Author’s note –
This is the third and keynote post in a three part series. This post is not
intended to be read independent of first two posts. If you haven’t read the
earlier posts they are available HERE (scroll down for the earliest post).
I totally encourage and invite comments for or against. However, if you want to write something critical, my advice is to be sure to read the entire post first (actually, the entire series) and make an effort to understand what it says. I am saying this for your benefit.
I grant full permission for any medium to reprint and distribute this blog post in its entirety.
It appears that we are constantly hearing new stories of
seksual miscreants within the chareidi community. As such, we are convinced
that we are facing an epidemic. Yet, one common characteristic of an epidemic
is that sometimes new types of cases come up and are readily [mis]diagnosed as
“just another case” when it may not really be so.
I don’t doubt that there is much too much hanky-panky
going on and that some of the villains that have been exposed are truly guilty
of the allegations. But there is way too much sheker in this world to allow us
to take everything that we read and hear (and certainly do not see for
ourselves) at face value. Every rumor and news story has to be evaluated for
what it says and what it doesn’t say.
The story that I want to discuss is the case of Malka Leifer, the former Headmistress of the Adass school in Australia. I was first
inspired to write about it when I saw a post in Rabbi Eidenson’s Daas Torah Blog
way back on Friday, June 3. Since then, I have seen many variations of this news
item in various media and Rabbi Eidenson has since moved on to discuss other
known sex offenders (who may or may not be living two doors away from me).
It took me much research to get a firm grasp on this
story and everything that I write about it has been gleaned from copious
Internet sources, some more reliable than others. Here is the scoop:
Malka Leifer is an Israeli woman who was recruited by the
ultra-Chareidi Adass community in Melbourne, Australia to head the girls’ high
school. She came in 2001 bringing the younger five of her eight children. The
sources indicate that her husband was only in Australia occasionally.
Around March, 2008, a former student living in E”Y
accused Malka Leifer of “sexual” misconduct. When the allegations reached
Australia, they were initially met with disbelief. Within a week or two,
however, the allegations were intensified. About March 12, an investigation was
opened at the school board. A hasty commission (with a beis din) convened and
decided to immediately terminate her employment. Within 24 hours, they spirited
her and her family out of Australia back to E”Y.
In 2012, some of the accusers filed criminal complaints
in Australia and she was indicted in absentia for 74 counts of “indecent
assault” and “rape”. The Australian authorities made a formal request for
extradition and Malka Leifer was placed in house arrest in Eretz Yisroel in Sept.
2014. Since then, there have been about 8 or 10 scheduled hearings for
extradition but she missed every single one of them claiming to be beset with
panic attacks.
The current news item of June 3, 2016 is that an Israeli
judge, Amnon Cohen, ruled that she is currently unfit for extradition, that she
is to be released from house arrest, her bail money restored, and she must undergo
psychiatric treatment for six months. Extradition hearings are now suspended
until October 2016.
As to be expected, this ruling caused an uproar among the
“accusers”, supporters and child advocacy groups who were bent on her
extradition and are calling for her blood.
Kill the beastie. Slit her throat. Spill her blood!
There is currently a petition initiated by the Tzed-ikim
– Manny Waks, Michelle Meyer and Fiona
Sweet-Formiatti (I do not think she is Jewish) – calling for her
extradition. One letter from Change.org reads: "Malka Leifer must face 74 child-sex
(emphasis mine – YH) charges in Australia." This petition has 1758 supporters as
of this writing.
The second one from Tzedek.org.au (Michelle Meyer and Manny
Waks) claims 3365 supporters. The text is much milder “Bring Leifer to Justice”
but the description clearly says: But we need your help today. Malka Leifer is still
walking free overseas and escaping 74 charges of child sexual assault
- it's abhorrent. Please join us today in emailing the Israeli Justice Minister
urging for Malka Leifer to be extradited to Melbourne to face
charges immediately.
All told,
this adds up to over 5100 supporters, most of them Jewish and many of them even
mitzvah observant.
5100
consumers that do not know how to think like a Jew!
If you
are reading this (and read my previous two posts) and do not recognize what is
wrong here – I strongly fear that you may be just like them.
Before we
go on, there is one episode of this drama that I have thus far omitted.
In Sept.
2015, one of the alleged victims was awarded by the Australian Supreme Court a
judgment of $1.27M (I assume Australian dollars). Even though Malka Leifer was
named in the suit and $150K out of the sum total were an “exemplary charge”
against Leifer (exclusively); still, the primary defendant in this suit was the
Adass school that employed her. She was not there to challenge any of the
accusations, so, naturally, the accusations went unchallenged.
