jpr / news           Spring 2003

 

 

Judeophobia: danger or denial?

 

In May, JPR will launch a timely and significant book - A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st-century Britain (1) edited by Dr Paul Iganski, JPR Director, Professor Barry Kosmin. It follows the successful format of the well-received book of essays published in 2002 entitled The Hate Debate: Should Hate be Punished as a Crime?

 

Although the problem of the ‘new antisemitism’ across Europe has been the subject of considerable press commentary in the past year, there has been little in-depth analysis of the problem in Britain. This new JPR publication fills the gap. It will make a significant contribution to the public debate on antisemitism as it relates to the UK, Israel and world Jewry and will be an indispensable tool for researchers in fields such as race and ethnic relations, law, public policy planning and law enforcement.

 

Seventeen leading Jewish intellectuals—writers, academics and other experts—offer their perspectives on whether there is a ‘new antisemitism’ in Britain, and if so, how, and where, it is manifested. A wide spectrum of analysis and opinion is represented in the book.

 

Divided into three sections, the book examines the manifestations of antisemitism, analyses the role of the media with regard to contemporary antisemitism, and explores the relationship between antisemitism and politics and religion (see below for table of contents).

 

Such is the worldwide concern with the issue that Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski were invited to speak at an international conference held at Arizona State University in February, which was attended by representatives from the United States, Israel, Poland, France and Germany. At the conference, the editors presented their conclusion that, although the ‘new antisemitism’ is not yet primarily to be found on the streets in Britain, a strong case can be made that it is to be found among certain elites in the media, churches, universities and trades unions. The phenomenon in evidence is more accurately described as ‘Judeophobia’, as it involves a manifest hostility towards Jews and Israel, rather than the propagation of the racial ideologies of the old antisemitism. 

 

Thanks to generous support from some individual donors, JPR is able to ensure that A New Antisemitism? has the widest possible dissemination. Complimentary copies will be distributed to opinion leaders, as well as to universities, public libraries and schools in Britain, Europe and the United States.

 

1A New Antisemitism? is published by Profile Books, at £14.99. Selected essays can be read on the JPR website www.axt.org.uk

 

2The Hate Debate, published by Profile Books, is available from JPR at £9.99.

 

 

A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st-Century Britain   The contributors and essay titles   Manifestations Antisemitism on the streets  Michael Whine A new antisemitism? Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks Sense on antisemitism Antony Lerman Is there anything ‘new’ in the new antisemitism? Anthony Julius   Media The new antisemitism, or when is a taboo not a taboo?  Peter Pulzer Wordsmiths and atrocities against language: the incendiary use of the Holocaust and Nazism against Jews Howard Jacobson Is Anti-Zionism antisemitism? Jonathan Freedland Hatred in the air: the BBC, Israel and antisemitism Douglas Davis Nasty or Nazi? The use of antisemitic topoi by the left-liberal media Winston Pickett   Politics and religion Muslims, Jews and September 11: the British case Robert Wistrich Christian theology and the new antisemitism Melanie Phillips Jews, Christians and the new antisemitism Edward Kessler The tradition of left-wing anti-Jewish prejudice in Britain Geoffrey Alderman Hatred repackaged: the rise of the British National Party and antisemitism Kate Taylor The academic boycott and antisemitism John Levy Understanding trade union hostility towards Israel and the consequences for Anglo-Jewry Ronnie Fraser ‘In the City, nobody reads the Guardian’: the absence of antisemitism in the marketplace Richard Bolchover

 

 

New report measures social capital of Manchester’s Jews

 

How much does the accumulation of social capital contribute to the British Jewish community’s overall viability and dynamism? This is the key question that informs a new report published by JPR in March. Written by Ernest Schlesinger, Creating community and accumulating social capital: Jews associating with other Jews in Manchester* examines voluntary associations of Jewish people in the Manchester metropolitan area. Mr Schlesinger is an independent consultant and social researcher, who is also the author of the JPR report Grant-making Trusts in the Jewish Sector (2000). The new study looks at 13 recreational associations, all established between 1932 and 1999. Three types of recreational associations were examined in detail: football leagues, golf clubs, and Jewish theatre.

