Sinas Chinam IV – A Trail[er] of Blood [Libels]

 

Clearly, I maintain that there is no toelles to perpetuate the Malka Leifer episode even if it were done in a truthful manner. All it can do is harm. How much more so when the picture is deliberately distorted to this end? Then, not only does it become motzi shem rah, but an actual blood libel.

In my previous post, I discussed a documentary about the Malka Leifer episode that was produced for an entertainment provider exclusively in Australia. Nicole Meyer came all the way to Monsey to peddle the documentary even though all she could show is the trailer. But the trailer says a lot. 

She actually first came to Atlanta in late February for an Atlanta Jewish Film Festival showing on Feb. 26. Her trip was sponsored by some organization so she did not come to Monsey special or on her own dime. She was here anyway.

In any case the trailer is about 1 minute 50 seconds long. Any trailer is meant to make a strong impression. It is meant to draw our interest with a few highly dramatic clips. Hence, any statement that was chosen for display in the trailer has to be there to make a quick impact and to serve as a draw.

Here is the trailer:

At 0:30 the narrator poses a question:

Why did it take 15 years to bring her to justice?

I believe the respondent is Nicole Meyer. She starts with these words:

In our community, sexual abuse is stigmatized. 

This, I can accept as a true statement. Nothing wrong with it. But then, she follows it with this:

They don't see an abuser. They see a person who needs to be saved.

What is she saying? What is she telling her clueless impressionable viewers?

Before we “micro”-analyze her precise words, let’s “macro”-analyze her intent. Bear in mind that she is talking about her very own “community” and is informing people who no little to nothing about it. 

Is she saying something nice about this unfamiliar “community” or is she criticizing it? Is this a compliment or an indictment?

I did not see the documentary, just the trailer, but it is hard to say that the documentary is trying to say anything positive about anybody except the victims survivors. The impression I got, is that she is saying something very negative about the community. 'The community is not supposed to be this way, but it is'.

So, she is demeaning her entire community. And she is doing it as an impact point on the trailer, which anybody can access. Even those who do not or cannot see the documentary can view the trailer in under two minutes.

If what she is saying is the unequivocal truth, then we can downplay it as a simple case of truthful lashon hara and maybe even come up with some toelles to make it permissible. Call it “constructive criticism”. I could live with that. But if there is anything about it which is false and misleading, then it is slander and libel. And, when the target audience isn’t even Jewish, it becomes a blood libel.

So now, let us micro-analyze her second sentence.

They don’t see an abuser. They see a person who needs to be saved.

Who is “They”? 

In the previous sentence she names an entity called “the community”. Then she says “They…”. Evidently, “They” are the community. Are “They” some of the community? The entire community? Specific members of the community? 

She equates the community as “They” so she must mean everybody. This includes the commoners and it includes the leaders. She makes no distinction, so the viewer will make no distinction, either. 

First, let’s talk specifically about the Malka Leifer case. In my previous post, I noted that Dassi Ehrlich’s book was peppered with some blatant lies. To qualify this claim, I put into parentheses two of the most noteworthy ones. I wrote: that (1) the Adass community supported Malka Leifer and (2) that the women who heard the rumors took no action.

I debunked both these lies in at least two of my book review posts. In this post I wrote:

There is no evidence at all that the community in any way supported Mrs. Leifer’s alleged activities. Dassi herself attested (31:30) that they were not even aware of it. And, as soon as they got wind of it, they promptly shipped her out of Australia back to where she came from despite her denials and objections. I will note, as I have done numerous times, that Mrs. Leifer was not a wanted criminal at the time and there were not even any police complaints on file about her.

When I wrote “they promptly shipped her out”, by “they” I meant the exact same “they” as Nicole means here. But it does not confirm her claim.

So, it’s now two years after Dassi’s poisonous book was released, and after I critiqued it (don’t think for a moment that Nicole does not know what I wrote – and she has never disputed it), and now, Nicole, not Dassi, is back up there proliferating the same lies. To this day. For the entertainment industry.

Let’s move on: They don’t see an abuser.

They don’t see who as an abuser?

Does she mean a person who confessed to being an abuser? A person who was caught in the act? A person who was convicted of abuse by virtue of hard irrefutable evidence? 

This a bold claim. What is her proof of this? How many such abusers are there?

