Perfidy 2023 – Part 2: He Made his Own Lunch

  

Author’s note – This post is the second and final part about the Ron vs. Versano defamation case. Please see Part 1 (HERE) and the Interlude (HERE). All information about the case is factual and based on court records. All the associated commentary is my personal opinion.

 

As I was visiting with the Eldest Oyster and discussing vaccines and name-calling, he proceeded to tell me the story of Ron vs. Versano. You can see it all HERE.

On February 12, 2021, an attorney by the name of Roye Ron posted on his personal Facebook page his support for forced vaccinations. But it wasn’t only that he stated his opinion. He wanted to actively submit a petition to the Israeli Supreme court to mandate his agenda for forced vaccinations. Thus, he was calling on his followers (his Facebook “Friends”?) to join him in this venture.

Evidently, this fellow was not merely speaking his mind. He was calling for action. He is an activist.

Since he is an attorney, we can assume that he wasn’t kidding. Indeed, according to his June 14, 2023 post, he certainly wasn’t kidding. We will see that he was very proud of his position then and remains so today.

To set the context of time, we need to time-travel back to Feb. 2021. What was going on then?

The official vaccine rollout in Eretz Israel was around Dec. 20, 2020. At that stage, there can be no denying that it was totally experimental. The FDA was still in the process of slowly granting EUAs to the various jabs. Johnson & Johnson still hadn’t gotten theirs yet. Also, still no approval for pregnant women. There was no full authorization for anything as of yet.  

See my post from Jan. 17, 2021.

Still, Atty. Roye Ron is already worshipping the god of Covid vaccines. So much so that he is pushing to petition the Israel high court to make it the national religion.

When was this? This is on Feb. 12, 2021, or about a mere 8 weeks after this rollout. Hence, it is undeniable that he is advocating for forced experimental medication on healthy people. And he isn’t even a doctor!

As far as I know, this is exactly what Dr. Mengele and his cohorts did (although some claim that Mengele really was a doctor), and what was ultimately outlawed by the Nuremberg codes. But this fellow is a lawyer, and he is pushing for it! To be forced on Jews! On fellow Israeli Jews!

What kind of response did he get to his Feb. 2021 post?

It says HERE that he received hundreds of views, comments, likes and shares.

All good. Except that not every single one of them was a compliment. At least 13 respondents did not agree with his position or with his activism. They felt that forcing healthy people to take experimental biological agents (medications/pharmaceuticals) without their consent is a breach of international law, the Nuremberg codes, and just plain medical ethics.

And they told him so, straight to his facebook. Exactly where?

In the comments section of the exact same post on his Facebook page where he posted his despotic ideas.

These comments were not all subtle. To make their points, several commenters opined that his policies are akin to Stalin and the Nazis and specifically Dr. Mengele and were fascist. Also, that the writer is a danger to society. You can see all of them HERE.

One of them pointed out that our Atty. Roye Ron, being an attorney, is not a medical practitioner. He has no credentials to preach medical procedures even if these were within the limits of medical ethics, which they are clearly not. Incidentally, Mr. Ron seems to be a very strong proponent of medical cannabis.

So, what did tough lawyer Roye Ron do about this?

Did he debate them and prove why he is not a fascist, not akin to Mengele, and not a danger to society?

No.

Did he just ignore them?

No.

Did he delete their comments from his own Facebook page?

No.

He did what any self-servingrespecting lawyer would do. He tracked them down and sued them for civil Lashon Hara.

Oh, and by the way, did this lawyer first warn the commenters on his Facebook page that, in his opinion, their remarks constitute civil Lashon Hara and they should retract or they will be sued?

There is no indication of it, and Mr. Ron, who is an attorney after all, wants their money, so why should he? (We will see later why he should.)

So he sued them in the Petach Tikva magistrate court and the case came in front of Judge Ariel Bregner.

Plaintiff Roye Ron claimed that he was terribly maligned. There is a raging plandemic pandemic going on, and these vaccines are the only solution. Anyone who opposes him is not only antagonizing him, but is even endangering the world!

To impress how misguided the detractors are, Atty. Roye Ron claimed to be the son of a “Holocaust survivor” and he flaunted this claim to the hilt. How can the son of a holocaust survivor be compared to a Nazi?

The defendants claimed that Mr. Ron made himself into a public figure and he was indeed preaching Nazi and fascist policies. It is his position that poses a danger to society. There is no question about what he wrote in his post. As such, their comments addressed true circumstances. Moreover, he consciously entered very controversial waters. He should have expected a strong backlash from the skeptics. As such, their comments do not constitute slander or defamation. The defenses of “I told the truth” and several of the good faith clauses (Clause 15) applies to this case.

“So,” the Eldest Oyster asked me, “what do you think should be the result in this case?”

I told him that I think this case should be thrown out on its head.

“Why?”

“Look, I’m a chareidi. The Israeli government, the judiciary, and law enforcement have been acting oppressively for as long as they have been in business, and we have always been on the receiving end. With forced autopsies, forced Shabbos desecration, forced mingling, dragging Yeshiva guys to the army, beating us up during legal demonstrations. Not to mention, they also pulled off the “disengagement” and they continue bulldozing Jewish settlements and torturing “confessions” out of hilltoppers. They have acted like Nazis, and we have frequently said so.

“In 2012, a law was proposed in Israel to outlaw calling oppressive people Nazis even when they are maliciously oppressing (see HERE). Actually, this bill was aimed at the chareidim and was just another form of the oppression. At least then, some civil rights group came to the rescue. One group is called the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). They put out a statement as follows:

‘Freedom of expression means the right to say difficult things that might be even hurtful. It means the right to give bold and extreme expression to positions, feelings, and thoughts, and also includes the right to make rhetorical use of provocative and harsh images.” They added, “Because of the importance and centrality of the Holocaust, the attempt to dictate when and in what context it can be referenced is very problematic.’