 

The Jewish community in the Greater Manchester Area was chosen because of its long history and size, its location and because it includes a comprehensive range of Jewish institutions. A complex picture emerges:

 

Despite high standards of living and integration into British society,Manchester Jews show a strong tendency to ‘hold together’ as an ethno-religious group. One of the ways this is done is through ‘associational activities’—informal voluntary links outside the formally organized community;

 

Individual Jews come together in these loose-knit, semi-formal ways to fulfil personal, social needs, as well as for recreation, because of shared cultural values and to strengthen their sense of belonging;

 

About 7,000 Jews—roughly a quarter of the population of Manchester Jewry—are currently involved in these recreational activities;

 

As many as 4,000 Manchester Jews choose to associate with each other for informal recreational activities that have no inherent Judaic content;

 

For some people, these informal associations are their only connection with other Jews outside the family; for others they are just one of many associations;

 

In all cases, the common denominator ‘appeared to be a common bond, a sense of kinship with other Jews that was premised more on cultural  than on religious grounds’;

 

Informal associations build up trust and personal friendships among their members—an essential part of all successful voluntary associations. They also reinforce and extend existing Jewish networks.

 

Wider implications for British Jewry and UK society   According to JPR’s Director of Research, Professor Stanley Waterman, this groundbreaking report shows the power of the non-ideological and non-religious links that hold our communities together. It also has implications for wider UK society. Recent research since the publication of Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam of Harvard University has established the importance of social capital for the health of society. While the general feeling is that social capital is in a state of decline, studies such as this show that among ethnic and religious groups, voluntary grass roots associations still play a key role in holding individual communities and society together.   *Copies are available from JPR at £7.50

---

 

UK politicians and community relations experts welcome the report

 

Ivan Lewis, MP for Bury South and Minister for Adult Learning and Skills

This report shines a light on to the many qualities that make the greater Manchester Jewish community so special. It describes vividly how Jewish citizens maintain a strong sense of religious and cultural identity whilst playing a full part in British society. It offers an important contribution to the profound national debate now taking place regarding the most effective approaches to building cohesive communities.

 

David Rayner, Head of Community Participation Branch, Urban Policy Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

This report gives a fascinating picture of the ‘ordinariness’ of social capital. Often in public policy we tend to think that we’re the ones who can bring it about. In fact, as this study shows, more often than not it is the ‘hands-off’ approach that is the best way to allow social capital to grow. People find their own reason for associating and just get on with it. If societies and communities are working well, you don’t need a public policy to make it happen.

 

Equally important, this report also shows that social capital doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The Jewish community’s cohesiveness plays a significant role: for many people, their own sense of ethnic identity is enough to create bonds.

 

Finally, this report indicates the complexity in analysing community cohesion—especially for minority cultures. It illustrates what Robert Putnam calls both ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital. Bonding social capital enables people to associate with one another and to build communities of like interest. Bridging social capital occurs where groups meet and associate with other groups across boundaries. What this report reveals is that when ethnic minorities have the resources and the space to have bonding social capital, they can create the bridges that make society cohesive. This is the kind of analysis that can serve as a model for other groups in the UK.

 

Rumman Ahmed, Chair, Faith-Based Regeneration Network UK

I was delighted to see the tremendous range of activities taking place in Manchester, where the Jewish community is more than 100 years old. While the Muslim community is younger and has been active for some 50 years, what is clear from this report is that in many ways, both are on parallel trajectories.

 

The Muslim community also has a very vibrant internal civil society, largely resourced from within itself. There is tremendous scope here for us to learn from each other as minority communities living in the UK. We continually need to renew our social and spiritual capital if we are to build a truly cohesive society.

 

---

10 Downing Street reception given by Cherie Booth QC in honour of JPR

 

Cherie Booth QC hosted a Reception in February in honour of JPR. Addressing the guests, she praised JPR’s achievements in the field of human rights and civil society and regretted that there was still an urgent need for understanding the origins and manifestations of  prejudice in our society. She welcomed the way JPR encouraged debate of the issues at the heart of the public policy agenda, including asylum, immigration, hate crimes, Holocaust denial and citizenship. 

