Australia is
a very strange place.
Aesthetically it is known to be a very beautiful place. Breathtaking scenery, lots of sunshine and greenery and nice urban areas, as well. The folks there are very friendly to each other and even address their fellows as "mates".
כולה משקה כגן השם כארץ מצרים באכה מלבורנה.
Kind of like Sodom.
But, to us, it is strange. It is totally on the other side of the world, beneath the equator and many time
zones away. Their winter is our summer and their summer our winter. Despite the British influence from the colonial era and our "common language", it is a
foreign land with a foreign culture. Strange plants and stranger beasts. To me,
it comes across as a very inhospitable place that has always been dominated by
the law of the jungle – might makes right.
Kind of like Sodom.
We know that
parts of it used to be a British penal colony. All the rough and tumble
riffraff was sent there to fend for themselves. These were the original “white
men” of Australia. These were the ones that subdued the natives and
industrialized the continent. They “civilized” it to be just like Europe. Just
like the noble Spanish conquistadors who wiped out built up Latin America and just like the puritan Dutch who adored abhorred apartheid in
Africa. These are the good white folks who run the place today. And they
haven’t changed much.
Many people
assume that Australia is a liberal western democracy like all others. This is
not entirely true. It is indeed very liberal – anything goes. It can also be
called “western” as in the “wild west”. (I think they call it “outback” there.)
And I guess it can be called a “democracy”. They vote for their tyrannical rulers
– just like we Americans do. But even if it may be the home of the brave, it is
not the land of the free.
It is known
as the only western land with a constitution that does not have a Bill of
Rights. As such, there is no basic right to free speech, no basic right to
privacy, to remain silent or to bear arms. Many of these things are protected
by what is called “common law” or by separate state laws but they are not
fundamental rights.
It is almost
the same thing, so what is the difference?
The
difference is as follows. If something is a fundamental right, the burden of proof
is on the aggressor that he did not infringe upon the rights of the victim. If
it is only a common law, such as a law that forbids “invasion of privacy” even
though there is no basic right to privacy, then the burden of
proof is on the victim to prove that the law protecting his privacy was
violated.
Kind of like Sodom.
Of course,
our State of Israel is a very close rival. I am not sure why the sources that
stated that Australia is "the only” western liberal democracy that does not
have a bill of rights overlooked our tiny enclave. It may be because we are
considered a middle eastern “oriental” country and not “western” (even though
they are way more “east” than we are). Or it may be because, not only do we
lack a bill of rights, but we don’t even have a constitution! Hence, Australia
is the only western liberal democracy with a constitution that has no Bill of
Rights.
As such, I am
told that there is a lot of unrest going on down [under] there of late. This is
largely due to very draconian Covid and vaccination mandates for which there is
no legal recourse to oppose. To begin with, Victoria and NSW have just undergone
a four-month total lockdown – the longest in the world! They have even closed
borders between their own neighboring states.
Kind of like Sodom.
I am told that
people – adults and minors - have been physically forced to be vaccinated
against their will (this is not verified). People who don’t want to vax are losing their jobs and
livelihood and peaceful, protesters are getting arrested, fined and beaten up.
Oh, and qualified doctors are losing their licenses.
Kind of like Sodom.
This is really something for the nation that ranks 103 in total cases (Israel
is 31) and 164 in cases per million (Israel is 14 and ahead of the US); 111 in total deaths (Israel is 61) and 170 in
deaths per million (Israel is 81). They sure have one deadly plague raging there!
To be fair,
there are indeed strict Covid mandates here in Israel and in the US and other “democratic”
countries. Nevertheless, Australia stands out as the most unforgiving and heavy
handed and causing the most economic and social damage for a very trivial
amount of actual damage from the “pandemic”. (Don't more people die from snake bites and croc attacks there every year?)
Sure enough, the
ground is shaking in Australia. On Sept. 21 (the first day of Sukkos), there
was a 5.9 magnitude earthquake in the vicinity of Melbourne. Earthquakes over there
are very rare, and some reports said that it was the most powerful on record.
It caused a good deal of moderate damage and, B”H, no serious casualties.
According to the NY Times, “the quake…collapsed the walls of buildings in
Melbourne... It forced residents to flee apartments, shattered windows, left
cracks in roads and led to power outages.”
I wonder if anyone’s sukka collapsed!
In
any case, we Torah Jews are taught to look at this sort of event as a very significant
message from the “Boss”. He is not happy with what is going on in Australia and
Melbourne in particular.
וישקפו על פני סדום.
Later, on
October 1, Gladys Berejiklian, the premier of New South Wales in Sydney,
resigned her post. The official story line is an investigation into some personal
hanky-panky and a related funding grant in Wagga Wagga (that's an aboriginal term for "hanky-panky"). The rumor mill claims
that she and her colleagues were on the take for a 65m (Australian?) dollar
payoff from Pfizer to impose these lockdowns and vaccination mandates.