Or, does she mean, someone who is accused of being an abuser yet denies it? Somebody on whom there are no objective witnesses and no forensic proof?

Ah-h-h. An alleged abuser. Sadly, there are plenty of those. I would contend this really covers most of them. If they are merely alleged abusers, why should the community see them as confirmed abusers?

Again, she makes no distinction. And, here is the crux of the issue. According to Nicole Sapper, and Dassi Ehrlich, and, as we shall see, Zvi Gluck, there is no such thing as an alleged abuser. Anybody accused to be an “abuser” is a full-fledged abuser. He/she has no rights and has no voice. Conversely, in their tunnel vision world, there is no such thing as an alleged victim, as well. Anyone who claims to be a victim is full-fledged victim with automatic immutable integrity. They have full immunity and cannot be challenged or questioned. 

This entire subject is driven by a universal, intrinsic presumption of guilt. Rabbi Fuerst, Dovid Lichtentstein, David J. Nyer and about 180 Rabbanim live by it. Zvi Gluck and Rabbi Daniel Coren live by it, and the Jewish and non-Jewish masses live by it. It could be that the Sapper sisters are genuine victims and, in their case, there is no presumption, but they are feeding it to the uninvolved masses and riding on its coattails for their personal aggrandizement. 

The Torah doesn’t live by it, the Rambam doesn’t live by it, the Chafetz Chaim doesn’t live by it, Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, doesn’t live by it, and…I don’t live by it.

With this in mind, let’s go on: They see a person who needs to be saved.

What does “saved” mean?

Does she mean they need to be placed in a freezer or storage unit and saved for later use? I don’t think so. Does she mean saved from a sinking ship? It’s a bit closer, but somehow, I don’t think this is what she is saying.

I checked the Thesaurus in MS Word and the first synonym for “saved” is protected. I think there is another proper synonym that I was shocked that it did not appear in the list in MS Thesaurus – rescued. I looked up rescued in the MS Thesaurus and the first suggested synonym was “saved”. How about that?

So, let’s go with the meanings of “protected” or “rescued” or maybe “shielded”. 

Protected from what? Rescued from what? No, not from a sinking ship.

The lead question gives away the answer. “Why did it take 15 years to bring her to justice?”

I guess she needs to be saved from justice. By the way, this does not apply only to Mrs. Leifer. This applies to all “molesters”. Evidently, it’s a “community thing”. You know, son cosa nostra. She is telling the world that the “community” maintains that all molesters should be “saved”, i.e., protected from justice.

What is justice? 

It is certain that any normal viewer (I am certainly not normal) will define justice as the wrath of the law and valid prosecution, retribution, and punishment. This is an inalienable virtue and social necessity.

Again, before we micro-analyze the truthfulness of her statement, let us macro-analyze what she is broadcasting to the average viewer.

The average viewer is hearing an indictment against the entire ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, which is very unfamiliar to him or her as it is. He/she is hearing a standing member of the community saying that when there is a molester in their midst, presumably a confirmed molester, the community believes this evil molester is somebody who needs to be saved from “justice” which is the virtuous application of the law. The "community" is against this idea.

Doesn’t this sound illogical, irrational, absurd, and downright diabolical?

It does to me, and I bet to the vast majority of typical viewers. So, firstly, this is the impression that will be made. And since most people cannot really think, it will be swallowed whole. 

But, to a critical thinker, it opens up a whole slew of questions:

• Why do they not see an abuser?

• Why do they think this is somebody who needs to be saved?

• Why are they not rational like I am or everyone else?  Don’t we all know that justice is a virtuous ideal?

• How can an entire community of people, who are supposed to be religious, moral and highly intelligent, be so immoral, corrupt, diabolical and irrational? Don’t they have any common sense?

Hence, such a thinker should come to the conclusion that something is not adding up here. What the respondent is saying doesn’t make sense. 

This is the place where a genuine journalist gives pushback and asks the respondent: Why? You say “They don’t see an abuser, they see people who need to be saved” – why do they see that??

Nobody asked Nicole this fundamental question. If they did, it surely didn’t make it into the trailer. So, the question was either totally omitted (most probable), or it was asked but cut out of the trailer (highly unlikely). So, whether by omission or by deletion, the viewer is shown an unchallenged claim of an entire community being irrational and corrupt.

