Thursday, January 6, 2022
Ghislaine Maxwell to seek new trial after juror's sexual abuse claim -lawyer
Tucker Carlson: Democrats fixation on Jan. 6 reveals their midterm strategy
https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-democrats-january-6
He described Jan. 6 as a violent terrorist attack. Of all the things Jan. 6 was, it was definitely not a violent terrorist attack. It wasn’t an insurrection. Was it a riot? Sure. It wasn’t a violent terrorist attack. Sorry. So why are you telling us it was, Ted Cruz? And why are none of your Republican friends who are supposed to be representing us and all of the people who were arrested during this purge saying anything?
What the hell is going on here? You’re making us think the Republican Party is as useless as we suspected it was. That can’t be true. Reassure us, please, Ted Cruz.
Tucker: Maybe the Republican party is as worthless as we suspected it was
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/319973
For the Jan. 6 Rioters, Justice Is Still Coming
https://time.com/6133257/january-6-investigation-capitol-riot-fbi/
Rodef
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodef
Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Timeline: From Trump's First Tweet, Speech to Biden's Certification
Wednesday, January 5, 2022
Police should not disclose details about investigation of cases, accused or victim to media till completion of probe: Karnataka High Court
Line of Dissent: Should a Bais Din Disclose That Its Verdict Wasn’t Unanimous?
https://baishavaad.org/line-of-dissent-should-a-bais-din-disclose-that-its-verdict-wasnt-unanimous/
And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom he may not say, “I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable?” About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Vayikra 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Mishlei 11:13).[2]
Sean Hannity Fails to Mention Letter Sent to Him by Jan. 6 Committee During Show
https://www.newsweek.com/sean-hannity-january-6-committee-text-letter-cooperation-fox-news-1665729
Committee Chair Bennie Thompson and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney said Hannity also expressed concern for the storming of the Capitol and attempted to advise the then-President Donald Trump in the now-public letter.
The letter added: "You also had relevant communications while the riot was underway, and in the days thereafter. These communications make you a fact witness in our investigation."
It also highlighted text messages showing Hannity was concerned with Trump's January 6 plan.
The
letter went on to say: "The Select Committee is in possession of dozens
of text messages you sent to and received from former White House Chief
of Staff, Mark Meadows and others related to the 2020 election and
President Trump's efforts to contest the outcome of the vote."
Halachic Synopsis for Child & Domestic Abuse - reviewed by Rav Moshe Sternbuch
Update July 6 2013 Regarding G's question of whether my view and that of Rav Eliashiv is inconsistent with that of Rav Sternbuch:
I don't think there is any difference between Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch. What I have been saying all along is based on the halachic guidelines I heard from Rav Sternbuch.
1) If you think there is a possibility that a delay in contacting the police places a child risk - then go right to the police.
2) If you think that a there is no harm in waiting then consult a rabbi. However Rav Sternbuch clearly has said one does not abdicate his judgement when consulting a rabbi. It is to basically just to provide an objective view that there is reasonable basis to suspect abuse. However if you feel that the rabbi is wrong - then you are required by Rav Sternbuch to ask another rabbi. All of this again is only if the delay doesn't create a possibility of danger for a child. Rav Sternbuch said in addition that a rabbi needs to be consulted in order that the world shouldn't be hefker. Again this principle does not override the welfare of a child and thus is only relevant when it doesn't endanger a child's welfare.
In addition if there is mandated reporting - in New Jersey that applies to everyone - then you also must report possible abuse. Rav Sternbuch said that even with mandated reporting one should go to the rabbi because the police don't mind if you ask a rabbi or professional or friend first.
This latter point is problematic. There is no question that some places don't mind or rather there were some places where up till recently didn't feel it was critical to report immediately. However if they do insist that you report immediately you could get into trouble for delaying. For example if a child is abused because you delayed then you could be in serious trouble. The halacha does not require you to endanger your welfare, finances or professional license to first consult a rabbi. So practically speaking - especially where there is mandatory reporting - it is typically best to go right to the police if you think that any delay would possibly danger a child.
In sum - I recorded what Rav Sternbuch told me his views are. And he approved the accuracy of my report. However I am saying that utilizing his principles - most of the time it is best to call the police first because the lack of rabbis who know what they are talking about in these issues and therefore there is the distinct possibility that a delay caused by trying to consult with a rabbi would endanger a child.Thus on a practical level you are creating a possible harm to a child by delaying. Rav Sternbuch seems to feel that typically you will have time to consult a rabbi without endangering the child. It is thus a question of reality - not of halachic principle. In my experience with Rav Sternbuch - he doesn't actually conduct an investigation and call in witnesses. He listens and if it sounds that there are grounds to suspect abuse then he says to call the police.