In his
ruling, “Justice Jack Rush condemned Leifer, who is challenging extradition
proceedings in Israel to face a criminal trial in Melbourne, as “evil”
and “wanton”, and said the school acted “in complete disregard of Leifer’s
victims” when a committee arranged Leifer’s hasty departure from
Melbourne to Israel in 2008.”
Such are the facts of the case as I was able to determine
from many Internet news sites and some [muck-raker] blogs.
At this stage, let us use the Julius Caesar approach. I
am not [yet] going to suggest that the accused Mrs. Leifer is an innocent shepsel.
From the articles I read, taken at face value, there seems to be a significant
amount of “raglayim l’davar” to suggest the accusations have merit. For the
moment let us not whitewash this accusation one iota. Let us look at her as:
Guilty as charged!
What I want to bring out are things that any religious
Jew should find disturbing even if she really is guilty as charged.
It goes without saying that I did a lot of work trying to
find out as much as possible about this case before I put my neck out to write
about it. Some of the things I found were astounding along with some things I
didn’t find or almost didn’t find.
One thing that puzzled me is that I could not find a
single recent news item anywhere that knew enough about Mrs. Leifer to tell us
how old she is, as is the standard in any news story. Eventually, I found one
blog post dating back to 2008 which says that she was (in 2008) “believed to be in
the late 40s”. We understand from all this that the media does not know a lot
about her past.
Why is this important? Because, if this is accurate, it
means that she was about forty years old when she first arrived in Australia.
Those who understand seksual abuse know that it is almost unheard of for a
person to only first become a seksual predator in middle life. Invariably, a middle
aged molester is a more advanced younger aged molester. As such, I searched and
searched all news items and blogs to find if there were any allegations of any
seksual misconduct by the accused prior to 2001. I also looked to see if there
were any allegations whatsoever of seksual misconduct subsequent to 2008. This
means over the past 8 years.
On both accounts, so far I found nothing! Absolutely
nothing!!
Another thing that was very difficult to find – but I
finally got it – is that, apparently, she has not admitted to any allegations. In
fact, the blog world’s leading source of Lashon Hara/Motzi Shem Rah, Failed
Messiah, RIP, wrote as follows in this timeline post:
·
Leifer maintained her innocence and refused to leave.
· But the next day, Adass members arranged for Leifer's and her whole
family's immediate travel to Israel and Leifer flees Australia – apparently
because of Gordon's threat to call police.
We also know that there was a civil judgement against her
and the school in Australia, but evidently she wasn’t present. So, thus far,
she has never stood trial not in a court and not in a beis din and has not been
proven guilty of anything.
So, the mindset of any kosher Jew needs to be as follows:
She claims she is innocent and her accusers claim she is
guilty. She has absolutely no record of wrongdoing for all of her life outside
of the seven years she spent in Australia. She hasn’t stood trial anywhere. We
know of no objective witnesses (neemanus) and of no physical evidence (umdena
d’muchach) and most likely no individual accusation can be corroborated by a
second person of any gender. So, for any specific accusation it’s the single
accuser’s word against hers. Since I haven’t the foggiest idea, I should just be
patient and wait for more details. In the meantime, every person has a
chezkas kashrus.
But if you ask just about anybody who is following this
case, they are absolutely convinced that she is guilty. My feeling is that
even Rabbi Eidenson thinks so (by virtue of the fact that he made no protest of the situation). After all, she ran. (Well, not really. she was shipped
out against her will.) And she refuses to show up in court in Israel. (Would
you?) And the Supreme Court in Australia paskened a $1.27 million judgement
against her and the school/shul (without her or anyone being available to
counter the victims’ claims). So she must be guilty – Raglayim l’davar!
So let’s assume that she is totally guilty. But here is the rub:
The news items indicate that many Jewish people both in
Israel and in Australia want her to be extradited back to Australia.
Why?
Is it so that she can boldly defend herself in court and
thereby show the world that these allegations are totally baseless so that we
can all sleep better at night?
This is not what Manny Waks and Michelle Meyer and Shana
Aaronson are saying. No, they want her extradited so she can be turned over to
the Australian authorities and stand trial in their court and pay dearly for
her unsubstantiated crimes. And they are crying that it is so
complicated.
