Social Discrimination FAQ

Contents

Introduction

This FAQ is written in response to the many e-mails I receive. It will therefore lengthen as more issues are raised and our knowledge of social discrimination and its causes grows.

I make no apologies for using racial discrimination by two Christian so called "Messianic Jewish" missions based in the UK as examples in this FAQ. I am Jewish and I find even the thought that these two Christian associations are discriminating against their fellow so called "non-Jewish Christian" associate members repulsive. However, the information in this FAQ can be applied generally without hardly changing a word.
Back to top of page 

When is discrimination not OK?

We all discriminate. We do so when we get married, when we invite one person into our homes and not another and so on. So when is discrimination not OK? The short answer appears to be when society in general decides that it's not OK.

The condemnation of social discrimination is usually motivated by moral or economic considerations or both. People are often impressed by the arbitrary and pointless nature of some forms of discrimination, based as they are on irrational prejudice. This is especially so where the discrimination limits the opportunity for personal growth and fulfilment. In cases such as age discrimination, the obvious financial hardship caused to the victim along with the loss of experience, skill and resources to society is clear to most thinking individuals.

Thus the sort of discrimination addressed by this site is that which directly denies an individual access to services, housing, education, and membership of certain types of private clubs and associations on the grounds of "race", ethnicity, ethnic origins, nationality (including citizenship), national origins, skin colour, religion and age.

This site also addresses cases such as the foregoing but based on unjustified indirect discrimination. If you do not know the difference between direct and indirect discrimination see: Why direct & indirect discrimination?
Back to top of page 

Is the discrimination relevant?

An issue that sometimes causes confusion is the difference between relevant and irrelevant discrimination.

Such establishments as universities often practice discrimination in the selection of their student intake on the grounds of prior educational achievement. Discriminating in favour of persons who have already achieved a certain educational standard is a relevant consideration for an establishment whose student intake hopes to go on to an even higher level of education.

Some universities have discriminated in the selection of their student intake on the grounds of, for example, "race". Discriminating in favour of persons of a certain "race" is an irrelevant consideration for an establishment whose student intake hopes to go on to a higher level of education. In the context of society generally this discrimination defeats the very educational purpose of any university that practises it.
Back to top of page 

The "but for" test and direct discrimination

The "but for" test was established by the House of Lords in James v Eastleigh Borough Council. It works like this. If, say, a woman would have been treated more favourably "but for" her sex, then one need not demonstrate a discriminatory motive for the treatment she receives (i.e. discrimination is assumed to be proven).

One may apply the "but for" test to the "International Messianic Jewish Alliance"  and the "Messianic Jewish Association of Great Britain". Would "non-Jewish Christians" be treated more favourably by the IMJA or the MJAGB "but for" their lack of "Jewish parentage" (i.e. "race")? Considering that all members of both associations are fellow Christians, but that "non-Jewish Christians" are discriminated against on racial grounds, there can be no doubt that they would. Both of these Christian associations practice direct racial discrimination.
Back to top of page 

Otherwise qualified?

Another way to approach a possible case of discrimination is by asking:

Setting aside the grounds for discrimination, is the person otherwise qualified for membership of an association or employment or services or whatever?

Back to top of page 

Empathise with the victim

It is usually not too difficult to understand why certain persons wish to discriminate against other people. However, to truly understand a given situation one should empathise with the victim. Ask yourself the following question.

If I was "black"; "white"; Asian; Muslim; Christian; Jewish; Pagan; a woman; a man; over 45; under 45 and so on, would I like being excluded on those or similar grounds from employment; services; housing; education, etc?
Back to top of page 

Who stands to gain?

Asking who stands to gain from a situation can sometimes mean jumping to a wrong conclusion, however, it can occasionally shed some light on an otherwise confusing issue.

Both the "International Messianic Jewish Alliance" and the "Messianic Jewish Association of Great Britain" discriminate on racial grounds regarding access to their membership, their leadership (IMJA) and voting rights (MJAGB). Although most so called "non-Jewish Christian" associate members of these associations do not complain (suspicious?), one voiced his concern recently:

"I agree though that their (IMJA & MJAGB - my comment) policies towards people of non-Jewish origin are discriminatory, I am a member and find it personally hurtful. On the other hand if they do not want people like me to officiate in the organisations concerned, whilst I might be willing to help, it lets me off the hook ;-). All the same perhaps with a bit of prayer and dialogue they will one day realise that they are losing a lot of support from sympathetic Christians." Rev. Alan J. Munday, DD, OSL (Shekinah Ministries - UK almunday@minister.com 1 Little Acre, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 3ST, England.

It is not too difficult to see what a Christian mission to the Jews might gain from practising racial discrimination. Mr. Ronald Lewis (a retired United Reformed Church minister) and Executive Secretary of the IMJA made it perfectly clear what this might be when in a 1995 reply to Canon Roy Clements (Anglican - Wakefield, UK) he attempted to justify the IMJA's practice of discriminating racially against certain of its own fellow Christian "non-Jewish" associate members thus,

"We are a fellowship of Jewish believers in Jesus (i.e. 'Christian Jews' - my comment). We offer associate membership to non-Jewish Christians. ... Otherwise we would have the possibility of the organisation being run by non-Jewish Christians and would lose credibility".

No wonder the IMJA's "non-Jewish Christian" associate members do not complain of their treatment by the IMJA as they gain richly from it due to its enhancement of the "Jewish" credibility of their Christian mission to the Jews!

So who are the real victims of the IMJA/MJAGB's policy of racial discrimination? Who stands to gain least from this situation? The simple answer is ordinary Jews and the Jewish community in general.

In my view, the IMJA and the MJAGB are yet further examples of the unfortunate relationship that has existed between Jews and Christians for millennia. Two Christian associations, with the aid of a handful of Christian converts from Judaism, are taking advantage of a loophole in Great Britain's Race Relations Act 1976 (1) in order to promote their Christian mission to the Jews by giving it so called "Jewish" credibility. The regular Jewish community obviously has nothing to gain from this situation, either in terms of its reputation or its general standing in the wider community.
Back to top of page 

Why direct & indirect discrimination?

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination happens when a person is treated less favourably on "X" grounds, where "X" details those grounds.

So, for example, direct racial discrimination happens when a person is treated less favourably on racial grounds.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination is best illustrated with an example.

Supposing you advertised a post setting a minimum height requirement of 1.75m. No direct sex discrimination takes place because the same minimum height requirement is set for both sexes. However, indirect sex discrimination takes place because a greater proportion of women will be unable to comply with this requirement than men. Now you should be able to understand why indirect discrimination is sometimes also known as statistical discrimination.

Indirect discrimination is sometimes defensible as being objectively justified (e.g. when persons of a certain skin colour are required to model makeup designed specifically for the same skin colour).
Back to top of page
 

References  and Related Articles

  1. A Constructive Criticism of the "Race Relations Act 1976"
Of the many related articles on this site the following would make good starters. Use your back button to return to this page.

Return to Main Index

This page (including its HTML source) is copyright of the author.