The good, the bad, and the ugly: Rabbi Moshe Gutnick's letter, NSWKA's ad and the AJN's continuing promotion of non-Kosher products

We were mightily pleased to see a letter to the editor (published in both editions of the AJN *) from Rabbi Moshe Gutnick where he slams them for repeatedly offending observant readers with advertising of treif products. He makes the point that we have oft stated in this blog that no Muslim publication would ever advertise a product that is banned buy their religion,

 

So on behalf of AJNWatch and its readers we wish to publicly thank Reb Moshe with "a groyser Yasher Koach" for his unyielding and uncompromising public stance. We may be wrong, but to the best of our memories, this may be a first for one of our rabbis who is involved in Kashrut matters to so publicly criticise the newspaper. ילמדו וממנו his colleagues in Melbourne and elsewhere to come out and condemn the "organ of Australian Jewry" when they so disgracefully sell out our traditions and religion for a few dollars (actually a commodity which the publisher Robert Magid is not short of.)

We have long suggested that all Jews who are pained seeing Torah values being degraded and tread upon by the AJN should use whatever is in their power to express their disgust. Not only with letters to the editor, but to join the many who already  ban the paper from their homes. After all, why should their family members - especially the young and impressionable be exposed to a "Jewish" publication, advancing chazir treif establishments and products as well as immodest images and articles that border on (and often actual) apikorsut? Add to that the weekly Chazerai and dreckerati reporting on page 2 and one comes to the conclusion that this rag doesn't belong in any decent home - religious or not. 

Thus, seeing how money-hungry the AJN is, to place some pressure on the publishers, there should be - if not a total - then a partial boycott, on advertising therein.

To explain, we do understand that often when having to get a message across to the wider community, an ad in the Hamodia may not be enough. But why, for Heaven's sake, do our Shuls and especially Chabad organizations have to place such HUGE and expensive advertisements in the Jewish News? The message will get through just as well with a smaller insert.

(Talking of which, we must express our dismay at the organizers of the Daf Yomi Siyum for their full-page colour ad in last week's edition of this clearly anti-Torah newspaper. We suggest that they do a quick survey amongst those who are studying the daily Daf and  will realise that not even 10% ever read the AJN.)

Coming back to Rabbi Gutnick's letter, now imagine our shock, after feeling so chuffed at reading the rabbi's criticism, (and to be honest, somewhat surprised that the AJN allowed it through), when a few pages later we see a half-page ad, placed and paid for by non-other than Rabbi Moshe Gutnick's organisation - the NSW Kashrut Authority! (That at least explains why the AJN published his letter. They obviously take the view, "criticise us as much as you like - as long as you continue shovelling thousands of your dollars our way".) This ad is, by the way, is a repeat of the one that the AJN placed side by side with a Treif establishment just a few weeks ago.

 So Reb Moshe, if you are truly upset at the actions of the AJN, the first thing you should be doing is deeply cutting back on your spending with them. You and your fellow Rabbanim, Shuls, schools and Chabad Houses etc.

Here is another full-page ad in the same issue:

 Note the disclaimer at the top of the ad declaring that the "Challah" is not Kosher!

To paraphrase yourself; "Do you think a newspaper serving the Muslim community that advertised pork chops would be receiving paid advertisements from Imams, Mosques or Halal certification authorities?"

Think about it Rabbi. And then place this matter (including the Muslim example) on the agenda of the next meetings of ORA and RCNSW. (And contact your brother, who runs the Melbourne versions of KA and Rabbinical Council, to assist you in bringing an end to this terrible Chillul Hashem.)

As we see from the AJN's recent issue, (despite the fact that it is a plaything for the latest in the long line of Jewish tycoons - who eventually to toss it away after having their few years of fun), the moguls that run it aren't overly happy to keep dipping into their billions to prop it up. They too seem concerned about where the print media in this country is headed. One of the ways that they reassure and comfort themselves is that "only the print version can be read by observant Jews on Shabbat". Not that this stops them from offending and hurting the feelings of this sector of the community.

