In Major School Case, British Courts Rule On Who Is a Jew
State Intervenes for the First Time in Nearly Four Centuries
By John Jeffay
Manchester, England — Jewish schools are guilty of racial discrimination if they reject children on the grounds of their parentage, a British court has ruled.
In a decision that has shocked the country’s 300,000-strong Jewish community, the Court of Appeal held that ongoing personal acts of faith, rather than birth or conversion, must define who is a Jew.
In doing so, the court overturned an earlier high court judgment upholding the decision of the JFS in London (the oldest and largest Jewish school in Britain) to deny a boy admission because it did not recognize his mother’s conversion.
The three judges, one of them Jewish, ruled that any selection criteria that gives ethnic priority to a Jew is showing racial discrimination. They cited the Race Relations Act 1976, which was introduced to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race.
The ruling means that Jewish schools of any denomination, whether privately or state funded, will be barred from giving priority to children who are born Jewish or who convert, and instead must consider how the children and their families practice their Judaism.
The move throws into disarray the admissions arrangements for Britain’s 97 Orthodox schools and may force them to introduce “faith tests” — like church schools, which require fortnightly attendance at Sunday services. Such a radical intervention — unprecedented since the time of Oliver Cromwell — calls into question the relationship between church (or synagogue) and state.
The United Synagogue, the denominationto which JFS belongs, already has spent almost $250,000 in legal costs to fight the case, and is now planning a challenge at the highest court in the land, the House of Lords.
The boy’s mother had converted under the auspices of an independent progressive synagogue but JFS rejected his application in line with its admissions policy, which prioritizes children recognized as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi. Despite representing its largest religious Jewish denomination — the Modern Orthodox United Synagogue — the Chief Rabbi is not a religious representative of all British Jewry. The father of the boy — for legal reasons identified only as Child M — challenged the school at the high court, claiming the school’s actions had been racist and illegal. He lost.
But, after two years of legal wrangling, the Court of Appeal found in his favor on 25 June. The judges said: “The motive for discrimination, whether benign or malign, theological or supremacist, makes it no less and no more unlawful.” They held that it was lawful to discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish children on religious grounds, but not on what they called racial grounds.
Atalia Cadranel, spokeswoman for the Board of Deputies, an elected body representing all Jews in the United Kingdom, said: “This is a landmark judgment that has major ramifications for every Jewish school in the U.K. The ruling says that the school’s actions were ethnically inspired — and in contravention of the Race Relations Act of 1976. In fact, all Jewish schools base their admissions criteria on religious law and not ethnic criteria.
“Unless the judgment is overturned, schools admissions will be on the basis of a faith test.
“It could be dependent on things like shul attendance, but will be determined by the relevant rabbinic authority of the given school. The concern is that this is a retrograde step and could end up with families feigning observance in order to secure school places. Likewise, some families may be denied the chance to give their children a Jewish education.”
Rabbi Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism, strongly disagrees with the JFS admissions policy but remains opposed the court’s intervention. He said: “JFS denies Jewish status to converts from Reform, Liberal and Masorti, and we abhor that… But we are also extremely worried about the state interfering in our right as a Jewish community to define for ourselves who is a Jew.”
Jack Rabinowicz, a Jewish lawyer and expert in education law, said: “It’s the first time since the resettlement of Jews in this country more than 350 years ago that the state has intervened in the question of who is a Jew. That’s quite a remarkable thing.
“Jews have benefited over the last several decades from the Race Relations Act. You have had Jewish policemen, for example, who have claimed discrimination if they’re asked to work on Shabbos. The court accepted you can have discrimination on the basis of faith. The difficulty for schools, old-age homes and other institutions is that if you have discrimination on the grounds of religious practice, then that’s very much more difficult. You can a have a Reform Jew who is very careful about their practice and an Orthodox Jew who is very much more lax.”
Rabinowicz suggests the House of Lords may take the view that the ruling goes too far in terms of state intervention, and reverse it.
The Liberal movement is the only denomination to welcome the ruling. Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism, said: “We have taken the most clear and outspoken position on this. Judaism is transmitted not by birth, but by identity and upbringing.” He further noted that it was not proper for a state-funded school to decide its admissions based on the status of the child’s mother and with reference to only one British Jewish religious authority.