In other words, they want her sent back to Australia so
they can immediately mahsser her to the non-Jews. This is so she can be tried for
alleged crimes that have no basis in the Torah, in a non-Jewish court using non-Jewish standards
which will accept subjective uncorroborated one-witness testimony with no
physical evidence whatsoever in order to throw her into a non-Jewish prison for what would
probably be the rest of her natural life.
In short, the sole purpose for this extradition is to
serve justice! To make the evil Mrs. Leifer a lifer!
Justice must be served! Hang the rustlers. Kill the
beastie!
And something bothered me. Very much. Very, very much.
You see, we have a psak pesuka from Harav Hagaon R. Dovid
Cohen, Shlita that one can immediately turn over a molester to the police no questions
asked. Of course, he did mention something in passing about a consultation for
the offender to give him (or her) a chance to defend himself, but let’s not get
bogged down in trivialities. When asked why this is permissible, he replied
because a molester has a din of a rodef and/or מצער את הצבור.
Let’s buy that.
Likewise, 107 prominent Rabbanim came out with a Kol Koreh that states that one who even suspects child abuse must promptly report
it to law enforcement. Why? Because this is called Lo Taamod!
Let’s buy this, too. (Though we may later examine exactly
until how old one remains a child from the Torah’s perspective.)
In other words, it is permissible to turn in a molester
in order to protect the community members (always: “children”) who are in
danger. It is a question of rodef and Lo taamod! It is for protection!
Excuse me, but if I read the news reports correctly, this
lady is currently in Eretz Yisroel and has no plans to ever set foot in
Australia ever again. They drove her out of the country. There is not a single
person in all of Australia that is in danger of her. Where is the rodef? Where
is the Lo Taamod??
Why on earth should anybody from Australia want her back
for any reason whatsoever? They ran her out. They protected their community.
Done.
Now, it may be apropos to discuss how she should be
handled in Eretz Yisroel, but to extradite her to Australia for the sole
(i.e., exclusive, only) purpose of mahssering her to the
non-Jews? And people are “Outraged” that this is not happening!! And the “religious”
commenters on the Daas Torah blog and other such publications אשר לא יודעים בין ימינם ושמאלם
are sharing in this “outrage” and calling for blood!
Kill the beastie! Kill the pig. Slit her throat! Spill
her blood!
Why? To protect who?
Let me repeat - We are talking about sending a frum Jewish woman who keeps mitzvos and kashrus and covers her hair and who claims to be innocent
from E”Y to Chutz L”Aretz for the sole purpose of turning her over to
non-Jewish authorities! To face trial on their terms and to sit in their jail.
This is not to protect anybody in Australia and it is quite doubtful, at this point, if there is a need to protect anybody here in E”Y. This is strictly for “Justice” (i.e., revenge)!
Are you a Torah observant Jew? Are you not outraged at
this ubiquitous consumerist “Outrage”?
So the genie is out of the bottle – מתוך שהותרה מסירה לגויים לצורך פיקוח נפש
(רודף) הותרה נמי שלא לצורך פיקוח נפש (כשאינו רודף).
Mitoch she’hutra for what we call a “child molester” or "pedophile" hutra nami for one who is not a “child molester” or "pedophile".
Now that I mentioned “the Genie”, I think I need to dwell
on it a bit. I first mentioned “the Genie” in a post I wrote in 2009 in regard
to the Markey Bill. This is a proposed bill in the NY State legislature aimed
at removing the statute of limitations for sex crimes. Agudas Yisroel opposed
the bill for the following reason:
The bill would open the door for people to sue both
perpetrators and institutions for compensation for offenses committed long ago.
In practice, however, since perpetrators are usually broke, it won’t be
worthwhile for victims to sue them. They will more often vent their wrath
against the institutions or organizations that provided the venue for the
offense so long ago; in many, if not most, cases, this happened without their
being aware of it. From a Halachic standpoint, it is very questionable if the
institutions are at fault and should have any liability even if it happened
yesterday. How much more so, if the current status and administration personnel
of the institution are not the same as at the time of the offense.
In short, this is a bill which, more often than not, would
unjustly squeeze money from, and possibly cripple or destroy, reputable
institutions and do nothing to punish or discourage perpetrators and to reduce
any future abuse. Even if the intent of the bill is to be helpful, the probable
result will be needlessly destructive. It makes no sense to support such a
bill. I concurred with this position in my post.
