdened by the threat of terrorist attack, thus piling governmental repression on private repression. By giving a “bomber’s veto” — a version of the heckler’s veto, in which the police shut down a speaker because thugs are threatening violence against him — to the Islamic State and its supporters, it encourages them. (“Look, brother: Already our fight for Islam and against its enemies has led to vile synagogues being blocked even in faraway Australia!”) And it encourages would-be copycats of other ideologies, who learn that they can shut down organization X by sufficiently threatening X that the government signs up to help shut X down.

 

I will not cry for what happens after the Islamization of Austrlia....and they will deserve whatever they get.





New Comment    New Comment
   See More Articles By Dr. Harry. A
   Read more about Current Affairs




Top of article    Top of article       Email This Article    Email This Article          Share to Facebook       Print version    Print version


 Join the distribution list Join the distribution list
 
 
  
If you would like to receive other related articles or Breslev.co.il features via e-mail, please enter your e-mail address here:

   

 Related Articles Related Articles
 
 

 
Gaza, 2014: War of Emuna               Mumbai: The Real War               Better than Bailout
 
 Gaza, 2014: War of Emuna  Mumbai: The Real War  Better than Bailout


  0 Talkbacks for this article     

Add Your CommentAdd Your Comment    Add Your Comment    

 
 
  
In Honor of:    In Memory of:
  
 
Like What You Read?
 
Help Breslev Israel spread the light of Rebbe Nachman
across the globe, and be a partner in making a better world.
 
Click here to support Breslev.co.il
  
 
 
 Products of the Day Products of the Day
 
 
 
 
Back  1 2 3  Next
 
 
 
 
  •  
     
  •  
  •  
     
  •  
 
Back  1 2 3  Next
 
 
 Most talked about Most talked about
 
 
 
 
Up  1 2 3  Down
 
 
 Most read Most read
 
 
 
 
Up  1 2 3  Down
 
 
 Facebook Facebook
 
 
 
 Mailing List Mailing List
 
 
 
Subscribe Here:   
 
   
 

 
 



  
 
 
open toolbar