Joshua Rowe, chair of governors at Manchester’s King David High School, the largest state-funded Orthodox school outside London, said: “The selection process at JFS and other denominational schools is based on religion, not race. The test of birth is a religious test, not a racist one. It is a test utilized to define who is a Jew, and it is a test which is intended solely to preserve the religious character of the school and the right to preserve ‘difference.’ To the extent that it might be argued that Judaism is itself racist (because it defines membership on the basis of birth), the rebuttal must surely lie in the fact that anyone who is not Jewish by birth is nevertheless entitled to join the faith.”
JFS itself has issued a brief statement saying it is disappointed and believes the ruling will undermine its ethos. It said it was still unclear how the ruling would affect admissions for the new school year in September, but declined to comment further.
Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks said: “Ethnicity is irrelevant to Jewish identity, according to Jewish law. Education has been the crucible of Judaism throughout the millennia, and the development of Jewish faith schools is one of Anglo Jewry’s greatest achievements.”
Contact John Jeffay at feedback@forward.com
Advertisements
Advertisements
If the test of who is Jewish is based on religious practice rather than on bloodline, how is one identified as Liberal, Conservative or Orthodox? If you have a Liberal Jew that is strict in practice and an Orthodox Jew that is more lax, who is to say that the Orthodox is really Orthodox and the Liberal is really Liberal?
A Jew is a Jew by birth or converts according to scripture.
If the test of who is Jewish is based on religious practice rather than on bloodline, how is one identified as Liberal, Conservative or Orthodox? If you have a Liberal Jew that is strict in practice and an Orthodox Jew that is more lax, who is to say that the Orthodox is really Orthodox and the Liberal is really Liberal?
A Jew is a Jew by birth or converts according to scripture.
If the test of who is Jewish is based on religious practice rather than on bloodline, how is one identified as Liberal, Conservative or Orthodox? If you have a Liberal Jew that is strict in practice and an Orthodox Jew that is more lax, who is to say that the Orthodox is really Orthodox and the Liberal is really Liberal?
A Jew is a Jew by birth or converts according to scripture.
If the test of who is Jewish is based on religious practice rather than on bloodline, how is one identified as Liberal, Conservative or Orthodox? If you have a Liberal Jew that is strict in practice and an Orthodox Jew that is more lax, who is to say that the Orthodox is really Orthodox and the Liberal is really Liberal?
A Jew is a Jew by birth or converts according to scripture.
Who says that the entire British Jewish community is shocked? As a member of an orthodox Synagogue, I warmly welcome the Court’s decision.
The mother of the child denied a place at JFS is Jewish. It is simply that the school and the United Synagogue do not recognise her conversion as it was not carried out under the auspices of the orthodox movement. If JFS want to run an orthodox only school, that is their right. But if they want to continue to receive state funding, they should be required to accept anyone who is Jewish, however that is defined.
I am angered that the United Synagogue would see a child denied a Jewish education to try and prove some hallachic point. Recently my Rabbi invited a Muslim speaker to give the Shabbat sermon from the pulpit. It was a very interesting experience and I support the Rabbi for allowing it, but when I asked him if he would consider allowing a Reform Rabbi to address us, the request was met with a refusal. Inter faith dialogue is fine, but intra faith is not. At least, not in the eyes of the orthodox movement.
Frankly, the world is not so over-run with Jews that we can afford to constantly fight with each other. The JFS ruling is the natural consequence of the United Synagogue’s dogmatic and often antagonistic insistence that they, and they alone, are the arbiters of who is and who is not Jewish. The orthodox community is entitled to say “If you want to join our gang, these are our rules” but they have absolutely no right to impose their values and beliefs on the Progressive movement.
If I prayed in Church every week and had bacon & eggs for breakfast, the United Synagogue would still recognise me as Jewish, but they seek to deny membership of the faith to people who are far more worthy than I will ever be.
The Court’s ruling is a long overdue recognition that religion is determined by what is in your head and in your heart and not what is written on a piece of paper.