Let’s return to our case. As noted, a significant news item related to this case is that last September one of the alleged victims won
a $1.27 million judgement. This has served to bolster the feeling of many that
the accused is indeed guilty. Most people do not notice that a second lawsuit
was dropped. Allegedly, there was an out-of-court settlement. Out-of-court
settlements usually mean that the plaintiff’s case had cracks in it.
Yet, there was a large judgement. Against who?
Well, although a part of it (less than 15%) was directly applied
to the accused offender – in absentia, the lion’s share was applied to the
school (who tried to “pass the buck” to the shul).
I learned many things from this news report. One thing is
that the alleged victim is 28 years old in 2015 and is claiming that she was
abused from 2003-2006. This means the abuse started when she was 16 years old
(other reports said 15) and lasted for four years until she was about 19 (or
18). In all this time, she never formally complained to anybody about the
abuse. We will talk more about this later.
All the reports seem to say that the school was not
alerted of any wrongdoing by anybody until 2008 and though it may have taken up
to two weeks to accept that there was a problem, the school immediately shipped
her out of Australia for good, thus protecting the students in the best way
possible.
I have not seen anybody reported to have a problem with
this judgement. The impression I get is that all of the victim’s advocacy
groups and most armchair quarterbacks are applauding it.
Good for these victims!! More power to them!! Use it in
good health!! Enjoy all the well-deserved gelt that you ---
fleeced from a school that did you no wrong merely because you couldn’t reek
your vengeance on the true perpetrator.
If there was ever any need for proof of the validity of
the Agudas Yisroel position that the Markey bill would be used primarily to
fleece mostly blameless Yeshivos and organizations, and would not do a tittle
to reduce abuse cases, nor would it likely affect past abusers, I could not
have found a better true-to-life poster-child example than this case.
Now, everything that I have written to this point is
based on the assumption that every allegation took place exactly as described
by the accusers and that Malka Leifer is the most evil machashefa who ever
walked the earth. That she is a lezbian pedophile
and a rapist and a child abuser as so
many news items and advocates proclaimed. An incorrigible monster. A menace to
society.
I have not whitewashed this story a drop.
And still, there is absolutely no hetter to even think of
extraditing this woman to Australia and there is no Halachic justification for
the poor abused victims to fleece the school in lieu of restitution from the actual
molester.
The truth is that I honestly feel
that there is a basis to these allegations. When eight to ten adult women give
similar accounts of molestation, it is hard dismiss it out of hand.
Note, I did not write that I “believe” that
the charges are true or that I “think” the charges are true, just
that I feel that they are true. It’s just a feeling.
Evidently, this feeling is shared by many, many more
people who know nothing more than what they read in the Internet. Yet, most
members of The Ox Bow Incident posse felt that Donald
Martin was a cattle rustler and the entire jury in To Kill a Mockingbird felt
that Tom Robinson was a rapist. And a whole island full of boys “knew” there
was a “beastie”. But they were wrong.
Only happens in fiction. Right?
The problem is that we Jews have Halachos that tell us
that we are not allowed to rely on our feelings to prosecute anybody in any
form. Our feelings may not be accurate. Consumers rely on their feelings. Not
on what they know to be true.
We cannot be consumers. We cannot treat feelings as a
given. In extreme cases we can rely on them to protect, but not to prosecute.
So, let’s put aside our feelings and think about this
like a Jew or, as Rav Y. D. Soloveitchik, ZT”L might say, like a Halachic Man.
And don’t forget the Chofetz Chaim who, aside from telling us that to be dan
l’kaf zechus is an obligation, he also tells us the criteria for being malshin.
Among these is: Not to embellish the truth.
So let’s look at the truth from the Torah’s eyes and do a
little bit of “whitewashing”. Note – At this point I am still
maintaining that all the allegations are true!
Who is Malka Leifer?
Is she a pedophile?
No. A pedophile is one who has a primary or exclusive
seksual attraction toward pre-pubescent children. Nobody has even accused her
of abusing anybody under the age of 15.
Is she a sex offender by Torah standards?
Ironic as it seems, intimate activity between grown
females does not fall under the classification of a seksual act.
Is she a transgressor of any serious Torah prohibitions
ben Adam L’Makom?
Not really. The Rambam that we quoted in the last post
says there is no explicit Torah prohibition for this behavior. Though it does
call for makkos mardus.
Is she a rapist?
There are two problems with applying the term “rape”. One
is that it implies a forbidden seksual act and, by Torah standards, female
intimacy does not really qualify. The second is that it implies physical
coercion (certainly by the Torah’s definition). Although this case involves
unsolicited “touching” and intimidation or manipulation of very naïve and
vulnerable teenagers, there was no claim of actual coercion.