“Apparently, the law was not passed, so it is perfectly legal to call an oppressor who publicly emulates Nazi and fascist policies 'Nazis' and 'Fascists', as long as it’s true.

“Oh, and about his flaunting his “son-of-holocaust-survivor” credential, I think it is deplorable.”

“Why so?” he asked.

“Firstly, I am not impressed with the credentials.

“He claims that his father, who is now 83, is a holocaust survivor. This means his father was born about 1940. [Note - The court record says this is “along with his mother, also 83”. I am assuming that this is a mistake and it really means that the father survived the war with his mother – i.e., the father’s mother who would be Roye’s grandmother – who lost most of her family, and I gather her husband (Roye’s grandfather), in the Shoah. That woman would be way more than 83.]

“The Holocaust ended in May of 1945. As such, any person who was born before May of 1945, specifically, in lands that were dominated by the Nazis, and who was still alive after May of 1945 can call themselves a Holocaust survivor. Technically, this is even if their family escaped to Switzerland or even to the free West in 1938 and they didn’t actually endure the Holocaust. Likewise, I suppose, many Russian Jews who spent the war on the Russian side of the fence also can call themselves Holocaust survivors.

“This fellow’s father was born in 1940 and survived the war with his mother (Roye’s grandmother). I must assume that in 1940 they were somewhere out of harm’s way because, if not, it would be almost impossible for a mother with a newborn to survive. As such, the term Holocaust survivor rings hollow to me even if it’s technically true.

"Roye’s father is definitely not a concentration camp survivor and wasn’t anywhere near Auschwitz. My father, LOY”T, was born in 1929 and did go through Auschwitz. He is not just a Holocaust survivor but a death and labor camp survivor. Incidentally, he says that he has no idea if Mengele was involved in the selections he went through, but he went through them.

“But, secondly, what bothers me a lot more about his flaunting his 'son-of-Holocaust-survivor' credential is that, if he really is, he should know better. And so should the judge. Does he really mean to tell us that because his father is a holocaust survivor that he has a license to defy the Nuremberg laws and incite forced experimental medications on healthy people???

“Incidentally, did his proposed petition to the Begatz include mandating informed consent? No mention of it in his June 14 post. This is besides the fact that any kind of mandate violates consent.

“On top of all this, his position about vaccinations is exceedingly tenuous.

“Aside from the fact that at that time it was purely experimental, we also knew then that there is absolutely no product liability to the manufacturers, or to anybody, for adverse effects, injury, or death. And adverse effects were showing up from the start.

“It was soon discovered that this vaccine causes heart problems including myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrest, blood clotting, turbo-cancers, women’s health issues and miscarriages, strokes, aneurisms, and neurological disorders. In other words, it ain’t safe. (See HERE for testimonies. If you like to see people drop dead in front of your eyes, see HERE and HERE. Viewer discretion strongly advised.)

“We know a lot more now. We know this ‘vaccine’ was never really effective. Not only does it require constant ‘boosters’ which means it loses any efficacy it might have had inside of six months, but we all know people who are ‘fully’ vaccinated who still got Covid. Also, Pfizer admitted that they never tested their ‘vaccine’ for stopping transmission.

“We know that the sinister Prime Minister “Haman” Netanyahu, צורר היהודים, sold the Jewish nation to Achashverosh Bourla for 10,000 shekels to be Pfizer’s Guinea pigs without anyone’s consent להזריק להשמיד להרוג ולתעד את כל הישראלים מנער ועד זקן, טף ונשים, בבת אחד. He says so in public right HERE.

“We also now know that the Israel Ministry of Health knew all about the adverse effects the Pfizer vaccine, including some that were not on Pfizer's list, and they covered it all up. (See HERE)

“So, this 'vaccne' was never safe, never effective, and owing to preexisting remedies such as Vitamin C and D, zinc, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, it was never necessary.

“This trial lasted until May of 2023 and those of us who are still around are much wiser now, so it’s obvious that the case should be tossed out. Was it??”

 

The eldest Oyster looked at me,

      But never a word he said:

The eldest Oyster winked his eye,

      And shook his heavy head —

Meaning to say, the judge ignored

      The defenses that were pled.

 

Sure enough, Judge Ariel Bregner was exceedingly sympathetic to Atty. Roye Ron’s noble cause. So much so that he was able to convict 9 out of 13 detractors and force them to pay compensation. Not only compensation but he also threw in a collective NIS 16,000 punitive award to the “Medinah”.

Judge Bregner wrote “I think that comparing any person in Israel to the Nazi Mengele is the epitome of Lashon Hara”. And he made similar comments on the other “put-downs”. So, he handed out judgements of between 7,000-18,000 shekels to the nine folks that he convicted for a total of NIS 106,000. To this he added a collective NIS 20,000 for lawyers’ costs and the NIS 16,000 was because the eight defendants who shared a defense lawyer submitted eight separate defense scripts instead of one combined one.

“So,” my friend asked me, “what do you think of this judgement?”

I said that I think it is horrendous.

“Why so?”

“I believe that Atty. Ron’s position does not merely constitute his personal opinion. He is advocating for actively forcing people to do as he believes. Aside from a breach of international law, this is pure incitement by Israeli law. People have a right to protest against oppression and incitement. It is supposed to be one of the most protected rights here in Israel.

“Nazi and Stalin comparisons are always made when one preaches oppression. The Nazis and Fascists are standard models of oppression. When one claims oppression, there is no alternative for comparison except for the standard models. The left-wingers tried to outlaw it, but that ship didn’t sail. The civil rights groups defeated it.

“So, the judge is taking sides in this debate and is actually supporting the oppression and incitement and punishing those protesting against it. This is pure bias and oppression in its own right. I should expect both an attorney like Roye Ron and an Israeli judge to be strong on civil rights. In this case, they are trampling on it. And it’s not like these claims weren’t brought up in the defense scripts. The judge simply ignored them.”