This is an issue that has-- most unfaily-- been the basis of the massacre of Jews in the West for cneturies. Finally the British Courts forced some "Jewishness" advocates to grow up and decide whom and what they are-- religion or race. Netanyahu, unknowingly and carelessly, as a gimmick in order to delay a forced settlement between Israel and the Palestinians while he integrates the two peoples economically, demanded that the Palestinians-- AS A PRECONDITION TO NEGOTIATIONS-- recognize Israel as "the state of the Jewish people." Similarly, PM Sharon insisted that all Jews must move to Israel by 2020 or "lose their Jewish soul." Abe Foxam, leader of the anti-DEFAMATION League-- anti-defamation, of all titles-- pleaded at a Jerusalem Conference of World Jewish Students that he be forgiven for having fought so little for Zionism but he was TOO BUSY FIGHTING AGAINST ASSIMILATION!!!!
All these raise questions of trying to have your cake and eat it too on the assumptions that these "dumb goyim" are too dumb to realize it. The Israeli Ambasador to the United States has BOTH Israeli and American citizenship!!!! Can one woder what all this means to non-Jews? Are Jews one of us, or are they a fight column for some foreign country that exists as a fetal state on an American $ placenta?
This is a most dangerous time to open these cans of worms as time now is 20 minutes to Krystanacht in Northern Midwest. Indeed, Jews were not the cause of the current automobile industry colllapse, though some would have you believe it: http://news.ronatvan.com/2009/06/18/the-jewish-zionist-gang-that-bankrupted-general-motors/ (it appears on ten pages of google sites)
This seemingly well "documented" article is indeed a lot of crap. But who will question it when desperate to find a scapegoat so as not to have to face one's own economic avarice driven catastrophe?
For Zionist extremists all this is fine and dandy. Afteral, the "settlements" in Israel are empty buildings built at US taxpayers expense through secret Congressional shenanigans in the hope that SOME DAY Diaspora Jews will chose to make the Great Aliyah to Israel. Recently, on a StLouis radio show former President Cater was asked why did only 38% of Jews vote for him in his bid for re-election? He responded that he was the only Democratic candidate in that election NOT to get a majority of Jews. He explained that it was because "the Jewish leaders" didn't like that he returned the Sinai to the Egyptians and thought it belongs to Israel. One might recall that the original meaning of the Jewish flag was a land of the Jewish people (the Star) occupying the land between the two great rivers, Nile and Eupretes (the two lines). This explains why far more Arabs feared a Jewish state as it not only involved Palestine but from half of Egypt to half of Iraq. When one of Ben Gurion's aides asked him how he could settle for such strange borders as the UN provided he said: there will be more, much more, in time.
All this has muddled the crime perpetrated against the Jewish people in Europe. Especially as Zionism has never ceased to exploit that catastrophe, turning it into a sacrilegious desacration of an event that all mankind must seek to understand so as not to repeat it. Yet, just as Zionists exploit the Holocaust Industry, often with self-serving fabrications that only feed the campaigns of those who deny the historic fact of the Holocaust (focus on the gas chambers ecclipse the fact that German soldiers killed by hand helpless Jewish men women and children), providing illusion of historic fraud.
All this stems from an ambiguity, an attempt to insit to us dumb goyim that Jews can go up and down, right and left at the same time; a skill Christians only attribute to angels. The current British Court ruling puts starkly before Jews the need for a clear statement as to what is a Jew, especially as even Foxman has abandoned his distinction betweeen anti-Zionist and anti-Semite. At this time of Western rage over what america has economically done to the world, it would be very prudent to settle this issue as the mass majority of Jews have proven through thier settlement patterns that they consider Israel a nice place to visit but they wouldn't want to have to live there. American Jews are as American as apple pie and would never forgive Zionists for helping the right wing crazies foment anti-Semitism in America in the hope that they would stampede to Israel with all their assets. Perhaps the lesson of this British legal crisis will be a separation of nationality and religion, especially as most Jews of today are East Europe desendents of converts to Judiam. When Netanyahu abandons this stalling tactic he will no doubt signal Israel's desire to integrate with the Arab world economically and diplomatically as it now seeks to do with the Palestinians before negotiating a two states settlement.