Robert Magid should watch out. If he wants to have something to handball sooner or later to the next Jewish moneybags he shouldn't be out their upsetting his readers. Remember, young people generally don't buy the AJN anyway, so they definitely have a problem coming. Meanwhile the religious and traditional community is growing in leaps and bounds - and they already have an alternative with the Hamodia  whose circulation continues to grow despite the hefty $6 cover price. Many still buy the AJN as well, but will the next generation be so tolerant to being spat in their faces? We doubt it.

 *Apropos the Letters pages, we notice that the AJN have adopted a new trend in saving money by having identical letters and even editorials in both editions - even when the material may be totally irrelevant in the other city. Eg, Rabbi Gutnick's letter was referring to a ad that only appeared in the Sydney version. What other money-saving ideas can we expect in the near future?

Reform rabbis and circus clowns

"Krusty the Clown" - another  beneficiary of Israel's Ministry for Culture and Sport?

There has been a lot of publicity in the Israel and Jewish media about the 'recognition' of reform clergypeople by the Israeli government insofar as a handful of them will now qualify for a government salary. It is obviously a move by the Israeli government to basically "shut up" the Reform movements stirrers in the US, some of who have far too much influence on ministers and Israeli internal affairs.

It is telling that the single 'redeeming feature' (if that's what it can be called) of this news was that the salary to be paid will not be forthcoming from the Ministry of Religion budget but rather from the Sports and Culture Ministry. AJNWatch presumes that this is the government department that allocates funds to theatres and actors, circuses and clowns. In a way this seems quite apt when considering the acting out and farce of Judaism that those clergy-performers do within and without their religion's temples.

 AJNWatch has yet to notice any Reform commentator mentioning this underhanded insult to their leaders.

* * *

Meanwhile our local rabbinate responds with the (more or less) as expected feeble statement to this outrageous stab in the heart of traditional Torah Judaism.  (See here.)

What is it with our respected rabbis? Is there really nothing that is holy and dear to them to be worthy enough to issue a firm and unyielding condemnation upon this shameful travesty? Had this happened a decade or two ago there would've been loud protests and no shortage of condemnations. But these days the only time we hear strong statements from rabbis are when it comes to Rabbi Meir Rabi and his Kashrut supervision organisation. Everything else is hushed up and swept under the rabbinical carpets.  

The explanation usually whispered is that they fear upsetting some congregants should they be seen as criticising anything done by the Israeli government. Of course that is total nonsense as rabbis are expected to fight for and defend our religion. And doing so, their members will respect them for being open, honest and fearless.
Have they forgotten the Torah's command לא תגורו בפני איש?
 
And in the case of Rabbi Moshe Gutnick, who to the best of our knowledge no longer occupies a pulpit - and isn't known to be a shrinking violet, what's his excuse? He certainly has no membership to fear. Why couldn't he say something more substantial then what we read in the article?  His wise and eloquent father, the late Rabbi Chaim always showed the way on how to put forward the Torah viewpoint loudly and fearlessly - even if unpopular with certain segments of the community. It's a shame, really.
 
Looks like it'll again be up to the conscience of rabbinical Australia, Rabbi Chaim Ingram to again go into battle in defence of the Torah.

* * * * *
 
Meanwhile a reader who states that he is a Chabad Chassid is most upset about the way the Australian rabbinate - the majority of whom are Chabad - have forgotten the unyielding campaigns led by the late Rebbe against the Reform movement.

He sent us a link to a website from where we bring the following words of the Rebbe: (There is much more there for those interested.)

What's going on here? - 2

Family issues...? (Strangely, the AJN overlooked to mention the fact that Rabbi Moshe G. happens to be Rabbi Yossi Feldman's uncle.)

What made Rabbi Moshe Gutnick resign from the RCNSW? Staying there as a member shouldn't block his ORA aspirations?

And what about last week's flurry of 'media releases' re the Feldman v. AJN spat? Did the AJN apologise or not?

We offer our readers both versions. Hopefully they can make more sense of this than we could.

VERSION # 1

AJN apologises and Rabbi Yosef Feldman resumes RCNSW Presidency

In a stunning about-face, the Australian Jewish News publicly apologised today regarding a recent controversial story that called for Rabbi Yosef Feldman's resignation from a senior rabbinic position.