The Eldest Oyster said, “I think something else is bothering you. Something else that the defense claimed and the judge ignored.”

“What makes you think so?”

“It was something you wrote earlier in this post when you were summarizing this case.”

“You mean when I mentioned that these comments were written directly to Atty. Roye Ron’s own Facebook page, that he didn’t delete them, and he allegedly didn’t warn the writers before filing suit?”

“Precisely. What were you implying?”

“The defense claimed that Atty. Roye Ron has 100% shared liability. The judge just ignored that. But it’s a fact.”

“Explain it to your readers.”

Well, there is an unwritten law in Israeli litigation that a damaged party is responsible to do everything reasonable to minimize the damage. It is not stated explicitly in the Tort Ordinance (Pekudat HaNizakim), but it is implied in clause 76. It is specified in Contract Law and is universally applied to Tort law as a “Halacha Pesuka”.

How does this relate to Atty. Roye Ron?

Firstly, all the comments were made to his comments section. This is what a comments section in social media is for! A grown-up confrontational person like Atty. Roye Ron should not expect all the comments that he invites to his page to be compliments.

Every person with a Facebook account is responsible for the comments on his own page. This is to the extent that the same Petach Tikva Magistrate Court (with a different judge) issued a landmark ruling in February 2020 (a year before Roye Ron’s post), that if a commenter writes defamatory remarks against an outside party, and the host of the social networking site maintained it (i.e., did not delete it), then the host account holder can be held liable for damages against the outside party. (See this post.)

Why is this? Obviously, because the host is the master of his account. He holds the keys to what can appear there and what cannot. If it can damage another person, he is responsible to delete it. If the “other person” is him, he is no less responsible for deleting it. After all, there is a Halacha pesuka to minimize damage to one’s self!

Add to this the rule we quoted from US defamation law in the previous post that when the defamation is in second person voice – i.e., you are a Fascist Nazi – this is not defamation. We call it הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך.

Thus, as the defense claimed, Roye Ron is 100% co-responsible for all damages to him. He could have simply deleted all the comments immediately. He facilitated the damage himself.

He made his own lunch!

So, why didn’t he just delete the comments? And why didn’t he warn them to retract before filing suit?

It must be because he wanted to cry about defamation, he wanted to sue. He wanted to “cancel” his opponents and to pick their pockets.

Clearly, the purpose of the lawsuit was not to get them to delete or retract their comments. This is evident because they were posted on his own Facebook page and he had every opportunity to take them down himself. Note, he eventually did so, because the entire post is now gone.

As such, the money he received cannot be for damages. As I wrote, Mr. Roye Ron cannot claim to be damaged for at least three reasons:

• All the remarks were relational slurs relating to his stated position which he stated publicly. His position is undeniable. Those who support him will continue to do so. Those who do not will oppose him because of his viewpoint, not because of the slurs. The slurs do not cause defamation.

• Secondly, it was all in second person said directly to him. It was meant to chasten him not to defame him to others.

• Thirdly, it was on his own Facebook page, for heaven’s sake! He can delete them as soon as they land. If it wasn’t deleted and there was no warning, then it is not being done to protect Roye but to silence the opposition and to obtain money. He obviously chose not to do so only so he can kvetch to a judge and demand sympathy and money.

To summarize, Atty. Roye Ron believes that he is allowed to bully people into taking poisonous vaccines and to incite division and hatred toward those who don’t want to. Yet, when these folks let him know that he is acting like Mengele, he gets very offended and, instead of deleting the comments, he sues them for their money. And, based on his June 14 post, he is so proud of it. Here is what he wrote (translation by Google Translate):

"Mengele was proud of you", "fascist", "terrorist supporter" - that's what vaccine opponents called me personally on Facebook.

I "earned" these defamatory comments following a post I wrote at the height of the Corona period

And in it I called on my friends to join me in submitting a petition to the Supreme Court that would require vaccinations, in order to keep us all healthy, with an emphasis on the adults.

In the defamation lawsuit I filed against them, the court ruled that they must pay me compensation in the amount of 126,000 NIS, and in addition they must pay the state 16,000 NIS, for the awkwardness they took in the legal process.

Reducing derogatory discourse on social networks and in general, starts first of all with education and values. However, it is important that we, the victims, do not remain silent in the face of harsh and insulting statements that damage our good name and our livelihood, we will exhaust our right not to make statements and conduct of this type a part of the agenda, and we will send a clear message that there are red lines for freedom of expression as well.

I personally do not think Atty. Roye Ron is educated about vaccines or has values. and I am not the only one who thinks so (see comment by א. בלב). He did not attempt to educate or engage with anybody to set them straight; only to censor them and sue without warning. Still, he will call himself a “victim” even though there is no reason the “insulting statements” that he chose not to delete should damage his “good name and livelihood”.

As the son of a true Auschwitz Holcaust survivor, my personal feeling is that he should be ashamed of himself. Both for his misguided oppressive activism and for running to a judge to get back at people who justifiably and legally opposed him. I personally think that if Roye Ron was any kind of a mensch he would apologize to all the people he upset with his post and give the money back to those he collected from. In my opinion, it’s treife gelt.

I don’t think Judge Ariel Bregner has anything to be proud of either. His job is to curb the aggressors, not to empower them.

 

It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,

      To play them such a trick,

After we've brought them out so far,

      And made them trot so quick!'

The Carpenter said nothing but

      The butter's spread too thick!'

 

As I took leave of my friend, I told him that I think this case sets a very ugly precedent. Actually, this whole story reminds me about a poem I once read about a Walrus and a Carpenter.

The Eldest Oyster winked his eye and shook his heavy head.

“This is scarcely odd”, is all he finally said.