DE Teodoru is typical of the people who dislike Yidden, but claim, that if we change this or that, every problem will disappear. In fact, if your read Nazis writing in the 1930s, did they open speak about their murder plans? Of course not! They always brought up how this or that religious practice is unsavoury. And the first thing they forbade was Shchita. Why should we listen to Mr Teodoru? Judaism is religion, and the admission criteria are birth or orthodox conversion. And no, Mr Wolper, we can't accept non-orthodox conversions. Simply because if we do, everyone can come up and lie he/she were Jewish.
The only thing this Jewish school in England did is apply the criteria Jewish rabbis have applied for about two thousand years. The school, as a community establishment, cannot suddenly invent other rules to suit the wishes of the converted mother of the boy. That rabbis don't recognize reform conversions isn't a secret: it is widely known in all Jewish circles and I don't exactly understand why the parents of the boy found it necesary to pick a fight with the school and go to court about it when it would have sufficed to send the boy to a another school. Besides, if the mother of the boy wanted so much to convert, she could have chosen a conversion that is recognized by everybody, and not gone for the "light" version that she knew would cause her and her children so many problems. As for the British court ruling, a Jewish school MUST give priority to children the rabbis consider Jewish. It is their mission to do so, and it is the point of the whole exercise. There is no discrimination in it. We Jews have a "package deal identity": calling part of that package deal “ethnicity”, like the British court did, and trying to glue to it discrimination laws from another time and another place won’t help any.
The only basis in determining who a Jew is and is not is done on the basis of voting records. Since 99% of the eligible Jewish voting public votes blindly for Democrats and Democratic causes then that is the basis for determining who is a Jew and who is not. If a Republican converted or tried to convert to Judaism, he would be rejected or at least marginalized by the rest of the community. Even if Hitler ran as a Democrat, the Jews would have voted for his. Who knows, maybe in Germany they did.
If you are truly educated in the history of Jews, you will know that the great Rabbis accepted converts readily. It did not require what the Orthodox community requires today, or the money that they require. Also, once a person has converted, it is not to be mentioned again by the Jewish community. So, no matter how this lady converted, she is Jewish and that is all that can be said about her. And knowing newer Jews compared to others, they are the ones carrying on the faith, not assimilating, and following the laws found in the Torah. Can we as Jews really afford to shun them?
Next they the English will tell us how to Pray.
What happens if they declare Moslem's to be Jews.
Hasn't Israel's Law of Return been amended recently to allow citizenship to some persons whose either parent (or even only one grandparent, male or female!) is Jewish? Certainly, "Birthright Israel" extends to any young person who identifies as Jewish just by virtue of upbringing. In our time, surely, Jews cannot afford to be racist or tribal. Nothing good will come of it. Can someone explain the meaning of Rabbi Sacks' comment quoted at the end of the article? Is it very articulate fence-straddling, or is he supporting the Court's ruling?
Remember in England, the king or the queen is head of the Church of England so there is not the type of separation of church and state which America's founding fathers enshrined in our founding documents.
In private parochial schools in the U.S., the State has no say about admissions.
Also generalizing about a Jewish school in Britain to "Jews" or "all Jews" or "relgious Jews" is obviously faulty logic and bad reasoning.
Thousands of books and articles have struggled over many years with the question, Who or What is a Jew?
Does the community decide or the individual?
I, for one, am of the opinion it is a culture complex which includes varying elements of religion, tradition, and ethnicity with a diverse but shared history. Both the individual and Jewish communities and groups provide the parameters of that culture complex.
Don't worry, this ruling will be overturned by the House of Lords.
Wait and see, or my name isn't Rumpelstiltskin.
Dear Friends:
As the Coordinator of the Half-Jewish Network --
Speaking on behalf of the thousands of adult children and grandchildren of intermarriage who are routinely shut out of Jewish institutions worldwide --
Good for the British Court of Appeal!