This confirms that it is a “Propagandist” documentary.

Now, let us see if there is any truth to her claim.

Before we discuss the nitty-gritty about how the "community" sees things, let’s take a big step back and look at the giant lie.

Nicole was asked: “Why did it take 15 years to bring her to justice?” and her answer was: “Stigma in the community…need to be saved…”. Nicole is publicly blaming her own community for 15 years of lack of “justice”. Nobody else, it’s her community’s fault. For 15 years!

Really? Let’s do some math.

The 15 years must be the span from when the allegations first broke out in 2008 until the court verdict in April 2023. That’s 15 years. What happened over those 15 years?

Even though the allegations broke out in 2008 and Mrs. Leifer was immediately sent packing, there were no charges filed in any law enforcement agency until 2011. Until 2011, there was no quest for “justice”. Period. This has nothing to do with the “community” because Mrs. Leifer was not wanted by any law enforcement when they sent her home. These three years don’t count, so we are down to twelve.

The Australian authorities did not process the charges and request extradition until 2014. That’s another three years that have nothing to do with anybody’s community.

The extradition was approved at the end of 2020 and carried out in January 2021. From then it was all the Australian justice system until the verdict in April 2023. So this is close to another 2.5 years that are just standard procedural issues.

This basically leaves about a six-year window wherein Mrs. Leifer was fighting a halachically illegitimate extradition. It goes without saying that any human being who is faced with extradition to a faraway country will do whatever they can to scuttle it by hook or by crook. Again, this does not have much to do with anybody’s “community”.

Indeed, there are confirmed allegations that Health Minister Yaakov Litzman meddled with the process by obtaining adverse reports on Mrs. Leifer’s mental condition, and he is certainly a member of the ultra-Orthodox community. However, he only assumed the office of Health Minister in 2015. Even then, it appears that his involvement to get these adverse reports were carried out only after Mrs. Leifer was re-arrested in 2018. This puts a limit on his involvement to maybe as much as four years. That’s a lot less than 15.

So here is Nicole Leifer agreeing with the interviewer that it took 15 years to ring Mrs. Leifer to justice when the maximum was twelve. She  blames all 15 years on her community and nobody else.

Now, after the giant lie, let’s check out all the other lies and half-truths. Bear in mind that what she said about the “community” and “abusers” is in the context of Mrs. Leifer.

Nicole says “They don’t see an abuser” as if to say that either they are blind, or they choose to look 'the other direction'. Again, the abuser in question is Mrs. Leifer. So, let me ask: over the 15 years did Mrs. Leifer ever confess to doing anything wrong? Did the accusers present any objective evidence or witnesses to prove their accusations?

The answer to these questions is an emphatic No. Hence, they did not see an abuser. They weren’t supposed to see an abuser. They saw an alleged abuser. They saw an alleged abuser who denied abusing. Even if a confirmed abuser has no “rights” (a topic in itself), an alleged abuser has all the rights any accused person must have. This is the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the “community” and the right to avoid being unjustly persecuted (and extradited). 

Nicole does not have the integrity or courage to acknowledge this. 

This has nothing to do with “stigma”.

She continues, “They see people who need to be saved.” This is as if to say that they are wrongly saving people who should not be saved.

Saved from what? Why, saved from justice, of course. We all know that an abuser must not be saved from “justice”. These community people are diabolical fiends, just like the “abuser” herself, busy saving people (i.e., abusers) from justice. This is sure to create more victims, and the community loves making lots of victims.

Now, I wrote above that most viewers define “justice” as: the wrath of the law and valid prosecution, retribution, and punishment and that this is an inalienable virtue and social necessity. There is no question that Nicole Meyer is sold out to this definition.

But the community is Jewish. Not just Jewish but Torah observant. And in Torah Judaism “justice” has a different definition. The Torah’s definition of justice is compensation to one who was wronged. It is not retribution and punishment. In Torah Judaism we have a different term for those who pursue punishment and retribution. It is called “nekama” – vengeance. In fact, the primary synonym to “retribution” in the MS Word Thesaurus is “vengeance”.

In Torah Judaism, vengeance among Jews is forbidden. Nicole forgot to mention that.

And, do you know what else is forbidden (as I have cried out endless times)? 