On 29 July 2011, the AJN ran a front page story about Rabbi Yosef Feldman entitled "Top Rabbi Must Quit". In a related Article and Editorial, reference was made to a leaked internal email discussion amongst Rabbis in which Rabbi Yosef Feldman put forward certain views in relation to the reporting of child abuse allegations to the Authorities. The AJN interpreted those views in a negative light, berating Rabbi Feldman for suggesting them and calling for his resignation as President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW.

In today's edition, the AJN admits that since the publication of their first article many Rabbis "have since contacted us to confirm they regarded the comments as Halachic conjecture in the context of an academic debate" and in a Statement from the Executive of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, also published in today's edition, the Rabbis go further and assert that "The Executive Members of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, alongside many rabbis across Australia, are of the opinion that the views propounded in those emails were simply conjecture within the context of Halachic discussion and did not necessarily reflect Rabbi Yosef Feldman's personal opinion on those matters." The Rabbis express dismay at the AJN's "interpreting in an unflattering way selected quotes from those emails."

In today's lengthy article, authored by AJN National Editor Zeddy Lawrence, the newspaper refers to its original negative coverage and says that "we recognise and fully appreciate that there are those who felt we could have been less forthright and more sensitive in the way we covered it, and we apologise for any unnecessary distress caused."

"Newspapers are perceived as ignoring ethical and sometimes legal boundaries, in their quest to enthral readers and boost sales. It would be churlish of those of us in the industry to ignore that sentiment. Likewise, it would be churlish of The AJN in particular to turn a blind eye to the feelings of many members of the community about the manner in which we handled the story regarding Rabbi Yosef Feldman."

"In this instance, if there are those who feel we have been sensationalist, then we must take that lesson on board as we move forwards."

The newspaper compares Rabbi Feldman to respected Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth Lord Jonathan Sacks, concluding that "we wish Rabbi Feldman well in all his endeavours and look forward to reporting on his positive impact on the community in the months and years ahead."

As a result of the AJN's initial onslaught, Rabbi Feldman had stepped aside temporarily from his role as President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, in order to clear his name. In today's Statement, the RCNSW Executive informs the community that he has resumed the Presidency, saying that "The RCNSW looks forward to the contribution that Rabbi Yosef Feldman will continue to make together with his Executive in his role as RCNSW President, which he has now resumed."

"It is a fact of human nature that 'sorry' is one of the hardest words to say. Bearing this in mind we warmly welcome the AJN's willingness to acknowledge that their coverage may have been sensational, as well as their apology for the unnecessary distress caused. In particular we laud its undertaking to thoroughly review the way matters of this nature are reported in the future as well as the acknowledgement of its Editor regarding the fine character of Rabbi Yosef Feldman and the significant contribution that he has made to the community."
 
Also published in today's AJN is a Letter to the Community by Rabbi Yosef Feldman in which he states that "I unreservedly and emphatically condemn all forms of abuse, particularly child abuse. Perpetrators must be brought to justice in the Australian legal system, and I condemn the suggestion that paedophiles deserve protection from that legal system. I believe, as asserted by the major Australian Beth Dins and reported in the AJN, that all credible allegations of abuse should immediately be reported to, and dealt with, by the appropriate Government Authorities."

Rabbi Feldman continues that "I believe that I was seriously misrepresented in material that was recently published by the AJN", nevertheless he concludes his Letter wishing the AJN well and thanking his "colleagues on the RCNSW Executive as well as many Rabbis in NSW and across Australia for their unstinting support in recent times."

"I am hopeful that we can all move forward in unity for the benefit of our community."

VERSION # 2

JOINT PRESS RELEASE BY THE AJN AND RABBI YOSEF FELDMAN

 AJN and top rabbi look ahead to a peaceful new year

The Australian Jewish News and Rabbi Yosef Feldman, President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, have this week come to a peaceful agreement in relation to the publication of remarks made by him on the subject of child abuse.

On 29 July 2011, the AJN ran a front page story about Rabbi Yosef Feldman entitled “Top Rabbi Must Quit”. In a related article and editorial, reference was made to a leaked internal email discussion amongst Rabbis in which Rabbi Yosef Feldman put forward certain suggestive views in relation to the reporting of child abuse allegations to the authorities.