Sincerely, Robin Margolis www.half-jewish.net
Much has been said about this article about who is a Jew and various reasons suggested as to whom this description aplies. but it is uncontestable among all Jews that if the mother is Jewish then all of her offspring are Jewish also, no matter who or what the father is. So being Jewish is a racial thing no matter how much pontification and evasion some people engage in. This was the definition that Hitler used under the National socialist government. Despite all of the lies and obfuscation, Israel practices racial discrimination in declaring that only Jews have the right of return to lands and homes in Palestine ... what about the hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians who have had their lands and property stolen by so-called European Jews who came into the land from Europe after WWII and proclaimed the state of Israel. And the land grabbing and killings haven't stopped since. Now in Britain, these Jews want to practice racial discrimination against all non-Jews and even some of their own on purely racial grounds, a practice that is illegal for non-Jewish whites to attempt against non-whites. It is time for the white people of Britain and America to wake up to the barbaric and unlawful practices being carried on by so-called Jews under the guise of Judaism and this ruling is welcome news for those engaged in the truth.
Seems akin to grandfathering in the old South for determining the right to vote. Nothing much to be proud of.
I can well understand intra-communal interest in questions of "Who is a Jew?" or "What Makes a Child Eligible to Enter a Jewish School?" But for the life of me, why should it be of abiding interest to "dumb goyim" like Theodotu and Osbon. Surely it isn't their concern with Jewish continuity. Why should they be haunting Jewish on-line publications if not to spew their hatred of Judaism and Zionism? "Double loyalty" in the former's epistle and "racism" in the latter's tirade are the usual charges leveled at Jews. What about the use Christian children's blood for passover matzoes? That's always a good standby.
Being Jewish is not a racial thing and never has been. It is the religion of the mother that makes her offspring Jewish, not her race. There is no such thing as a Jewish race, except in twisted nazi minds. As for bringing up the arab narrative that they are a product of the Judean soil because they never came in successive waves of conquest and migration to colonize Judea, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article.
In Judaism the mother's religion before birth determines whether her child belongs or does not belong to the Jewish religion and people. // The amount of that child’s personal religious observance later in life has absolutey no bearing on whether he stays Jewish or not. // This has been the manner in which for 2 millenia the rabbis determined who belongs and who doesn't belong to the Jewish people, and it still is so today. // Insulting me and calling me “an hysterical bat out of Hell” just because you don't like that rabbinic decision, or because you feel it discriminates against you and deprives you of something you would have liked to have, is a very immature and childish reaction. To say the least. // I close here this “discussion”. You are free to further ventilate your ideas on more suitable sites.
As an Orthdox jew I do not think this is racist. My husband's brother married out and when their son was three they wanted him to go to the Jewish nursery school only because it was near and had a very good name. They were told that the mother of the child should join the Reform shuland then the child would be able to attand the nursery school. Years later they came to visit us in Israel the bou came out with a remark that would have made any Nazi proud and although it embarrased his mother I found it very offensive. Another time we ha a similar response from a daughter in the family. These children have been brought us to enjoy Christmas at their grandmothers house and are now al dating non Jews which is how it shoud be. incidentally a long time before the children were born their mother came out with an anti-Semetic remark. Why should these children be allowed to go to Jewish schools if their parent ideology is not what I would want my family to ne with???
Stephanie, I agree with you completely, and I am not an orthodox Jew. The school only says that their core business is children of a certain "nationality", the Jewish nationality, not of a certain race. A child gets Jewish nationality by a law used today by many nations, the Roman "jus sanguis" law: you get your parent's nationality, as opposed to "jus solis", which requires that you be born on the soil of a certain nation to get its nationality. The "jus sanguis" law was perfect for a people whose country was being destroyed and stolen by Hadrian (halevay sheirakvu atzmotav) before the rabbis' very eyes. It simply allows the extra-territorial continuity of the Jewish nation. Nobody finds anything wrong with that when other nations do it, but everything becomes suddenly very wrong as soon as Jews do it.
Dear Ralph. Stormfront or whichever neo Nazi site you usually inhabit, awaits your keen insight. Now, as they say in Britian, piss off.
If Judaism is defined by practice, then atheist Jews aren't Jews, which is absurd, since then there would be no good Jewish jokes to tell.