Perfidy 2023 Interlude – The Eldest Oyster Cracks a Joke

 

I continued talking to the Eldest Oyster and he proceeded to tell me all about Ron vs. Versano. It wasn't long before I realized that he was leading me down a deep rabbit hole. This Hare-raising experience was a lot more than I bargained for, so it has been taking me some time to formulate it into a post. I'm almost there, so I hope to post Part 2 very shortly.

In the meanwhile, he could detect that this conversation about the Israeli legal system was making me depressed. He thought to cheer me up with a joke. And so, he told me the following:

 

A Walrus, a Carpenter, and a Mad Hatter all took a job at a construction company and were working on top of a tall building. Every day at lunchtime, they would sit together on a bare steel girder way above the ground and eat lunch.

 

One sunny day (and this was odd because it was the middle of the night), they sat down to lunch and each one opened their home-packed lunchboxes.

 

First the Walrus opened his lunchbox and pulled out a jar and opened it. He says, “Oyster stew? Again? Every day oyster stew! If I get oyster stew for lunch one more time, by golly, I’m going to jump.”

 

The Carpenter opened his lunchbox and pulled out a slice of bread with a very thick layer of butter. He cries out, “Again a slice of bread where the butter is spread too thick? I get this every day! If one more time I get for lunch sliced bread where the butter’s spread too thick, by golly, I’m going to jump.”

 

The Mad Hatter opened his lunchbox and pulled out the contents. He mutters, “Mushroom flavored tea biscuits…again? I get this every day! If one more time I get for lunch mushroom flavored tea biscuits, by golly, I’m going to jump.”

 

The next day they all sit down to lunch as usual. The Walrus opens his lunchbox and pulls out a jar. Sure enough, it’s oyster stew. The distraught Walrus jumps and that’s the end of him. The Carpenter opens up his lunch box and finds a slice of bread with the butter spread too thick. He also jumps and that’s the end of him. Just then the Mad Hatter opens his lunchbox and finds… mushroom flavored tea biscuits. Sure enough, he also jumps and that’s the end of him.

 

The next day, at the Walrus’ funeral, his wife, beset with grief, is holding her pocket-handkerchief before her streaming eyes. With sobs and tears she blurted out, “Can anyone sympathize? I don’t understand this. It makes no sense. Why didn’t he just tell me that he didn’t want any more oyster stew? I certainly would have made him clam chowder instead.”

 

Meanwhile, at the Carpenter’s funeral, his wife was inconsolable. She wept like anything to see such quantities of dirt by his grave. She exclaimed, “I don’t understand this. It makes no sense. Why did he not just tell me that ‘the butter’s spread too thick’? I would gladly have spread it thinner.”, and she shed a bitter tear.

 

Meanwhile, at the Mad Hatter’s funeral, his wife couldn’t control herself. “I don’t understand this. It makes no sense. He made his own lunch!”

 

He asked me if I liked the joke. I told him, I think I might have heard it before. But I soon came to realize it is more than just a joke. It is a prelude to Ron vs. Versano.

We will examine it Through the Looking Glass very soon (bli neder)…

Perfidy 2023 – Part 1: Sticks and Stones

 

 

Author’s note – Like many other posts, this one was meant to be a short post about what I believe is a miscarriage of justice, but it overflowed its banks. As such, I need to divide it into two parts. Here is Part 1.

The discussion of Lashon Hara in this post is exclusively secular legal Lashon Hara by Israeli civil law (Libel). It is not discussing the Halachic Shmiras Halashon of the Chofetz Chaim.

 

I went to visit my friend the Eldest Oyster not long ago. Yep, he’s still around. He told me that people have been calling him all kinds of slurs. “Anti-vaxxer”, “conspiracy-theorist”, “menace to society”, “hazardous waste”, that kind of thing.

I told him that when I was a kid, we used to have a little jingle that would neutralize all the name calling. The jingle went, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”

He said that would never work in his community. I asked why, and he said, “Oysters don’t have bones. But we have hard shells. And the older we get, the harder the shells.” “Of course,” he continued, “folks still try very hard to irritate us. They put sand under our skin shells. But all we do is make pearls out of them. The more irritating, the bigger the pearl.”

I guess his message is that we need to take insults with a grain of sand.

I told him that we writers get this a lot. This is especially true when one has the temerity to write about highly charged, religious, political, or emotional subjects. It is common that readers may choose to feel threatened or antagonized. When this happens things can become unpredictable.

Most calm, mature readers won’t react at all. Or they may respond with a rebuttal or legitimate criticism or debate. Sadly, many of those who react are not the calm, mature kind. They may react with hostile remarks, insults, personal attacks, defamation, libel, character assassination and name-calling.

In more extreme situations, a respondent may take steps to silence or censor the writer or initiate legal action to “punish” him or her.

The original writer needs to know the occupational hazards. He (or she) must not be thin-shelledskinned and hypersensitive. For sure, any op-ed writer needs to be prepared for debate and to handle the rebuttals and legitimate criticism. In fact, they also need to be able to handle some of the nasty stuff like those hostile remarks and even insults and name-calling. But we certainly need to draw the line at personal attacks, defamation, libel, and character assassination. In these cases, the respondent is not trying to debate what you wrote, set the record straight, rebuke, or educate you. They are trying to harm you and falsely discredit (i.e., defame) you. More so if they initiate frivolous legal action to censor you and to pick your pocket.

In such cases, it is justified for the initial writer to be the one to initiate legal action to defend his reputation and right of expression.

What comes out from all this is that legal action for the sake of censorship, “cancelling”, silencing and bullying would be considered unjustified. Likewise, legal action because a writer or public figure was insulted by harsh remarks or even slangy name-calling is cowardly and petty, especially if the response was triggered by their own public actions or writing, even more so if the writer tends to use this type of terminology as well. This is like school kids who don’t get along snitching to the teacher or inmates snitching to the prison guard when they get “dissed”.

