Let's unpack, shall we?
As we all probably know, the encroachment of hipsters, or, artistn, as the Hasidim call them in Yiddish, onto the Hasidic section of Williamsburg has sparked any number of uncomfortable encounters between the two groups. Hasidim want to maintain communal separation at all costs. They value modesty and group coherence, things not so fashionable in American mainstream culture, and certainly not so popular among the young, liberal, and at leisure. To what extent are the artistn obligated to tolerate intolerance, especially the perceived intolerance of the Hasidim who are their neighbors (and often landlords)?
These are certainly legitimate questions and there are times when some parts of the Hasidic community have pushed too far, as in the illegal sex-segregation of the B110 bus line, a privately operated bus route awarded to them by the government.
For some reason, however, the Post has taken a hodgepodge of issues and incidents and cooked up something which isn't just bad journalism, but reeks of bad intentions.
The story here is the 'outrage' of non-Hasidic customers at Hasidic businesses which have taken to posting signs saying "No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, No Low Cut Neckline Allowed in the Store." Just like the signs you see pretty much everywhere saying 'No shirt, no shoes, no service.' The signs in the Hasidic stores go an extra step in accordance with the modesty norms already practiced by their community.
It is perfectly legal to post (and enforce) dress requirements for a private business, as long as the owners are not discriminating against a protected class. The Post even points this out: "City lawyer Gabriel Taussig said the signs appeared kosher, provided they don’t “impermissibly discriminate based upon gender, religion or some other protected class.”
OK... then nobody's actually doing anything illegal. So, where's the outrage? Where are all the customers in Daisy Dukes humiliated and thrown out of stores up and down Lee Ave?
"When a Post reporter visited Lee Avenue in a sleeveless dress, some store owners stared at her shoulders, while others refused to look her in the face."
OY VEY TATENYU GOT IN HIMEL ELI ELI! CALL THE ACLU, THE LAWYERS GUILD AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ! A SHOPKEEPER STARED AT SOMEONE'S BARE SHOULDERS. (cue air raid sirens.)
Wait, what? That's it? Surely, there must be stories of customers being turned away, scorned, yelled at for flaunting their sexy, sexy shoulders, no?
Um, no. All the Post's got is a couple of hipsters miffed that their right to 'bare arms' (herp derp) might possibly be infringed in a perfectly legal way. This possibility is too terrible to bear without calling the white knights at the Post to the rescue:
“Religious freedom is one thing, but we do not have the right to enforce our beliefs on someone else,” charged Bob Kim, 39, comfy in tight jeans and a T-shirt.D'ja here that, Hasidim? Bob, Hana and Fabian want to be comfortable. It's hot as balls out here in Williamsburg. Not everyone is happier wearing 3 pounds of beaver fur on their heads all summer. Why do you want Bob, Hana and Fabian to be so hot? Why do you hate freedom, Hasidim? Why so fucking un-American, Hasidim?
“Why should they be able to say that on their signs? It’s not OK,” added Hana Dagostin, 32, wearing a sleeveless top.
“People should be able to wear what . . . makes them comfortable,” said Fabian Vega, 34, also wearing shorts and a T-shirt.
See, there's no story there. No one was even refused service (as far as the Post is reporting.) Since there's no actual story, the writers at the Post have no choice but to throw together a bunch of unrelated incidents (some legal and some not) and smear them all by association. What do the B110 bus, the air brushing of Hillary Clinton in the Yiddish papers and the bike lane kerfuffle have to do with the perfectly legal actions of some Hasidic business owners? How can a legitimate journalist honestly imply that there is something sinister about the community run Shomrim and Hatzolah? They can't, because to do so would be dishonest and a gross violation of journalistic ethics. The whole thrust of the article isn't to call attention to a real injustice but to sensationalize and exploit the differences between those funny looking Jews (with intolerable values) and their neighbors.
Which is why this article needs to be called out as some straight-up anti-semitic bullshit. The writers take minimally related incidents, wrap them around a non-story, and juxtapose THAT with quotes from experts suggesting (and stating) that the Hasidim of Williamsburg are "dangerous for tolerance.... and dangerous for peace." The odious (and unaccountable) "some people" are called in to claim that the Hasidic store policies are "un-American." Jesus Christ. What, did they edit out "rootless cosmopolitans" for word length? I mean, were "fifth column" or "dirty fucking Jews" not appropriate for a family paper like the New York Post? Why the hell did the legal actions of some store owners become an excuse for inexcusable race-baiting?
The New York Post, and its writers Gary Buiso and Kate Briquelet, need to re-think their casual anti-Semitism real quick. And they better remember that Jews read the paper on Sunday, too.