The AJN today acknowledged that its coverage may have been considered sensational and apologised for any unnecessary distress this caused.

 Rabbi Yosef Feldman acknowledged that while the reporter Joshua Levi did not misquote him in the article, he believes that the context of the email discussion was not clarified. However, he acknowledges that the views he expressed could have been misunderstood. He apologises for any distress caused to the community as a result.

 In today’s edition of the newspaper, the AJN admits that since the publication of their first article, many rabbis “have since contacted us to confirm they regarded [Rabbi Yosef Feldman’s] comments as halachic conjecture in the context of an academic debate”.

 In a Statement from the Executive of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, also published in today’s edition, the Rabbis go further and assert that “The Executive Members of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, alongside many rabbis across Australia, are of the opinion that the views propounded in those emails were simply conjecture within the context of Halachic discussion and did not necessarily reflect Rabbi Yosef Feldman’s personal opinion on those matters.”

 In today’s lengthy article, authored by AJN National Editor Zeddy Lawrence, the newspaper refers to its original coverage and says that “we recognise and fully appreciate that there are those who felt we could have been less forthright and more sensitive in the way we covered it, and we apologise for any unnecessary distress caused.”

 “In this instance, if there are those who feel we have been sensationalist, then we must take that lesson on board as we move forwards.”

 For his part, Rabbi Feldman stated in today’s edition, “I do acknowledge that things I wrote in emails to rabbinic colleagues could have been taken out of context and indeed misunderstood.”

 He went on to “apologise to my rabbinic colleagues as well as to the Jewish community as a whole for any embarrassment caused to them by the publication of material based on my emails”.

 He added: “I unreservedly and emphatically condemn all forms of abuse, particularly child abuse. Perpetrators must be brought to justice in the Australian legal system, and I condemn the suggestion that paedophiles deserve protection from that legal system. I believe, as asserted by the major Australian Beth Dins and reported in The AJN, that all credible allegations of abuse should immediately be reported to, and dealt with, by the appropriate Government Authorities.”

Comparing Rabbi Feldman’s contribution to the community with that of Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth Lord Jonathan Sacks,  The AJN concludes that “we wish Rabbi Feldman well in all his endeavours and look forward to reporting on his positive impact on the community in the months and years ahead.”

 As a result of The AJN’s initial article, Rabbi Feldman had stepped aside temporarily from his role as President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW in order to clear his name. In today’s statement, the RCNSW Executive informs the community that he has resumed the Presidency, saying that “The RCNSW looks forward to the contribution that Rabbi Yosef Feldman will continue to make together with his Executive in his role as RCNSW President, which he has now resumed.”

“It is a fact of human nature that ‘sorry’ is one of the hardest words to say. Bearing this in mind we warmly welcome the AJN’s willingness to acknowledge that their coverage may have been sensational, as well as their apology for the unnecessary distress caused. In particular we laud its undertaking to thoroughly review the way matters of this nature are reported in the future as well as the acknowledgement of its Editor regarding the fine character of Rabbi Yosef Feldman and the significant contribution that he has made to the community.”

 Rabbi Feldman concludes his Letter wishing the AJN well and thanking his “colleagues on the RCNSW Executive as well as many Rabbis in NSW and across Australia for their unstinting support in recent times.”

 “I am hopeful that we can all move forward in unity for the benefit of our community.”

 This Press Release has been approved by both parties. Please disregard a previous version which had not yet received the approval of all parties involved.

Footnote: If Rabbi Yosef Feldman is the "Top Rabbi" what does that make his father, Rabbi Pinchus Feldman?

Here is the article by Zeddy Lawrence. Though not quite sure if he is really comparing "Top Rabbi" Feldman with "Chief Rabbi" Sacks...

Reflections on our role as Reporters
By Zeddy Lawrence, National Editor of the AJN

IN recent days, my mind has drifted back to 2002 and the furore that surrounded the publication of The Dignity of Difference by the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, Lord Jonathan Sacks.

Accused by ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Manchester of heresy for implying that Judaism did not have a monopoly on spiritual truth, Chief Rabbi Sacks eventually admitted some of his statements had been open to misinterpretation and may not have accurately conveyed his personal feelings on the matter. As well as rewriting the controversial passages in the book, he issued a statement saying “The problem lies in the use I make of words.”

