Kosherman comments:
Having had a quick read of the submission it seems to confirm that ORA wants to be the "posek acharon" in deciding who can and who cannot offer Kosher supervision in Australia.
As far as I know, the only organization mentioned in the submission whose rabbis are not members of ORA are from Adass. (Anyone know if Rabbi M Rabi and Rabbi S Silberberg are ORA members? And if not, how can they assure themselves of getting fair treatment?)
I had asked "Did ORA in their submission demand that fraudulent terms like “Kosher-style” and “Kosher-friendly” be proscribed? If not, why not?"
Reading the submission I found nothing about this. One may have thought that eliminating the use of such blatant deceitful terms would have been of major concern for our rabbis (and indeed for the lawyers on the ECAJ). Looks like we were wrong.
I am still puzzled on why there was there no public consultation with the main stakeholders, ie, Kosher consumers? Another concern expressed by commentators on GA is why were details only released to the public after the closing date for submissions?
Let’s hope that ORA and ECAJ will try and clear things up for us.
It is a scandal if these fellows can control who is allowed to give Hechsherim.
ReplyDeleteKashrus in Australia belongs to the Gutnicks. So why shouldn't the Government legislate this.
ReplyDeleteI've put a petition online here against the proposal.
ReplyDeleteHow come these Rabbis are more interested to control all Kashrus than to stop the termanology KOSHER STYLE!
ReplyDeleteYes ORA rabbis who may be reading this blog, why not a word about Kosher-style and Kosher-friendly?
ReplyDeleteShouldn't that be one of your foremost concerns?
The Government should legislate that Gutnick should no longer have a monoply over the Sydney Kashrus.
ReplyDeleteDidn't take long for gaonim and tzaddikim of the "progressive" movement to make their views known. (Heaven knows what they are about matters of kashrus. The vast majority - if not all - of their membership wouldn't know of kosher if they fell over it. And why should they, so many of them - including one of their lady rabbiettes are not halachically Jewish). I wonder how many member sof their clergy don't consume treif?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as I expected here is their response to the ORA/ECAJ submission.
All is not Kosher in the Land of Oz
The Council of Progressive Rabbis of Australia, New Zealand and Asia have rejected a plan which would create a single authority to certificate Kosher goods.
The topic arose during their conference last week in Melbourne…
The rabbis reviewed the joint submission of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and Organisation of Rabbis of Australia which claimed to speak on behalf of all Australian Jewry regarding matters of kashrut. While endorsing the importance of keeping kosher and the ability of the consumer to have the widest range of kosher products, the rabbis expressed concern that the proposed legislation would prevent the importing of certain kosher products from overseas and also inhibit the development of kosher labelling that would take into account environmental and justice issues in food production. It could also set a dangerous precedent of the government regulating matters of Jewish practice. The rabbis therefore rejected the idea that one authority should have a monopoly over the certification of kosher products through federal government legislation, and supported the current system of self regulation.
Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins of Sydney’s Emanuel Synagogue told J-Wire: “This matter is on the agenda to be discussed on Wednesday at the ECAJ quarterly meeting.”
http://www.jwire.com.au/news/all-is-not-kosher-in-the-land-of-oz/9480