 

      

 

She selected for particular praise the academic journal Patterns of Prejudice and the collection of essays JPR published last spring The Hate Debate: Should Hate be Punished as a Crime? She also welcomed the imminent publication of A New Antisemitism: Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain and was most interested to learn of JPR’s work in the field of Jewish arts and culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

JPR welcomes former Foreign Minister Professor Shlomo Ben Ami as Israel Fellow

 

The Institute has appointed Professor Shlomo Ben Ami as JPR Israel Fellow for the current academic year. He is working within the JPR programme on Israel: impact, society and identity.

 

Professor Ben Ami was educated at Tel Aviv University where he did his BA and MA in History and Hebrew Literature, and Oxford University where he received his D.Phil. He taught at the History Department of Tel Aviv University, and in 1982-6 headed the Graduate School of History there.

 

In 1986 he became a full Professor and assumed the Elias Sourasky Chair for Spanish and Latin American Studies. He is the author of, among others:

The Origins of the Second Republic in Spain, Fascism from Above and Quel Avenir pour Israël?

 

Between 1980 and 1982 he was a Visiting Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford and in 1992 held a similar fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

 

In 1987, he was appointed to be Israel’s first Ambassador in Spain, where he served until 1991. He was a member of Israel’s delegation to the Madrid Peace Conference. In 1993 he headed the Israeli delegation at the Multilateral Talks on Refuges in the Middle East held in Ottawa.

 

In 1993, Professor Ben Ami created the Curiel Center for International Studies at Tel Aviv University, which he headed until 1996. In the same year he was elected to the Knesset, where he served as a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.

 

In 1999, after Labour’s victory, Professor Ben Ami was appointed Minister of Public Security. In 2000 he became Foreign Minister. He conducted the secret negotiations with Abu Ala in Stockholm. He participated with Prime Minister Barak in the Camp David Summit, after which he led the Israeli team in all the different phases of the negotiations with the Palestinians, including Taba.

 

Professor Ben Ami is currently writing a book on the peace process called Scars of War, Wounds of Peace.

 

Lecture by Professor Ben Ami

 

On 1 May, Professor Shlomo Ben Ami  delivered a JPR lecture entitled America–Israel–Europe: a triangle of  complexes and divergent interests?

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

So how many Jews are there in the UK? The 2001 UK Census and the size of the Jewish population

 

For over 150 years the British government refrained from asking its citizens their religion. In April 2001 such diffidence was jettisoned and the populace was asked in four simple words ‘What is your religion?’ This self-definition method was manna from heaven for Jewish demographers, since it conveniently released us from the previous, politically messy business of defining our target ‘Jewish’ population. And the results proved to be fascinating, even to the less demographically inclined.

 

Until this dataset was published, the job of assessing the size of the UK Jewish population—something that is vital to communal organisations—fell to the Research Unit of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which used mortality-based statistics to produce a population figure. Their most recent Jewish population estimate was for 1996 and stood at 283,000. (1)  Until February 2002 this was as accurate a figure as it was possible to obtain.

 

Prior to Census publication day the ‘experts’ were not optimistic. Many expected the final Jewish figure to be low (technically an undercount) because the Census question was voluntary and Jews, more than most, tend to avoid reporting their religion, least of all to governments. Or so we thought. The Census result of 266,740 Jews in the UK suggested that the take-up was much more comprehensive than expected, even though this total was almost 6% less than the most recent ‘guestimates’. In fairness, no one really had a clue what the Census total would be and that made it all the more exciting when the findings were released in February 2003. (See Table 1)

 

 

There are 423 local and unitary authorities in Great Britain; only one of these scored nil points for Jews, this being the Isles of Scilly. This is very surprising, since it was widely thought that there were many locales with no Jewish residents. (See Maps 1 and 2)

 

Map 1: The distribution of the UK Jewish Population based on the 2001 Census (excluding London)

 

 

Map 2: the distribution of the London Jewish population based on the 2001 Census

 