On the other hand, legal action to protect one’s reputation when it is unjustly tarnished with lies and false information and to protect one’s right to express his/her opinion on a controversial matter would be justified. This is what we need the civil laws of slander, libel, and defamation to do.

In short, the civil laws of Lashon Hara are intended to prevent false defamation and character assassination. As we say: Lashon Hara kills three people. The laws are there to prevent one from presenting a false or distorted picture of another in order to damage him. Facts should not be bent or fabricated to be used as a weapon.

On the flip side, the civil laws of Lashon Hara are not meant to protect people who act out publicly or who present unorthodox or offensive views from being called out or criticized. It is not meant to censor or stifle those who do the calling out or criticizing. It is not meant to become a political weapon wherein anyone with an agenda can push his agenda and get shielded from opposition by the biased courts.

Calling out or criticizing a fanatical player is merely presenting an opposing opinion. Officially, this is protected speech. It needn’t be insulting or abrasive. People should always speak nicely. But, even if it is, this does not constitute civil Lashon Hara or an excuse to claim compensation.

Even for cases of defamation or slander, money should only come as a result of damage, be it tangible or potential, or as an impetus to force compliance when the slander continues and the offender doesn’t want to delete it.

Does all this make sense?

It should and it used to. In the old days, all of this was elementary. And judges judged by the rules. And the basic rules were this:

If it’s true, it is not [actionable] defamation. Period.

The legal definition (at least in the Western world) of defamation, which includes slander and libel, is as follows (see source HERE):

Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about.

From this same source:

If you are accused of defamation, slander, or libel, truth is an absolute defense to the allegation. If what you said is true, there is no case. 

This means that it doesn’t matter that the statement(s) are critical, hurtful, or even damaging. If it’s true, then it’s the truth that is doing the damage.

So, in a case of explicit defamation (i.e., not merely slurs), the first and most important factor is whether or not the allegation is entirely true. One cannot argue with the truth or litigate against it.

In the event that it is not entirely true or even entirely false, then it is technically defamation. But now comes a second consideration: is it damaging?

After all, the plaintiff is suing for damages. He needs to claim some monetary value for compensation or there is no reason to litigate. As such, from a perspective of liability, some other factors may come into play:

• Did the offender know it was false? Did he have reason to believe it was true?
  
  
• Did the plaintiff complain to the offender and notify him that his statement is defamatory before taking action? Did he give him an opportunity to retract and edit before taking action?
  
  
• Was the defamation presented in the presence of the subject or behind their back?
  
  
• Was it said or written to a wide audience or to a closed circle?
  
  
• Was it said directly to the plaintiff as a second person dialog (i.e., you are a pervert), or was it in third person (i.e., he is a pervert)? If it was primarily second person dialog, there are grounds to say it isn’t defamation even if it is false (see my previous source).
  
  
• What kind of damage could it cause? How extensive? For how long?

All of the above factors are weighed to limit or impose liability in the case of defamation. But none of it should be necessary if the allegations are true.

Truth is supreme.

As I stated earlier, it is not supposed to matter how insulting or hurtful or even damaging the true allegations are. Defamation is not meant to be defined as offending someone. It is defined as falsely maligning somebody. The courts are not here to protect crybabies from getting their feelings hurt.

All the above is US law. But, this is how it was even here in Israel a generation ago.

How do I know?

Like many people in my generation, we learned about how libel cases work from reading a very controversial and monumental work: Perfidy.

Perfidy was written by Irgun sympathizer Ben Hecht in 1961 and it was banned in Israel by the left-wing government. (We also learned about left-wing censorship from Perfidy.) It started reappearing in the US in a blank jacketed version in the 1970s. That’s when I read it in yeshiva, about 45 years ago.

Perfidy tells the story of the high-profile libel trial that took place in 1954-55. You can get the complete synopsis HERE.

Briefly, in 1954, a religious Jewish Hungarian holocaust survivor, Malkiel Grunwald, put out a leaflet in which he accused a fellow named Rudolf Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis. This Kastner fellow was, at the time, a high-ranking employee of the Jewish agency and a political socialite. The government cronies of Mr. Kastner wanted to teach this Grunwald fellow a lesson and so they sued him for libel.

Big mistake.

As secular as the irreligious left-wing government and judiciary were, the judge in the case, Chaim Halevi, happened to be Orthodox. Regardless, Judge Halevi was concerned about one thing and one thing only – were the allegations in the leaflet true?

Of course, the allegations were offensive to Mr. Kastner. Yes, they were hurtful. Yes, they were critical. And, yes, they were damaging. But were they true or false?

It turned out that for all the details except one, they were true. Totally true. It was true that Mr. Kastner collaborated with Adolf Eichmann, ym”sh. One can argue whether this collaboration was virtuous or monstrous, but there is no arguing that it truly did take place. It was also true that Mr. Kastner testified on behalf of Kurt Becher at the Nuremburg trials. The only thing that Grunwald could not prove was his allegation that Kastner shared some of the material payoff that the Nazis got for the famous “Kastner Transport” that was released. Consequently, Grunwald was mostly acquitted (if my memory serves, he got a small fine for the payoff part).

Once again, the primary issue is whether the defamatory statements are true. This should apply to any defamation that is a narrative. The basic gray area is what we can call slurs, insults or name-calling.

This is because Israeli law is a little different than other Western countries. Other countries define defamation as a “false statement.” Israeli law is different. It defines “Lashon Hara” as a statement that is meant to put down or disgrace another person and/or to make him/her a target for disdain. The implication is that this may hold even if the derogatory language is true.

Only later (Clause 14), does the law state that “I am saying the truth” is a legitimate defense. Though, this somehow falls short of calling it an absolute defense. This gives a lot of subjectivity to the judges to deny the defense.