How is it, that a guy like this Walt(ye'moch shem'mo ve zeek'roh), believes he is somehow superior or part of a master race when typically, these guys all turn out to be people with a sixth grade education (if they are lucky..), living in a trailor back in the woods, no job, no prospects. Abject losers by any definition. Yet somehow WE are the parasites, with our endless supply of Nobel prize winners in physics, economics, the arts... Talk about chutzpa there, Walt!
Well, it looks like Jews are now getting a little taste of their own medicine. A disproportionate number of them have been working to dissolve racial and ethnic ties among races, with the exception of their own. Now those standards are being applied to them and there is anger. Imagine the response if a school based admissions policy on whether a child's parents were authentically white european or not. Imagine what the Jewish response would be. Real hypocrisy.
The Appeal Court was not ruling on "Who is a Jew". They were ruling on admissions criteria for a state funded school. According to the law you cannot give priority to any child on the basis that their mother comes from a particular ethnic group. JFS was doing exactly that. The Court could have come to no other decision. The various authorities in Judaism are allowed decide who they consider to be Jewish, but they can only distribute state school places according to the law. Orthodox Jews can claim all they like that the test of a monther's background is a theological, not an ethnic, test. However, if a child is being routinely accepted or rejected purely because their mother does or does not belong to a particular ethnic group, that is against the law. JFS took not account whatsoever of practice or belief in the family, just the status of the mother. "Racial discrimination" is clearly not the correct term as chlidren of any race can attend. However, one sub-category in the Race Relatoins Act is discrimination on grounds of "descent". That is where the school polic failed. They were acting unlawfully.
I would also agree with David Miller. The Jewish Chronicle ran a poll on the ruling, and (last time I saw it)the majority of respondents backed the Court of Appeal ruling. Most people here are against the kind of factionalism and exclusion perpetuated by JFS.
Schools have to adhere to a whole raft of laws and legislation. The Courts expressed no interest in how a Jew is defined by Jews, they simply noted that the admissions criteria were unlawful.
If anyone is interested in the actual ruling, rather than the hysteria surrounding the word "racial", here is the link. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment-e-v-gov-body-ors.pdf
It's too bad that neither the school nor Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks want to educate this child.
It's too bad that neither the school nor Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks want to educate this child.
The article says: "Joshua Rowe, chair of governors at Manchester's King David High School, the largest state-funded Orthodox school outside London, said, ... 'The test of birth is a religious test, not a racist one.'"
Huh??
Disagreement is one thing. Lack of basic reasoning ability is another. "The test of BIRTH is a religious test, not a racist one"??
Substitute "white" for "Jewish" in the article and draw your own conclusion.
And the fact that one can convert to Judaism doesn't change things. After all, most of the antisemitic laws throughout European history exempted Jews who converted to Christianity. Does that make them non-antisemitic? "We're not discriminating against Jews -- just those Jews who won't convert to Christianity." Here, it's "We're not discriminating against Gentiles -- just those Gentiles who won't convert to Judaism."
What attitude should be taken toward such institutions is, it seems to me, a difficult one. Difficult because here two rights collide -- religious freedom and freedom from discrrimination. After all, the Nation of Islam will not admit whites. But then I don't believe it receives government funding.
The article says: "Joshua Rowe, chair of governors at Manchester's King David High School, the largest state-funded Orthodox school outside London, said, ... 'The test of birth is a religious test, not a racist one.'"
Huh??
Disagreement is one thing. Lack of basic reasoning ability is another. "The test of BIRTH is a religious test, not a racist one"??
Substitute "white" for "Jewish" in the article and draw your own conclusion.
And the fact that one can convert to Judaism doesn't change things. After all, most of the antisemitic laws throughout European history exempted Jews who converted to Christianity. Does that make them non-antisemitic? "We're not discriminating against Jews -- just those Jews who won't convert to Christianity." Here, it's "We're not discriminating against Gentiles -- just those Gentiles who won't convert to Judaism."
What attitude should be taken toward such institutions is, it seems to me, a difficult one. Difficult because here two rights collide -- religious freedom and freedom from discrrimination. After all, the Nation of Islam will not admit whites. But then I don't believe it receives government funding.
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, the title of the article is mistaken. It says "... British Courts Rule on Who is a Jew." I don't think they ruled on who is a Jew. They ruled on who must be admitted to the school.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.