Since the Census now gives a figure of 266,740 Jews in the UK, shouldn’t this mean that Jewish demographers, far from getting excited, are now all out of work? Well, not quite. In fact, this is when demographers really start to earn their money. The figure of 266,740 is, even by the most conservative measure, a substantial underestimate of the true size of the Jewish population. First, it is well known that although censuses aim at universal coverage, they never achieve this in practice. Second, the question was voluntary precisely because religion is widely regarded as a private matter of conscience, especially for minority groups. We are well aware of this at JPR, so in our recent surveys of London and Leeds Jewry (the former being the largest, direct survey of British Jews ever conducted, with the exception, of course, of the Census) we asked whether or not respondents had answered the question about religion in the 2001 Census.(2) Third, some people who identify themselves as being Jewish, do so from an ethnic or cultural standpoint, rather than a religious one, and therefore would not describe themselves as ‘Jewish by religion’.

 

In JPR’s survey of London’s Jews, 6.4% of respondents said that they did not report their religion as Jewish, putting either ‘None’ or putting nothing at all (collectively this is the ‘no religion reported’ group, or NRR). The equivalent NRR figure in the Leeds survey was even higher at 8.5%. In addition, we also know that the Census produced a substantial undercount in the London Borough of Hackney, one of the largest concentrations of (predominantly Haredi) Jews in the UK. In 2002 a survey of this community estimated the population to be between 17,780 and 22,225, figures which accord well with the Board of Deputies’1996 estimate of 17,900.(3) However, the Census found a mere 10,732 Jewish people in Hackney.

 

Accepting that the Census data are reliable and that JPR’s surveys give an accurate representation of the proportion of ‘refusals’, we then arrive at a revised and more accurate figure for the total UK Jewish population. That figure is 296,000 (an increase of 11% on the Census result). This therefore represents the minimum number of UK Jews for practical purposes.

 

But this is only a minimum. There are other reasons to believe that even this figure underestimates the probable number of UK Jews. The Census figures tell us about those who stated ‘No religion’ and those who refused to answer the question nationally (the NRRs). Statistically, Jews represent a random sample taken from this population. Therefore they should exhibit the same propensity to report ’No Religion’, or to refuse to answer the question, as the whole population. (In fact, due to historical reasons, Jews are more likely to avoid telling governments details about their religion.) There is therefore nothing spurious about a Jew reporting that they have ‘No Religion’. This argument can consequently be used to create an upper estimate.

 

For England and Wales, NRR amounted to 22% and 27% respectively of the national population (the figures for London and Scotland were higher at 25% and 33% respectively). As well as these two adjustments, provision must also be made for the dramatic undercount in Hackney. By adjusting for this too, the maximum figure turns out to be 342,000 (an increase of 28% on the original Census result).

 

 

Now for an admission—I have slightly misled you; the Census is not actually a single national census, but is in fact, three, as Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own versions. Scotland’s Census has a different format to its English and Welsh cousin. Scottish respondents were asked to report not only their ‘current religion’ but also their ‘religion of upbringing’. Now it may not be immediately obvious, but this difference of approach turns out to be even more interesting from a demographer’s point of view and reveals a more complex picture.

 

The Scottish Census reported 6,448 ‘currently Jewish’ people in Scotland. However, it also reported 7,446 people of ‘Jewish upbringing’. We can immediately see a negative difference of 998. In addition we learnt that only 88% of the current Jewish population in Scotland also reported having had a Jewish upbringing. Consequently the Scottish data tells us about ‘joiners’ and ‘leavers’. Twelve percent of the current Jewish population were not brought up as Jews and as many as 24% of those who reported that they were brought up Jewish did not report that they were currently Jewish.

 

Using these insights it is now possible to re-extrapolate from the Census result of 266,740 people. For all UK Jews by upbringing plus ‘joiners’, we get a new UK minimum figure of 359,000. But even this substantial inflation is not the final, legitimate extrapolation since it does not account for the NRRs. It turns out that the NRRs add a further 22%, bringing a new absolute maximum of 438,000 UK Jews (almost two thirds as large again as the official Census result).