 

So, back to name-calling.

If you refer to somebody as a “nutcase” (meshuganeh), “idiot”, “sicko”, retard”. Is this defamation? What about calling someone a “pig’ or equating one to a vulgar part of the anatomy or a mother dog (or just plain dog) or the offspring of one? What about calling somebody a “goniff”, “pervert”, “mushchas”, or “mamzer” (in any language)? What about a Nazi?

The courts have debated this issue for decades, and it is still not fully resolved. As such, this depends on no small measure of subjectivity, but also, it depends on the context. What is the context of the name-calling?

Usually, the name-calling is just a put-down, such as calling somebody an “idiot” or “nutcase” or “SOB” or a vulgar part of anatomy. As such, it is clearly not meant to be taken at face value. We can call this “subjective slang”. It’s a way of the offender expressing that he does not think highly of the plaintiff. And it’s his opinion. But he’s really not doing a literal characterization. As Supreme court Judge Dorit Beinish wrote: “It’s not a clinical diagnosis.” Nor is it an analysis on his parentage or zoological status.

These expressions are not indicative of anything, nor do they do any substantial damage. They are just hurtful and insulting. The civil laws of Lashon Hara are not meant to protect people from getting their feelings hurt. So, it really shouldn’t be actionable.

However, sometimes the name calling is relational – i.e., calling somebody a goniff in relation to financial misdeeds, or a “pervert” in relation to sexual misdeeds, or a literal mamzer, or a Nazi. If this is the case, the judgement should go back to whether the basis for the relational epithet is true or not. Is the person really a financial miscreant or a sexual one or emulating the policies of the Nazis? If so, it should not be construed as defamation because it is true. If it is not, then, of course it should.

To summarize, if you call a woman a shoteh, it’s one thing. But if you call her a soteh, it’s quite another.

Although it must be difficult to distinguish what kind of name-calling is subjective slang and what kind is relational, an honest judge will use his head. A biased judge will use her feelings.

The upshot of all this is that the civil laws of defamation – the Chok Lashon Hara – are meant to protect people from damage. They are not meant to be political tools to allow a court to take sides as to which opinions are valid – in their eyes - and which are not, and to silence people who speak out on controversial matters.

So, I find it very disturbing to see just that.

All this came to play in the defamation case that I was involved with, but I am not going to discuss it here. Hopefully, I will do so in a future post. I was assuming and hoping that it was only me that had the misfortune to fall into the clutches of a judge with a personal agenda. But once I see it happening in other cases where religious ideology doesn’t play a part, it tells me we are living in a different generation than Malkiel Grunwald.

What I really want to discuss in the case of Ron vs. Versano.

It seems like our kindergarten jingle of “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me” never graduates from elementary school. And by the time one reaches Law School, it is totally forgotten. Kids don’t get insulted, but grownups do.

It’s a pity.

Stay tuned for Ron vs. Versano in Part 2.

The Worst of All Molesters

 

I was recently at a shiva house and the avel told over a story. There was a minyan that was one man short. To fill the minyan, someone suggested to call an elderly Jew from the adjacent complex who was not known to be religious. The elderly fellow consented to join the minyan. Afterward, he remarked that he had not set foot into a shul for almost fifty years.

When he was asked why not, he told over that he had a lifelong grudge. He was a very poor immigrant who lived only with his father since his mother had died. Once, when he was about eight or ten or so (let’s say ten), it was his mother’s yahrtzeit, so he went to shul to say kaddish. As a penniless orphaned immigrant, all he could do was to scrounge up a few kichels for shul but nothing more. For whatever reason, his father was not with him at shul and so, he was at the shul by himself. He remained through the davening and said kaddish and afterwards put out the small plate of kichels. One of the regulars teased him and said, “This is what you call a tikkun?”

As you might guess, he was very offended and humiliated, and made up never to go back to that shul. Apparently, it was not only to that shul, to any shul.

Really, this is not an exceptional story. Probably all of us have heard stories just like this about people who had traumatic or humiliating experiences in their developing years which turned them away from Yiddishkeit and religion.

Of course, the purpose of telling this story at the shiva was to drive home a point about sensitivity and how a single sarcastic or cynical comment can drive a vulnerable person to shun religion. The trite lesson of חיים ומוות ביד הלשון. And the Torah warns us: כל יתום ואלמנה לא תענון.

This lesson is intended to teach us how we should view the “perpetrator”. How much damage he did and that we certainly should not “be like him”. We probably think of him as one of the most heartless people on earth and will have a lot to answer for in the Heavenly Court. We might say that the Yetzer Hara had this guy in his clutches.

As is my style, I like to look at the other side of the coin. I want to look at the 10-year-old, and now probably about 60-year-old, kid. We see him as the poor orphaned victim and most of us can sympathize with him and understand why he has not walked into a shul for fifty years.

I am not as sympathetic.

No question, a 10-year-old yasom is a very vulnerable person. He had a void in his life and his “greenhorn” immigrant father wasn’t able to compensate and, from how it was told, even the child was an immigrant. One cannot be more socially disconnected than that. Moreover, if he shunned religion at such an age, we assume that he did not go to Jewish day school and probably was not bar-mitzvah. Likely, he never put on tefillin, never went to yeshiva and learned. And probably did not keep other mitzvos. A lost soul.

I get all that.     

Still, as I heard the avel tell the story, I asked myself (and maybe even asked the avel), “50 years?” He certainly had some religious upbringing and knew how to daven in shul and say kaddish. Someone ticks him off and he goes on strike for 50 years? 

50 years?

That’s a long time to bear a grudge. And it’s a long time not to move forward.

Yes, he was young and vulnerable. And the Yetzer Hara saw a soft, unprotected target. A prime candidate for his “molestation”. And, like every molester does, he groomed him to become his  “friend”.