It was not the first time the chief had cause to regret his terminology. A few weeks earlier he had been lambasted for claiming in an interview that events in Israel sometimes made him feel “uncomfortable as a Jew” and that Israel was forced into postures “incompatible …with our deepest ideals”.

For all the flak he received - and boy was there flak! - the chief was and is still held in the highest esteem, and it is a tribute to the man, rather than his ‘problematical words’ that he invariably pops up in almost every top 10 list of Britain’s most influential and respected public figures.

And so to the present day and the furore that greeted Rabbi Feldman’s comments on the matter of child abuse, as reported in The AJN. ‘Problematical words’ indeed. Taken from an email exchange with fellow rabbis, many of his peers have since contacted us to confirm they regarded the comments as halachic conjecture in the context of an academic debate.

Others in the community, however, read them another way and were understandably dismayed by the opinions expressed.

Which is where The AJN came in.

It is interesting to note the praise heaped on the paper when, in campaigning spirit, it lobbies for Gilad Shalit, it exposes anti-Zionist politicians or it forces online bookshops to remove anti-Semitic books from sale on their virtual shelves. Just last week, a Perth-based ticketing agency removed the option “Occupied Palestinian territories” from its drop-down address menu for overseas subscribers after The AJN alerted them to its presence.

As proud inheritors of the title ‘The Fourth Estate’, nothing fills journalists or newspapers with greater pride than effecting a change in society on behalf of its readers.

But turn that same campaigning zeal within the community and for those caught up in the spotlight, the paper goes from hero to zero.

As a newspaper, we have a duty to represent our readers and take up the baton on their behalf when they feel a grievance towards individuals or institutions that they sense are not acting in their best interests. Likewise, we have a duty to inform our readers of any perceived failings that their leaders may have. As a newspaper and as a journalists, it is our tradition to take a stand.

However, as a newspaper serving a specific community, we face additional responsibilities. One is to promote a sense of unity and pride within that community and in our communal institutions, another is to endeavour to best represent that community to the outside world.

Inevitably, these obligations will occasionally come into conflict, and when these circumstances arise we have to make tough decisions as to what side of this narrow editorial tightrope we should fall on.

Some will welcome our decision and applaud us for our strident stance. Others will feel we have overstepped the mark and condemn us for sensationalism.

We are not the first, nor will we be the last newspaper to stand accused of this charge. Indeed, in the wake of the allegations that have struck at the heart of the Murdoch media empire in recent weeks, the entire media industry is feeling the heat.

True or not in the current climate, newspapers are perceived as ignoring ethical and sometimes legal boundaries, in their quest to enthral readers and boost sales.

It would be churlish of those of us in the industry to ignore that sentiment. Likewise, it would be churlish of The AJN in particular to turn a blind eye to the feelings of many members of the community about the manner in which we handled the story regarding Rabbi Yosef Feldman. While we stand by the content of the story, we recognise and fully appreciate that there are those who felt we could have been less forthright and more sensitive in the way we covered it, and we apologise for any unnecessary distress caused.

With Rosh Hashanah fast approaching, it is timely for us all to take stock of our actions over the past few months. The AJN is no exception. Drawing on our experiences, we must consider our shortcomings, and resolve to do better, in the year ahead. In this instance, if there are those who feel we have been sensationalist, then we must take that lesson on board as we move forwards.

For a newspaper, as for rabbis, it is not always easy being all things to all people. But we do our best, just as they do their best.

Whatever was written in our story does nothing to detract from the tremendous contribution both Rabbi Yosef Feldman and his family have made to our community, or the esteem in which he and they are held.

And as with Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, it is Rabbi Feldman’s deeds and purpose that are ultimately the mark of the man, rather than some ill-chosen words.

That being the case, we wish Rabbi Feldman well in all his endeavours and look forward to reporting on his positive impact on the community in the months and years ahead.

Finally, we feel that had Rabbi Feldman continued with his threatened legal action against the AJN, it would have done far more towards ensuring that the newspaper rein in the types of attacks and reporting that it dished out both to him and to Adelaide's Rabbi Engel.