We may never
know the truth (though we can probably all believe the hanky-panky Wagga Wagga part), but
the rule of thumb is never to believe anything until the fact checkers
officially deny them.
Regardless,
it is clear that politically, socially, economically and even geographically,
Australia is not very stable right now.
Let’s bring
this a bit closer to home.
I noted that,
for all its deficiencies, Australia is not very different than our own State of
Israel. Both of us are not very democratic and do not profess guaranteed rights
and liberties. I believe that both of us preserved many antiquated tyrannical
British laws, except that the ones that we preserved are from the Mandate and
not from the Kingdom. As such, one constitutional “right” that they do have
there that we don’t have here is a right to trial by jury (Section 80), at
least for criminal offenses.
On the other
hand, just like in the US, in our wonderful State of Israel, and in most other progressive
“western” countries, in Australia as well, one does not need any objective evidence
or testimony to convict an accused person. The testimony of the accuser alone with
nothing more can suffice to convict. As I have written incessantly in the past,
I find this very distressing. One need look no further than the National Registry of Exonerations (US) to determine how corrupt and unjust such a system truly is.
It's kind of like Sodom.
I’m sure my
loyal readers (both of them) know where this is going.
As I was saying,
Australia is becoming a very rough place. It is getting rough on its non-Jewish
citizens so there is no room to imagine it is any better for the Jews. Of
course, there are some fine Jewish communities in Australia and some fine
Jewish people, but living Jewish in Australia is more in spite of its environs than
because of them. My personal opinion is that things will get worse for the Australian
Jews before they get better and they should think about leaving.
But I say that
about everyone in chutz l'aretz.
I have mentioned
many times that for any Jew to leave Eretz Yisrael for anywhere in the diaspora,
especially nowadays, is a tragedy. This applies to the US and Canada (don’t get
me started), South Africa and, of course, Europe. But Australia looks to be
especially worrisome. It is a volcano that is pre-erupting. No telling if and
when it will “upheave”.
Just - don't look back behind you.
I think it’s
a tragedy as well as halachically questionable for any Israeli Jew to choose to
settle there. But to kidnap somebody from Eretz Yisrael and send them to the
thugs in Australia for any reason whatsoever is a grievous crime both morally
and Halachically and a tremendous chillul Hashem.
And when some
of the main players and supporters of this chillul Hashem claim to be religious,
mitzva observant Jews and are doing it for some unwarranted, un-Jewish perverted
concept of “justice” unsupported by our Torah (or Rabbanim or any Beis Din), it
is a chillul Hashem to the nth power.
And so, I was
deeply distressed last January when the forces of the erev rav prevailed to
allow the secular post-Zionist government, with the aid of religious Jews, to extradite
a Jewish person from the land established to protect all Jews, to the treifene
medina of Australia to “face justice” in the courts that need no evidence.
I believe it
is the most blatant act of mesira l’mehadrin that I have ever witnessed in my
lifetime. Perpetrated and supported by “religious” Jews as well as the
non-religious ones.
שמעו דבר השם קציני סדום!
So, what has
happened in Australia since January?
There hasn’t
been much news until very recently, but over the last month there have been a
few developments - some grim and some slightly optimistic.
Firstly, for
some reason, the authorities needed to drop 4 of the 74 charges and this left her defense
team with a mere 70 charges to fight against. What a break!
Alas, to compensate, the justice
loving Australians managed to come up with another 20 charges to tack on to the
list! This was due to “new information of two of the three complainants who
described additional, severe sexual incidents”.
Problem is,
she was only extradited on the basis of the initial 74 charges and that is all
they are allowed to adjudicate without additional extradition hearings about
the new charges. However, if they get “permission” from the Israeli government to
add on the extra 20 charges, they are allowed to do so (clause 17).
So, the Australians
requested the Israeli Minister of “Justice” to approve the addition of another 20 charges. The current Minister of Justice is Gideon Saar – leader of the “New
Hope” party. He was only too happy to comply. No worries, mate!
What a guy! We
religious Israeli citizens can feel safe with our Shofet Gideon. He is definitely
our New Hope. השם עמך
גיבור החיל!
On the other
side of the coin, there was a “committal hearing” (I suppose this is like a
grand jury) which was held precisely during aseret yemei teshuva and
across Yom Kippur. (They adjourned the hearing for Yom Kippur itself but I don’t
think on erev Yom Kippur or the day after which was erev Shabbos.) The media is saying that they cannot disclose much
because most of the testimony was done behind closed doors and a lot of it was
deemed inadmissible. Nevertheless, there were four very interesting “witnesses”
that we know at least part of what they said and it does not really help the prosecution’s
case.
The first is
a Spanish speaking "cleaner" at the school who said that he witnessed Mrs. Leifer bringing girls
into her office on Sundays but he has no idea what she discussed with them. Incidentally, this fellow does not seem to know English very well (and surely not Hebrew or Yiddish). The article says he required an interpreter.
This
testimony seems to be rather neutral. I assume that nobody is denying that Mrs.