Let’s look again at the “heartless” perpetrator. I don’t see him as “heartless” as much as just plain thoughtless. I’m sure this person didn’t realize how vulnerable the child was and how humiliating it was to criticize him. Jews tend to be cynical and especially because many of us, and certainly the old timers, had to go through this kind of thing themselves. In the old days, nobody was spared.

I see no reason not to dan l’kaf zchus and assume that if he would have known the impact of his remarks, he would have apologized and mollified the boy. But he never got the chance. The Yetzer Hara didn’t want him to. The YH wanted to make sure this kid does not go to shul. After all, who knows what other mitzvas he might ch”v start doing?

Evidently, the YH was working on both sides of the street.

But 50 years is a long time. And after a while a yasom is not a yasom anymore, and a victim is not a victim anymore. Initially, this event was a reason not to go to shul. Later it became an excuse.

There is a valid reason why he left then. But that isn’t a reason not to come back when he is older. He has no reason, just an excuse. Perhaps, when he was approached 50 years later, he finally realized that he has no reason nor any excuse not to comply. Perhaps he had been married and had some grown children. There comes a point where he can’t be a yasom anymore.

But there is no way to get back what he could have had over the past 50 years. And I am sure he is ready to blame this thoughtless Jew for everything. He as much as said so. But it wasn’t him.

Many people suffer traumatic experiences in early life. Experiences that cause them to move away from HKBH. That’s exactly what the YH wants. It’s what he has been grooming them to do. And every time the person might want to take a new step forward, comes his old pal the YH, who has always been there for him, and reminds him or her about how hurt they were at that time. He never lets them forget it. He never lets them get past it. He always brings them back. He makes sure they relive it again and again. 10, 20,30, 50 years or more.

About six weeks ago was Parshas Bechukosai. This Parsha tells us what we need to do to have a successful life – doing Hashem’s mitzvos with some degree of ameilus b’Torah. But right afterwards it tells us how to lose it all. First, we “neglect” to study Torah. Then we abandon mitzvos. Then we loathe others who perform them. Then we despise the Gedolim. Then we prevent others from observing. Then we deny the mitzvos were ever commanded. Then we deny the existence of HKBH.

This is the point of no-return. And how did one get here?

He gradually went down the slippery slope. One level drags one down to the next. (Rashi Vayikra 26:15). And where did it all begin?

Yep, by grooming. It began when the YH told him that there is no reason to understand what HKBH wants from us. No reason to study the Torah. It’s enough just to be observant and do mitzvos. You don’t have to understand them. You don’t need to be an expert. Just be an uneducated consumer.

This is how the grand molester, the Yetzer Hara, grooms us.

Last Shabbos we read Parshas Chukas in Eretz Israel. This coming Shabbos the slowpokes in chu”l will read Parshas Chukas. Parshas Chukas tells us the story of the copper snake. A very strange story. What’s it all about?

Let’s go back to Parshas Acharei Mos.

כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם בה לא תעשו

The deeds of the land of Egypt where you dwelled you are not to do,

Okay, they can relate to that. They were there in Egypt and saw it all. They know what this means. But there's more:

וכמעשה ארץ כנען אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה לא תעשו

The deeds of the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you, you are not to do,

Stop the presses! We already mentioned Egypt and we know what it’s all about. We were there so we have an accurate feel for what the Torah is about to tell us. Why do we need to add on Canaan? They aren’t any different and we haven’t actually been there, anyway.

HKBH knew something we did not yet know. The nation standing at Mount Sinai who are hearing these words, the nation who were redeemed from Egypt, isn’t going to arrive in Eretz Canaan. They will die in the desert and a new generation is going to enter the land of Canaan. And this generation that enters Canaan will not be those who left Egypt and will not be those who saw and internalized the depravity of Egypt. They will be a nation of Jews who were raised and nurtured in the sheltered “Lakewood” of the desert and have no first-hand knowledge of the depravity of the pagans. This kind of behavior will be totally alien to them. Hence, they must be forewarned that they will enter a land of depravity which they have never witnessed and will need to be ready to handle it.

Parshas Chukas is a pivotal parsha. This is the parsha where we “skip” 38 years of dark ages and arrive at year 2487, one year prior to entering the land (2488). And we have a new and complete congregation. A new generation of Jews. A generation who “does not know Joseph” and does not know Pharaoh, either.

After being encamped in the desert wilderness and sheltered by the Clouds of Glory for 38 years, this naïve nation is finally standing at the outskirts of “civilized” nations. They begin seeing things they have never yet seen. Fields with wheat and barley, olive groves, vineyards, orchards. Wells and springs.

 

They have been living in booths made of clouds, drinking “tap” water and eating this strange frosty “bread”. For the younger ones this has been for all their lives. It is all they have ever known. This bread is not miraculous. It’s the norm. We get it every day. And nothing else. And, truth be told, we’re sick of it!

We want real water, real food, not this ruinous bread! Oh, and while we’re at it, I don’t think we need these clouds anymore, either. We don’t know what Egypt was like because we weren’t there, but if it’s anything like the splendor we’re seeing in these lands (Edom, Sichon and Og), we would rather that you never brought us out of there.

The Torah says that HKBH sent the venomous snakes which bit many people of the nation and put many people to death.

Once we recognize that we are dealing with a new and young and naïve nation, it is hard to understand what was so terrible about their complaints.

To understand this, let’s see what happens next.

HKBH tells Moshe to make for himself a serpent (not a snake) and to raise it up on a pole. Whoever is bitten and looks at the serpent will live. Note that it doesn’t say that if he does not, he will die. Moshe then fashions a serpent in the form of a copper snake. The “bitten” people look at this snake and live.

What is happening here?