Pity that. Additionally, a temporary reduction (or better still a total halt to) Chabad advertising Australia-wide, would have taught them an important lesson on respecting readers and advertisers.

"Kosher aware" - a new term for deception

Seems that the fraudulent “Kosher-friendly” and “Kosher-style” terms (see here) are old hat. Now we find the AJN advertising staff have come up with a new description for a treif locale: “Kosher aware”.

Well, if they are aware about Kashrut, they well know that what they are serving is 100% treif! What a disgrace.

Meawhile has anyone heard a complaint or protest from the ORA or RCV or indeed from our rabbis about this continuing shameless deceit? And why doesn’t it concern our rabbis enough to have mentioned this disgraceful and misleading advertising ploy in their submission to the government on labelling laws?

Why aren’t they engaging with the Jewish News demanding that they stop promoting treif – or at the very least ban misleading advertisements that easily take in naïve and unsophisticated people?

We know that many rabbis are followers of our blog. We ask them specifically “When will you take this issue seriously?”

And what about the Kashrut organisations? Shouldn’t they be battling the endorsement of treif with the same vigour that they promote Kosher?

The ORA and ECAJ submission

Thanks to Galus Australis we can now read the submission of ORA and ECAJ to the Food Labelling Review (here).

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.

Seeing that quite a few of ORA's members are themselves employed in the Kashrut supervision industry (eg, Rabbi Y Sprung, Rabbis Moshe and Mordechai Gutnick, Rabbi Yanky Barber), aren't we expecting too much from them to vote for approval of new competitors?

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.

Could this happen here too?

Thanks to a number of our readers who forwarded us the link to the following Vos iz Neias article as a response to Kosherman's report on ORA and government labelling proposals.

Check out the VIN link for some interesting comments on this story.

Should ORA be the official arbiter of Australian Kashrut authorities?

A supreme kashrut authority?

Post by Kosherman:

The AJN seems quite excited by the pitch of ORA to get itself appointed by the federal government to sanction Kashrut authorities. The paper has devoted the whole front page, a half page article and even an editorial to this topic. If we didn’t know better, we could get the impression that the focal purpose and objective of the Jewish News is to advance Kashrut in Australia. Yet this is the same publication that in its Simcha supplements advertises Treif caterers and establishments using the deceptive and fraudulent tags of “Kosher-style” and “Kosher-friendly”.

In fact in this same issue you will find this ¼ page colour advertisement for a Treif chicken shop! What a disgrace! What hypocrisy!

On the issue of ORA becoming the patron saint of Kashrut in this country, let me pass on some of the concerns that I have heard from other Shul-goers since the story broke.

  1) What is the situation with smaller and newer Kashrut providers, eg, Rabbi Shalom Silberberg of Sydney Adass and Rabbi Meir Rabi of Kosher veYosher? Will ORA object to their supervision?

 2) Who in ORA will make decisions for approval or non-approval? Will it be rabbis who themselves have a vested and financial (direct or via salary) interest in Kashrut and thus maybe an aversion to new competitors? Or will they be ethical and ensure that no rabbi in involved in Kashrut gets involved? And if so, will the qualifications of any new applicant be left in the hands of ORA members who have no idea or experience in Kashrut matters? Yes, I realise it is a real pickle.

 3) Is it a good idea to get the government involved? Didn’t this happen in some states of the US with quite negative results? Do we really want them looking over our shoulders? How will the Kosher consumer benefit from all this?

4) Did ORA in their submission demand that fraudulent terms like “Kosher-style” and “Kosher-friendly” be proscribed? (And if so does the AJN know about this?) If not, why not?

5) Where can we read the entire submission by ORA? Why was there no public consultation with the main stakeholders, ie, Kosher consumers?

 Many other questions are being asked and there is no shortage of criticism. A couple of local Jewish blogs have now joined the fray as you can read here and here.

On behalf of AJNWatch I invite our readers to comment on this matter and offer their ideas on the best way to go forward.

PS: Did anyone else notice the irony of that AJN front page being shared by an advertisement for an establishment under the supervision of non-ORA member, Rabbi Meir Rabi?