So, is she a “Child sex abuser”?
Thus far we have established that from a Torah
perspective there were no “children” and there was no “sex” involved. Also no
physical coercion. So, not really. From a Western standpoint where one can be
called a “child” (and thus be absolved from personal responsibility) way past
puberty, and where any intimate act is considered “sex”, and where any form of
duress is called “coercion”, the term will fit.
Is she a confirmed or “serial” sex predator?
As I wrote, I have yet to find a single report of any
kind of molestation prior to 2003 nor subsequent to 2008. Until proven
otherwise, the answer is no.
Is she a lezbian?
It appears that all of this activity happened only in
Australia and was very likely a result of unfulfilled intimate urges due to her
husband being constantly absent. Thus, it was probably only a substitute for
the preferred but lacking heteroseksual intimacy. So the answer is no.
So, after all this, all of the news reports and blogs
that embellish the story with descriptions of Mrs. Leifer as a “pedophile”,
“rapist”, “lesbian”, or “child sex abuser” are more or less false. There is no
indication that any of these descriptions are applicable.
So far, I still haven’t even suggested that the
allegations themselves are untrue.
At this stage, I want to stick in one piece of limud
zechus. This is a known fact that I wrote about in previous posts. A large
percentage of seksual “predators”, if not the majority, were themselves victims
of abuse. With this in mind, I have written previously that even confirmed
predators need to be treated with this consideration. Of course, we may need to
put this consideration on the back burner when the welfare of others is at
stake, but to repeat the main point of this entire post: the welfare of others
is not at stake in this case.
After we know all this, we can perhaps shed some light on
Mrs. Leifer and this is my personal take. Mrs. Leifer was a tough lady on the
outside but a somewhat troubled and very insecure person on the inside. Perhaps
she had a history of being abused herself. She probably initially thought she
could handle the loneliness of being overseas and of rarely seeing her husband
but it eventually overwhelmed her and she was too ashamed to quit or to demand
more availability from her husband. The students were indeed naïve and
vulnerable and thus she indeed turned into a temporary molester and manipulated them. Still and all,
none of this involved transgressing or causing the girls to transgress any
severe issurim of the Torah. Also, though legally minors, they were still not
children and they were still not forced. They played an active role in this
drama. A passive one but an active one nonetheless. I will expound on this part
later.
This obviously does not exonerate her behavior but it is
something to consider when we think how appropriate it is to send her back to
Australia to be treated like the lesbian, pedophile, rapist, serial sex
offender and sinner that she clearly is not.
I’m not done.
All of this is still assuming that all of the allegations
are 100% true.
Warning! - We are about to enter the twilight zone where white becomes black and black becomes white. Some readers seem to be put off by suggestions that challenge their pre-conceived notions of innocence, guilt, and victimhood. If you are such a reader, please skip this section until the "End of Twilight Zone" notice.
But are they? What do we know about the veracity of the allegations?
Did she confess to any wrongdoing?
No she did not.
Did she run away?
According to famed schmutz-raker Failed Messiah, “Leifer maintained her innocence and refused to
leave.” Trust me, when he writes something that isn’t schmutz, you can believe
it.
Was she proven guilty in
any court or beis din?
She has not attended
either one.
Are there any objective
witnesses?
No news item seemed to say
that there are.
Is there any physical
evidence?
How can there possibly be?
So, then, what is there?
Nothing at all except for
the tearful testimony of the several victims, three of whom are sisters.
Are there any two victims
that can testify to any given event to corroborate the testimony?
Could be, but nothing as
such was reported. And if there are, the questions that I pose further on about
their prolonged silence is only magnified.
So – what do we know about
these victims?
In general we know scant
little. The most we know about are the three sisters because they are the ones
that sued the school.
Are they nice frum eidel
girls that came from a happy healthy loving home whose innocence was suddenly
snatched away by this “wanton, evil” woman?
They may have been nice
and frum and eidel but it is questionable how innocent. From The Age (Victoria):
The former student, now 27, told
the court she was brought up in a family dominated by her physically
abusive mother and that Mrs Leifer offered to help her.
And again: The alleged victim said she feared Mrs Leifer would tell
others in the ultra-orthodox Adass community about her abusive home life,
which would damage her marriage prospects.
And in this tabloid (UK Daily Mail): Leifer allegedly began grooming
the student, using the girl’s physically abusive home life as a
way to get close to her, Victoria’s Supreme Court heard this week.
