Tel-Chai Nation

Here's an article about an ex-Haredi now living like a woman/transvestite in Manchester, England, whom the courts decided to rule in favor of giving visitation rights to his children:

Britain’s Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling ordering a transgender woman not to see her five ultra-Orthodox children.

The court ruled Wednesday that “the best interests of these children seen in the medium to longer term is in more contact with their father if that can be achieved,” the Jewish Chronicle reported.

“So strong are the interests of the children in the eyes of the law that the courts must, with respect to the learned judge, persevere. As the law says in other contexts, ‘never say never.’ To repeat, the doors should not be closed at this early stage in their lives.”

The woman, who left a Haredi community in Manchester, had made the request to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales to see her five children, whom she fathered when she was living as a man. That court ruled in January that she could not have direct contact with her children, but be allowed to send them letters or cards four times a year on Jewish festivals and their birthdays.

Again, we have a news site making themselves total dummies by identifying the father as a woman, when factually speaking, this is a biological male we're talking about. Gives a whole new meaning to dumbing down journalism. A biological woman cannot impregnate another woman. Only a biological man can do that.

The children’s mother had said during lower court proceedings that if the children had direct contact with the transgender woman, other parents would not allow their children to play with them, and several community rabbis backed her testimony. The children could also be denied places at good yeshivas and schools and be prevented from marrying into some families, and the entire family could be shunned by the community, the court was told.

While it's certainly wrong for the other parents to ostracize the family if the screwball ex-husband continues to associate with the mother and kids, the galling part is that the mother would continue to live in such an atrocious community that believes the sins of the father fall squarely upon the child.

A writer for the UK Jewish News asked rabbinical reps to confirm shunning the children is not in synch with Jewish law:

I’d like to know if this is the definitive answer, ideally from our esteemed rabbis, starting with the Office of the Chief Rabbi, and due to the location of the case, the Manchester Beth Din as well. What do they think defines a Jewish community? Who tells the North Manchester Haredi community members how to behave and how to live according to Jewish law? Perhaps these community leaders could send a written submission to the Court of Appeal Judges to clarify the definition of a Jewish community. And while they are writing a submission perhaps they could also clarify the halakhic position on shunning children.

It's obviously ultra-orthodox Judaists like Satmar who're taking this sins of father fall upon children stance, and I may have read a report in Haaretz several months ago that the school a daughter went to initially had her ostracized anyway, which was as wrong as the father's own insult to Deuteronomy 22:5.

It's definitely regrettable the father would turn crazy and degrade himself (and come to think of it, even the actual female sex). And it's also terrible if the community's willing to shun the family members, which is surely what the father wants anyway. But even so, the mother should not be sticking herself and her children in an insular community that otherwise acts like they're poisonous garbage over something that's hardly their own fault, but rather, the fault of the bad educational curriculum the community goes by, which may have turned the father homosexual, and even prompted him to cross-dress as an extension of his already abnormal mentality.

Labels: haredi corruption, londonistan, misogyny, Moonbattery