In this week’s edition of Toras Avigdor, Rav Miller ZTL explains that the “nachash” is an old friend that we know from Brias Olam (Creation). This is the snake that persuaded Adam and Chava to eat from the Eitz Hadaas.

The snake was always meant to be our Yetzer Hara, but it was initially meant to be a more visible and defined entity. It stood up straight. We could easily recognize it and identify it. This was because we did not yet know of both good and evil. Good and evil means good and evil intertwined in every entity (for this we can use a full discussion of the Parah Adumah from this parshah but we’re not going to go there now). But now, after the sin and the new "knowledge", the Yetzer Hara has to take on a new form. One that one doesn't recognize. One that crawls on its belly at ground level and is the same color as the sand and soil. Brown and copper.

The Yetzer Hara is now a clandestine secret agent in all kinds of disguises. Like the old-time radio crime-fighter “The Shadow”, he is all but invisible, knows “the evil that lurks in the hearts of men”, and has the ability to “cloud men’s minds”. Just he’s not interested in fighting crime.

Rav Miller explains that the snake, a.k.a. Yetzer Hara, does not want publicity or exposure. He wants to stay camouflaged where one doesn’t see him. The instruction to Moshe from HKBH was to do the opposite. To take the 'snake’ in its camouflage fatigues (dull copper) and hold him up for all to recognize. When one can now identify this rascal, he can know who the enemy is, and then, he can even learn how to recognize it in his habitat and learn how to avoid it.

As such, aside from the “pashut pshat”, we can understand the allegorical lesson of this event. The inexperienced nation was beginning to stray after their eyes and see distant fields where the grass appeared to be greener. They yearned for a piece of the action. HKBH sent upon them the "nachash", the Yetzer Hara, which “bit” them and caused them to burn with all kinds of passions. This, in turn, led them to disconnect with their spiritual side and the source of life and they began to die. It was a spiritual death.

Moshe created a brown/beige snake (not fiery polished copper) to show them that they are being attacked by a Yetzer Hara who is always camouflaged and crawls on its belly, and one cannot see him coming. As the Mishna says in Rosh Hashanah (3:8), those who would be inspired to fight the Yetzer Hara and rededicate their hearts to HKBH were healed. If not, they deteriorated. This, says the Mishna, is the same thing that happened in their earlier war against Amalek when our hands weakened from Torah.

The new generation were young and inexperienced. They were very vulnerable. And all this time, the great molester, the Yetzer Hara, was grooming them to do his bidding. He disguised himself as nothing more than lush, green looking pastures. Moshe needed to teach them that what looks like greener pastures is the Yetzer Hara’s way of dressing up dry brown (copper) soil.

The lesson of the Copper Snake is not enough. Molesters, like the YH, are hell-bent on getting what they want. The crafty ones do it by grooming the victims to become their friends and convincing the victims that they are doing things they will like and appreciate. They want them to think they are doing them a favor and submit to them willingly. They want the fun to be consensual.

When this doesn’t work, they have another method. This is to incapacitate the victim and do what they want without his/her consent. They try to put them to sleep so they do not know they are being molested. To do this, they may resort to what are known as “date-rape” drugs. These are substances that are added to drinks and put the user asleep and debilitates them.

Renowned Belzer Rosh Yeshiva HRHG Pinchas Fridman, Shlita, releases a drasha every week titled Shevilei Pinchas. In his drasha last Shevuos, he discussed our legend that the Jewish nation overslept on the morning of Mattan Torah. HKBH sounded heavenly Shofarot to wake us up. He writes that the Shofarot were meant to rouse us to do teshuva just like we do in Chodesh ellul. He quotes the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 3:4:

Even though sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a Torah decree (גזירת הכתוב), there is an implication in it, saying ‘wake up sleepers from your slumber and rouse up from your stupor, and examine your deeds and do teshuva and remember your Creator’.

Clearly, the Yetzer Hara doesn’t want us to think about our Creator, so he lulls us to sleep. Rav Friedman goes on and tells a story of a scholar who fell asleep in the Beis Midrash of the Tiferes Shlomo. The Tiferes Shlomo approached him, woke him up and asked him if he could answer “the captain’s question”?

The scholar was puzzled, so the Rav explained, I am referring to the captain of Yonah’s ship. The one who asked him, “Why are you sleeping? Rise up and call out to your G-d.” He then quotes a sefer Arvei Nachal which says that the gemara, tells us that the Jewish nation is compared to a Yonah (Brachos 53b). Thus, Yonah is the entire Jewish nation traveling through galus and chooses to “sleep it out”.

Our sages compared us in this long bitter exile to a ship that is foundering at sea that is expected to sink at any moment, and there is no hope save for the hope that HKBH will save it, for there is no other plan. Likewise, are we in this exile as a sheep among 70 wolves…with no way out. And for this the scripture calls out, “And Yonah descended to the bowels of the ship, and he laid down and slumbered.” The Jewish nation is compared to a dove and the Ruach Hakodesh (the Captain) screams at us, “Why are you sleeping? There is no time to sleep. Just rise up and call out to your G-d. Perhaps G-d will think of you and we will not be lost.”

When we pray maariv we say, הסר שטן מלפנינו ומאחרינו. Remove the Satan from in front of us and from behind us.

What is ‘from in front of us’?

When we can see him and recognize him, even if he is laying low and camouflaged.

What is ‘from behind us’?

When he puts drugs in our drinks and lulls us to sleep.

He is the grand molester, and he comes from all sides.

What is the remedy?

We learned the lesson from Parshas Bechukosai that we must supplement our mitzva observance with ameilus b’Torah. If not, he will groom us and drag us down step by step to rock bottom.

But if we are drugged, we can’t even do that.

We can only arise and call out to HKBH.

קום, קרא אל א-לקיך.

קרוב ה' לכל קוראיו

לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת

יונה בן אמיתי

One thing is certain...

...we cannot be "victims" all our lives.