Okay,
Houston, we have a problem. Evidently, according to these news-rags, these
girls had a physically abusive mother (or “home life”). While this does not
mitigate the abusiveness of Mrs. Leifer, it does add another player into the
mix. Firstly, let me restate the rule of b’chlal ma'atayim manna – included
into 200 is 100. This means that there is no such thing as only physical
abuse at the hands of a parent. If a parent physically abuses a child, there is
inevitably emotional abuse in the package. So these two sources, if they can be
believed, indicate that these three girls were already subject to
physical and emotional abuse at home.
At
what age? Well, if one has an abusive parent, it usually is in effect from day
one. So, for instance, these girls were seemingly abused – perhaps not
seksually, but at least physically and emotionally - by their mother continuously
when they were three years old and when they were six years old, and when they
were nine, and twelve, etc. And now, at 15, comes Mrs. Leifer and takes advantage of
the situation.
So,
without absolving any blame due to Malka Leifer, I still have an issue in the Age Victoria article: The court heard on
Wednesday that the former student's abuse started in 2002, when she was 15, and
as a result had suffered flashbacks, nightmares, persistent depression,
post traumatic stress disorder and at one point was suicidal.
All of the above
indicates that these girls may have come from troubled backgrounds. They may
have been troubled girls for many years before they come into the
clutches of the wicked schoolmistress. Now, it is quite likely that the added
abuse by Mrs. Leifer brought things to a climax as the gemara tells us (Baba
Kamma 51a): If one digs a pit 9 tefachim (not enough to cause death of an
animal) and a second comes and completes it to 10 tefachim (capable of causing
death), the second digger is liable. So, based on this, Mrs. Leifer should
carry the full brunt of the damage.
Nevertheless,
this only applies if the first digger had not already achieved the 10-tefach
death-capable mark. However, if the first digger initially dug the pit a full
10 tefachim and the second one only added to that amount, they are equally liable.
So
before we determine if the abuse from Mrs. Leifer is what brought the "pit to
its death-mark” and "as a result" brought about the “flashbacks, nightmares, PTSD, and
suicidal [tendencies]”, we must determine if the pit was not already at
the death mark from the initial abuse that took place at home. Perhaps there should
be another $150K “exemplary charge” against the mother of the girls??
I
am only half kidding. As I wrote in previous posts, I am not unfamiliar with
cases of covering up domestic abuse by blaming someone else from outside the
home. You know who else did just that? Mayella Ewell. Her father beat her up and she swore to the court that it was Tom Robinson
(fiction again, right?)
And
even if the second person is indeed blameworthy, the question becomes: is the
second person as blameworthy as he or she is being made out to
be?
A
few more questions about these victims.
How
old were they?
Some
reports just approximated 15-16 years old. But the report about the $1.27M
judgement revealed a lot more. It said that the victim, now 28 (in 2015) was
contending she was abused from 2003-2006. This works out to four years from
16-19 even though another report indicates more like 15-18. One report said,
“Until she was married.”
Four
years?? Four years of abuse?? The abuse was not a solitary incident nor a
string of solitary incidents. It was four years of continuous abuse. And she
(or her sisters) told nobody?
Did
they tell their own mother?
Two
possibilities, either they did or they didn’t. If they didn’t - why not? The
easy answer would be that their relationship with their mother was strained
(due to past abuse) and they couldn’t or wouldn’t. The other possibility is
that they did tell her and she didn’t believe them or act on it. Both
possibilities run along the same track and indirectly make the mother an
accessory to the abuse.
Did
they tell the school or anybody else?
It
doesn’t look like it. And why not?
The
news items present us with a myriad explanations:
(1)
Naiveté - They were from such a sheltered environment cut off from
all outside influences that they had no clue what was happening.
(2)
Brainwashing – They were told that this is a preparation for
marriage and a worthy act.
(3)
Insecurity – They did not think they would be believed.
(4)
Shame – It would hinder their prospects for shidduchim.
(5)
Fear of G-d – They did not want to stumble in Lashon Hara and
Mesira
(6)
Fear of [Wo]Man (Intimidation) - As one report wrote, Mrs. Leifer
threatened to reveal her “abusive home” and ruin her shidduch prospects.
And
we can add to the above:
(7)
Complacency – After a while they just got used to it.
All
of these are presented in the press (perhaps not #7) and they all make sense. They are all
valid explanations for their silence. However, explanations are not always
excuses.