That’s right. Extradition out from Eretz Israel. And it doesn’t matter if we are dealing with a confirmed abuser or an alleged abuser. It is always forbidden.

Nicole knows this. But somehow, it doesn’t make it into the trailer.

I will add one other thing about the “community”. The community is a community. This means that it is a network of people who are friends, neighbors, providers and clients, and relatives of each other. They don’t see an “abuser”. They see one of their own who may or may not be acting out. And community members do not just act out. Something triggers it. It may be mental illness and it may be trauma.

That’s right, I am told that most abusers were abused themselves. This means that they are not just abusers, they are victims. 

If this is the case, as it so often is, then punishment and retribution, i.e. “justice”, is not being just. It is destruction. And in my “community”, our relatives and neighbors do need to be saved, i.e., rescued or shielded, from unjustified destruction.

I have said this many times in many ways in many posts. Nicole cannot accept this. I will explain why in an upcoming post.

The last thing I need to point out is Nicole’s choice of words. “People who need to be saved.”

As I wrote earlier, there are more accurate terms to use – protected, rescued, shielded, maybe even spared. But the term “saved” has another connotation. 

Yoshke saves! As in to save one’s soul from h-ll and damnation. 

This conjures to us the idea of the Catholic Church and the “celibate” priests who were caught performing organized ritual pedophilia. We are talking about real pedophilia with real children and real sexual activity, not the pattycake stuff that Mrs. Leifer is accused of. And all those holy clergymen who covered up for each other to actively perpetuate this debauchery. These are holy men who need to be saved.

This is corruption in the name of religion. And Nicole is telling the non-Jewish world that it’s not just them. It’s us as well. Even though there is no actual pedophilia, there is no corrupt network, there is no ritualism, there is no cronyism, there is no coverup; even though the Malka Leifer case is driven by mental illness or trauma and not by lust and Satanic worship, the viewer will not see any of these distinctions. He will say “The chosen people are just as depraved.”

Blood libel. For all the world to see.

It’s not just me that sees this way. Check out this documentary from last October 18 at 1:02:27. 

Three Sisters Expose the Darkest Secret - YouTube

Here is the transcript:

1:02:27  The actions of the school board have been compared to the way the Catholic Church has been found to transfer pedophile priests to new parishes when allegations were made against them.

All told, with her untruthful and antagonistic response, Nicole is watering two poisonous weeds: (1) The poison of presumption of guilt and (2) the suggestion that the Chareidi community, her community, is as debased and corrupt as the Catholic Church.

The sad thing is that she had the opportunity to extol our community simply by telling the truth. She could have painted a truer and more upbeat and realistic (i.e., rational) picture of our community: 

• She could first set the record straight that her quest for “justice” only extended 12 years and that there were many contributing factors to the delays. 

• She could have told the truth that the community “doesn’t see an abuser”, but at worst, they see an alleged abuser who may actually be innocent. And even if not, they see them as broken human beings who are friends, neighbors and relatives who may be suffering from abuse or trauma.

• She could have told the truth that we actually believe in presumption of innocence and that we need to protect the basic rights of an accused person from misplaced, vigilante “justice”. This is for the benefit of any society.

• She could have told the truth that we are a Torah observant community and the Torah does not allow any Jewish person, miscreant or not, to be extradited away from Israel.

• She could have explained that in Torah Judaism, “justice” is defined as compensation to an injured party. Punishment and retribution are not our style of “justice”. If it is done for the sake of vengeance, it is forbidden.

• She could show that our community is different and special and a cut above. We have our share of miscreants, but we are more moral and compassionate about how to deal with them. And none of this needs to come at the expense of the alleged victims.

She could have made a quasi-Kiddush Hashem and salvage something positive from the perpetual sheker and chillul Hashem that she is generating. But she can’t do that. Instead of elevating her own community, she uses the tropes of the goyim to falsely bring them down to their level. She continues to fan the flames of sinas chinam and chillul Hashem.

Why can’t she do that?

Because it doesn’t serve her purpose. The more she humanizes the alleged abuser and the more she commends her upstanding community, the less of a victim she is. And she needs to be a life-long victim.

All this is apparent from one remark in a short trailer that, like all movie trailers, is designed to artificially sensationalize the feature and to lure the viewer.

Just imagine what the rest of the documentary has to say.