 

Thanks to JPR’s recent surveys and to the 2001 Census results, the UK now has one of the most accurate and up-to-date demographic assessments made of any large Jewish community in the world. Nevertheless, it seems odd—even unsatisfying—to have to conclude that no single Jewish population figure is all-encompassing; each is equally valid in its own right. This situation reflects the realities of today’s complex society. The answer to the question ‘How many Jews are there in the UK?’ depends on who is asking the question and for what reason the figure is required. If, for example, it is in order to provide a care home or kosher food services, then a more conservative estimate of 296,000 Jews is probably sufficient. If it is to market Jewish books or plays, then the figure of 342,000 would be more appropriate. If, however, it is in order to protect the community from the threat of antisemitism, then the widest possible estimate of 438,000 is pertinent. However, the larger the adjustment, the less it can be scientifically justified, since the number of assumptions on which it is based increases. Thus, to anyone wishing to know the current size of the UK Jewish population, I propose the following response: “On 29 April 2001 there were probably between 296,000 and 342,000 Jewish people in the United Kingdom”.

 

It was David Ben Gurion who once observed that, ‘for every two Jews there are three opinions’. Perhaps this should be amended to, ‘for every Jewish population there are three figures’.

 

David Graham is the JPR Fellow in European Jewish Demography

 

1 Schmool, M. & Cohen, F. (1998) A profile of British Jewry: Patterns and trends at the turn of the century, Board of Deputies, London

 

2 Becher, H., Waterman, S., Kosmin, B., & Thomson, K. (2002) A Portrait of Jews in London and the South-east: a community study, JPR; Waterman, S., (2003 forthcoming) The Leeds Jewish Community Survey, JPR

 

3 Holman, C., & Holman, N. (2002) Torah, worship and acts of loving kindness: Baseline indicators for the Charedi community in Stamford Hill, De Montfort University, Leicester

 

---

Jewish and Christian approaches to suffering

 

In February, the Rt Rev Richard Harries DD FKC, Bishop of Oxford, delivered the Malcolm Hay of Seaton Memorial Lecture under the joint auspices of JPR and the University of Aberdeen. The lecture was chaired by Dr Edward Kessler, Director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations, University of Cambridge; Professor Iain Torrance, Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Divinity, Aberdeen, and the next Moderator of the Church of Scotland, spoke first about the life and works of Malcolm Hay.

 

Drawing from his forthcoming book Judaism and Christianity in the light of the Holocaust, Bishop Harries offered an insight into the shared values and approaches to suffering of the two religions. In his view, Judaism and Christianity had more in common in their attitudes to suffering than was generally held.

 

The Bishop expressed admiration for the distinctive, creative and life-affirming response of Judaism in the face of pain. In fact, he said, this powerful impetus led to the foundation of the State of Israel after the Shoah. Aspects of the Jewish approach to suffering were very positive, in particular, the sensitive balance between remembering past suffering whilst at the same time, embracing life.

 

Seeing suffering in redemptive terms is often regarded as a typically Christian response, and is a very prominent theme in the New Testament and the literature of the Saints. However, Bishop Harries pointed out that this motif can also be found in Isaiah and in classic rabbinic commentaries, especially those seeking to come to terms with the Akedah, or binding of Isaac.

 

Running through all rabbinic and Christian writings is the belief that God’s justice will overcome all evil and His domain will be established, in this world or the next. However, according to Bishop Harries, this belief creates great difficulties in our day, when, thanks to Sigmund Freud, we are very conscious of the power of wishful thinking. From a Jewish perspective, moreover, there is a reluctance to express hope in the world to come, both because it detracts from the horrific reality of those who suffered, and because it cheapens the lives of those who died.

 

The autonomy of creation

 

According to Bishop Harries, God does not merely stand back and let things take their course. God lets events take their course, but suffers with His people. He wills our well-being; suffering has no intrinsic value in itself. Nor is suffering sent by God, something which Harries repeatedly stresses in pastoral situations. Pain and anguish are an inherent part of the human condition, but God’s purpose will prevail, justice will out, a notion held by Jews and Christians alike.

 

In concluding, Bishop Harries affirmed the extraordinary resilience of human beings confronted with suffering. He emphasized that tragedies and accidents are not the will of God and one should not seek to justify evil, such as the Shoah. Humanity—and humanity alone—is responsible.