Note
that there is a conflict between explanations 1-2 to explanations 3-7. Explanations 1-2
suggest the victim(s) had no idea that she was doing anything forbidden, but
explanations 3-7 suggest that she was quite aware that there is something wrong
and they kept quiet anyway. Up to the age of 18 and beyond!
So
she (or they) kept silent. For four years. They went along with Mrs. Leifer and
complied with her antics. It was certainly for all the above reasons, but they complied
with her nonetheless. They basically unwittingly collaborated with their
abuser.
This
condition is called: Co-dependency. Co-dependency is a
form of abuse and victimization but the victim herself plays a part in it.
I
do not want to judge but I do want to question:
Until
what age is it acceptable to be naïve and brainwashed? At what point is a
person obligated to realize that if he/she does not scream out he/she is giving
tacit consent to what is happening to them?
The
Torah (Devarim 22:24) tells us that the 12 year old na’ara is liable (as far as death) for the
fact that she didn’t scream. She is guilty because she did not alert anybody. These
victims began at 15 or 16 but they let this business go on until 18 or 19. They
let it go on.
Now,
I really do not mean to call the victims “guilty”. I fully sympathize with them
for the [alleged] abuse itself and the fear and shame and insecurity and
confusion that compelled them to keep silent. Their pain and silence can be understood
and accepted...until they use the silence as a weapon!
It
is one thing to invoke these explanations to defend one’s inactions, but it is
quite another to use them to incriminate another’s.
So
let’s talk about the school. What did the school contribute to this drama?
There
is no evidence that the school administration was aware of anything until a few
days before she was shipped back to E”Y. And why should they? The girls did not
tell the school officials, they did not even tell their own parents.
[Incidentally,
one schmutz-raker blog that calls itself Frum Follies was ardently searching
for some proof that the school knew about it beforehand. The best he could come
up with was a very vague statement in a court document that said: she confirmed the plaintiff’s allegations with the
plaintiff’s sister and a person at the School.
I don’t think there is any proof in this statement. Firstly, this record is the testimony of the plaintiff and to be 'proof', this has to come from a source other than the uncorroborated word of the plaintiff. Moreover, even if his assertion were established, it only tells us that the school was aware sometime in 2007. To implicate the school, it must be established that they were aware of misconduct when it was taking place which is from 2003-2006. 2007 is after the fact. In addition, we are not clear exactly who was this "person at the school”, what exactly this person “confirmed”, when this confirmation took place, or even if “a person at the school” implies an additional person other than the plaintiff’s sister. Outside of this, I have not found anything at all to suggest that the school knew anything before March of 2008 and neither has he.]
Did Mrs. Leifer have any past
history of accusations which the school should have checked into?
Nothing
of the kind was reported.
What
did the school do as soon as the allegations broke out?
They
did the best possible thing they could do for the entire Jewish community – they
shipped Mrs. Leifer out of Australia ASAP.
Of
course, this did make it a bit difficult to administer “justice”. Evidently, at
least 5100 people and all of the victims think that “justice” is more important
than protecting potential victims.
Let’s
kill the rodef even if it won’t save the nirdaf!!
So
the “victims”, who are now in their mid-20s, no longer need protection. Yet, it
seems that they must have “justice” (i.e., compen$ation). Tzedek, tzedek
tirdof. They must pursue “justice” no matter what it takes. Unfortunately for
them, they cannot obtain compensation “justice” from the actual predator,
Malka Leifer, so they have to go to the Supreme Kangaroo Kourt and sue the
school for the abuse they suffered by their not telling the school what was
going on!
They
are blaming the school for their (and their parents’) own silence! And they are
blaming the school for doing the right thing when they were informed – for getting
rid of the danger!
Mind-boggling.
And
for this “infraction”, they feel justified in taking $1.27 million from the school or,
subsequently, from the community or whoever will be footing the bill (which
will not be Malka Leifer).
Yes,
Justice Jack Rush (is he Jewish?) came down hard on that school. For what? Was
it for enabling and protecting the “wanton, evil” Malka Leifer for seven years? No
sir-ee. Nobody could prove that. He came down on them for “not acting in the
victims’ interest” by promptly skirting Mrs. Leifer overseas! In Kangaroo
logic, it was in the victims’ best interest for the school not to
ship her off! And the school was so apologetic and in denial of the fact that they
arranged for her departure.