Leifer had private discussions with her students, so it doesn’t support anybody’s
case. But the fact that he could not see any indication of “foul play” and the
fact that, technically, burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accusers and
prosecution, I think it helps the defense.
The second
was a co-worker at the school who was present at a board meeting where it was
decided to terminate Mrs. Leifer’s position. She was not told why. Also, Mrs.
Leifer was not at the meeting.
She said that
when she went to say goodbye to Mrs. Leifer: "She was very upset with what
they were doing to her … she definitely said, 'I did nothing wrong,' and pretty
much, she felt very unfair with what was happening."
Again, this
does not make anybody’s case, but it does confirm that Mrs. Leifer maintained her
innocence from the very start. This adds to the prosecution’s burden of proof.
The last two were much more interesting.
One
was the Australian/Israeli counselor, Mrs. Chana Rabinowitz, who was counselling Dassi
Erlich and was the first to convey the allegations to Australia. Apparently,
when the accusers filed their complaints in the year 2011, the Victorian police
contacted her and asked her for an official statement. She refused and explained
her reasons in an email. A part of this email was made public and she stated as
follows:
“I’m not sure I want to go
on record testifying. I have been warned it is totally possible she can one day
turn to me and decide to sue me too for speaking to the police. I guess I’m
a bit suspect that when someone is in something for the possible payoff then
perhaps in the future they will think to get money from me as well if they
could.”
The article continues:
In court on Thursday, Ms
Rabinowitz said she could not remember who had told her the complainants were
trying to access a victims-of-crime grant, but she confirmed she had been warned
by her legal counsel not to go on the record because she could be pursued by
the complainants for money in the future.
In
other words, she is saying that she had grounds to suspect that the accusers
are in this for ulterior motive$. She had reason to fear that she may also
become one of their victims.
Interesting.
But the last and, I think, most revealing
was Dassi Erlich’s ex-husband, Joshua Erlich.
He claimed that after they married and first
moved to Israel, the couple actually stayed in Mrs. Leifer’s vacant house (she
was still in Australia). He said that throughout their relationship, his
ex-wife would speak highly of the woman she is now accusing of abuse. He said:
"All the time that she had spoken about
her, she had spoken about her being in place of her mother and being a
supportive figure."
He said that during their first year of
marriage, Mrs. Leifer visited Israel on a number of occasions and they would
meet up. When he spoke with her about the meetings, "She would speak very
positively of them."
Then he said that in January 2008, he overheard
a conversation between his ex-wife and one of her sisters, Mrs. Meyer, about a
session she had with a social worker in Israel. His wife sounded panicked and
had "mentioned something about her relationship with Mrs Leifer" to
the social worker, Chana Rabinowitz.
"Dassi was very worried about how it had
been taken, and that Mrs Rabinowitz was going to contact other people in
Melbourne to speak about it," he said. "She was very concerned about
what was going to happen next, and she was not sure why it was being taken in
such a serious way."
When asked by Mrs Leifer's lawyer whether the
social worker had taken things "out of all proportion", Mr Erlich
agreed.
"That was my sense from the conversation,
yes," he said.
Mr Erlich also recalled another conversation in
2011 between his ex-wife and one of her sisters, Ms Meyer, about the former
principal.
"I heard them saying they wanted to call
her up and to cause her problems. They were laughing about it. It seemed to me
that they just wanted to harass her," he said.
"When you say they were laughing about it,
do you mean that literally … as though it was a fun and exciting thing to
do," Mr Hill asked.
"That was my sense," Mr Erlich said.
Taken things "out of all proportion", huh?
Clearly, these last two testimonies do not help
the prosecution’s case. I am fully aware that there were the testimonies of the
accusers which probably portray a different picture, but the impression I get
is that they do not have much in the way of outside evidence or outside testimony
to back them up. And, if that is so, then it ought to be a hard case to prove.
If I was the judge and I got this impression at
this stage, I would probably rule that there is not enough evidence to pursue
the case and dismiss it. But this is because I am a Torah student and
think like a Jew. I think using Talmudic logic and Talmudic principles.
Alas, the western system of justice and the
western non-Jewish mentality is that the “eye-witness” testimony of an accuser
is first-class testimony. The testimony of anyone who is willing to swear on a Bible
and claims to be telling the truth is as good as gold no matter how biased, untrustworthy,
implausible or unsubstantiated he or she may be.
This is Midas Sodom.
And so, the accused
was indicted and ordered to stand trial.
The “western” world is
a world of keri. It is not a world of justice. Certainly not our definition of "justice". It is the justice of Sodom.
For us Jews, the West is a
very inhospitable, hostile, and scary place. This applies to North America,
Europe, even to liberal secular Israel and certainly to Australia. All of it is Sodom.
Let’s get away from there and - don't look back!
לולי ה' צב-אות הותיר לנו שריד כמעט, כסדם היינו, לעמרה דמינו.
Posts