 

---

European Association for Jewish Culture awards 26 new grants to artists, playwrights and filmmakers in Europe

The European Association for Jewish Culture, an independent grant-making foundation established in 2001 by JPR in London and the Alliance Israélite Universelle in Paris, has announced the winners of its annual grants awarded to promote Jewish creativity.

 

The grants range from €3,000 to €15,000 and have been awarded for new projects in 13 countries, following a lengthy review by independent experts. The countries include Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia. The grants were awarded to new projects addressing the Jewish experience in the following disciplines—including, for the first time, awards in music composition and documentary films:

 

In the performing arts, awards include:

 

Eva Hoffman (London) The Ceremony: Anatomy of a Massacre, a play based on recent debates surrounding the 1941 massacre in Jedwabne, Poland, to be staged at the Royal Exchange Theatre, Manchester;

 

Olek Mincer (Rome) A Shed, the Demon from Tishevitz, based on a short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer, to be staged at Meta Teatro, Rome;

 

Marek Czerniewicz (Orneta, Poland), Songs of the Ghetto, new music for poems written in the Vilnius and Krakow ghettoes, to be performed in Warsaw, Cracow, Lublin, Wroclaw, Gdynia and Berlin.

 

 

 

 

Among the visual artists receiving awards:

 

Charlie Citron (Amsterdam),
Trans-formations: History in the Present, exhibition of scrolls and photographs tracing the Spanish roots of the Dutch Jewish community, Stichting Nederland Sephardisch Erfgoed, Amsterdam;

 

Marian Hirschorn (Valby, Denmark), Excursion 68, an evocative photographic chronicle of Polish-Jewish immigrants in Denmark, Huset i Magstraede Gallery, Copenhagen;

 

Gillian Singer (Leeds), Contemporary Flashback, a collage of images etched and printed on glass, Ben Uri Gallery, London;

 

In the category of documentary films, winners include:

 

Jon Haukeland (Oslo) Well Dressed, Well Spoken, the story of a Polish-Jewish immigrant struggling with prejudice and alienation in Norway during the Second World War

 

Carlo Hinterman (Rome) A Little Yeshiva in Venice, a film exploring the complexities of Jewish life in Venice today.

 

For further information about the grant winners and applications for future grants, please refer to the website www.jewishcultureineurope.org

 

---

 

The shift to the right in Israeli public opinion

 

Professor Asher Arian of the Israel Democracy Institute, Jerusalem (and the Department of Political Science at the University of Haifa) a leading expert on Israeli public opinion, gave a JPR lecture and addressed a policy seminar on Israel’s election campaign. Both events took place just days before the January elections, and his comments on the campaign and predictions of the results were timely.

 

 

Since the outbreak of the second intifada and the election of Sharon in 2001 and with the increase in Palestinian terrorism, the focus of public debate had shifted from “where to draw lines” to how to cope with terror. There was a consensus among Israeli voters that the diplomatic option was static, with an inflexible military response the only option. The Left/Right dispute over settlements had been muted by the demand for the cessation of terror. It seemed from the election campaign that Israelis wanted a government to meet short-term and emotional needs rather than provide a long-term solution. In this way, Arafat had significantly influenced the election.

 

Professor Arian expected that the election would yield a government that was much the same as those that had preceded it, i.e. a right-wing government of Likud, right-wing parties and Orthodox parties. One of the reasons for this was based on responses to a question asked in public opinion polls continuously over more than thirty years. Asked to rank four criteria central to Israel’s ethos in terms of importance—equality and democracy, the Jewishness of the Jewish state, peace, and a Greater Israel—the Jewishness factor always received the highest ranking. Acceptance of religious parties in the coalition seemed to be the best way for secular voters to express this Jewishness issue.

 

The seminar was chaired by Vernon Bogdanor CBE, Professor of Government at Oxford University, and participants included  representatives from the Foreign Commonwealth Office, the BBC World Service, the Economist, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the head of the Electoral Commission.

 

---

 

JPR's Sixth Annual Seminar for the Jewish Voluntary Sector on Long-term Planning for British Jewry took place in December at Ort House.

 

---

JPR President Lord Haskel hosts annual lunch at the House of Lords to thank JPR Patrons

 

---

^{JPR News is edited by Judith Russell}

---