Can
somebody explain this to me? (I am sorry, I can only think like a Jew.) The
school should put out ads in every paper: Yes, we paid to ship her off. It
was the right thing to do! And they should be commended for it, not
punished.
Not
likely. My experience is that when the purse strings are loosening, details of
a story tend to change. Amazingly, cases of mild distress evolve into tales of
excruciating atrocities the moment it ups the ante. There was nobody present
who could contradict the victim on any “details” and the secular courts are
quick to accept uncorroborated testimony from tearful victims. I can think up
1.27 million reasons for this "victim" to bend a few facts.
I
am sorry to say, Miss Ewell, or “Deborah” or “Rebecca” or "Hadassa", or whoever you are, but
when the cash register is ringing, victimhood stops here. It just isn't Ehrlich!
So
my final question about the accusers:
Are
they Nogeah b’eidusan?
Very
much so.
End of Twilight Zone
So
this concludes the “whitewash” segment of this post. It is merely food for
thought and you are entitled to disregard the entire segment.
After all of this we are left with three possibilities:
(1) Malka
Leifer is the exclusive villain
(2) Malka
Leifer is one villain out of a group (albeit the “active” ingredient)
(3) Malka
Leifer is not a villain at all.
Most of us probably feel that either 1 or 2
is applicable, but we are not a bunch of cowboys or boy savages. We are Jews.
We cannot act on our feelings, only on what we know.
So let’s go back to what is indisputable:
We have established that Malka Leifer is not a pedophile.
There are no grounds to say that she is lezbian. There are no witnesses to her
wrongdoing. She confessed to nothing. Her alleged deeds do not transgress any severe
issurei Torah. Her victims were not physically forced. They were teen-agers, not
children. At worst she is an unscrupulous sex fiend. And she is not a threat to
anybody in Australia and hasn’t been one for 8 years. She cannot be called a
rodef. There is no sakana in Australia at present.
As such, I am writing the following as halacha l’maasa (al
pi darko shel HaChofetz Chaim) even if she is fully guilty of
everything her accusers claim and I don’t care what any other Rav paskens:
There is no heter whatsoever to extradite a Jewish woman
to Australia. Period. As such, if any Jew whatsoever actively participates,
aids or abets, calls for or even comments in a blog or news post in favor
of extraditing this woman to Australia:
·
They will carry the
full brunt of issur mesira including losing their chelek in Olam Haba
·
They are in violation
of כי יגנב נפש
מאחיו והתעמר בו ומכרו which is the primary לא תגנוב of the Ten Commandments and a potential חיוב מיתה.
·
Anybody who testifies
against her in the Kangaroo court down under is in violation of לא יקום עד אחד באיש
since it is virtually impossible that there are two witnesses to any given
event.
I have absolutely no doubt that the Chofetz Chaim would
agree with me and add to this list.
Hence:
·
The accusers must immediately withdraw all criminal charges in Australia
against Malka Leifer.
·
They must urge the
Australian authorities to terminate the extradition request.
· They must inform the
authorities that in the event that Mrs. Leifer is brought back to Australia,
they will not cooperate with the prosecution and they will not testify at trial.
· If they indeed
collected any monetary awards from anybody other than Mrs. Leifer, they must
return it forthwith.
· If they do not do
this voluntarily, the school should call the accusers to a Din Torah and
compel them to either prove that the school is responsible for personal damages
al pi din or to renounce the monetary award of the court.
·
Manny Waks, Michelle
Meyer, and Fiona
Sweet-Formiatti must terminate and withdraw all petitions.
· The Attorney General
of E”Y, if he is shomer Torah as he appears, must do everything in his power to
block extradition if it costs him his job.
·
All criminal or
monetary complaints against Mrs. Leifer must be filed exclusively in Eretz
Yisroel. We have plenty of Batei Dinim here and kangaroo courts that put
Australia’s to shame – just ask Meir Ettinger! We also have some wonderful
prisons (if it comes to that, R”L) where she can keep Shabbos and Yom tov and
cover her hair and even get Glatt Kosher food (Bedatz) and everything!
I will have no active part in this חילול השם.
Call me a pompous hothead, radical, rabble rouser, lunatic,
nutcase, crankshaft, meshugenah, am haaretz, Chossid shoteh, misnaged shoteh, or
anything you want
(you won’t be the first, just no death threats, please). But…
…ignore my words at your own peril, Shmerel.
Because anybody who conspires to send this woman Down
Under is going down under a lot faster and further than she is.
כי נבלה עשתה בישראל וכן לא יעשה