The rabbi is not serving as a beis din and the rabbis is not poskening halacha here. There is no din of mesira in reporting abuse. Reporting abuse is a non-judicial procedure based on rodef. Even if it is only a sofek rodef - we treat it the same as certain rodef.
A molester is considered a rodef because typically they will attack again. We did have a disagreement regarding someone who hasn't molested for many years. Rav Sternbuch said he is presumed to be no longer dangerous while the professionals I spoke to disagreed and said that some pedophiles will be inactive for 20 or more years and then start again. This is especially true after they have been sentenced to jail for abuse - they tend to behave themselves for various periods after getting out. On the other hand as far as I know there is no requirement to report according to mandated reporting - if you don't think it likely that he will attack again.
My understanding of Satmar and Lakewood - is they are in agreement with Rav Menashe Klein. There is a requirement of beis din, there needs to an actual investigation and witnesses and they don't seem to understand that nice people with proper yichus can be pedophiles. They don't understand that promises mean nothing to a pedophile.They are not trained or experienced in conducting an investigation in these issues. In sum they are willing to give the molester the benefit of the doubt - even at the expense of children being attacked. Rav Sternbuch is clearly not requiring anything which might endanger the child and he leaves the investigation up to the police.
Child abuse - Rabbi Simon Jacobson's views
New York - Rabbi Simon Jacobson of Brooklyn NY is a sought-after scholar and lecturer on Jewish thought and its contemporary application, speaking to diverse audiences worldwide, he has also undertaken a strong approach on the issue of child abuse in the frum community. VIN News recently exchanged email and phone conversations with the good rabbi to get his opinion on the issue of exposing child molesters in the frum world.
Dear Rabbi, As chief-editor of a news website I commend you for courageously addressing one of the worst curses plaguing our community: child abuse. I receive many submissions exposing child molesters and various forms of abuse in our communities. I would like you to discuss the issue of publicizing this information. On one hand, many argue that we are prohibited from “loshon hora,” speaking ill of others, even if it may be true. On the other hand how can any responsible person ignore the issue that has such devastating effects and just “push it under the rug”? I believe that you have the power to spearhead a major campaign, headed by real Rabbis and activists, to address this issue for the benefit of the larger community. The gravity of abuse and its terrible consequences requires that we do nothing less than wake up, shake up and turn the community upside down. Thank you,
Dear Editors: Thank you for your supporting words and confidence. I am not really sure whether I can live up to your expectations to spearhead any major effort, but I can try adding my small contribution to this vital topic. The only reason I have for the last few weeks been writing about abuse is precisely due to its far-reaching and devastating effects on so many lives. And not just for now, but for generations to come. Everything we build and teach our children, all our investments and dedication to good, all our moral standards, our entire education system, can be wiped out in one fell swoop when we or our children are violated. I have been trained in the Torah way of thinking that any question we have must be framed in objective context, and weighed by various moral criteria that help us achieve some clarity. This is especially true for controversial and emotionally charged issues, due to their subjective effect on all of us – fear, anger, vengeance, shock, disbelief, and all the other complex feelings evoked by abuse. The first of all ethical and Torah axioms must be stated at the outset: No one has a right to in any way violate in any way the body or soul of another human being. Indeed, we don’t even have the right to mutilate our own bodies, because your body does not belong to you; it is “Divine property.” Let alone someone else’s property. No crime is worse that assaulting another’s dignity – which is compared to the dignity of G-d Himself, being that every person was created in the Divine Image. Even a hanged murderer must not be defiled and his body not left to hang overnight because it reflects the Divine Image. How much more so – infinitely more so – regarding a live person and innocent child… Abuse, in any form or shape, physical, psychological, verbal, emotional or sexual, is above all a violent crime – a terrible crime. Abusing another (even if it’s intangible) is no different than taking a weapon and beating someone to a pulp. And because of its terrible long-term effects, the crime is that much worse. What do we do with violent criminals? We punish them. Once it has been determined that abuse was perpetrated, there should be consequences, both for the perpetrator and as a deterrent to other potential violators. The actual consequences need to be determined by local legal and Torah standards by the authorities on location. If for any reason the Torah authorities cannot deal with the situation, the only recourse is the same one employ for murderers, thieves and other criminals: legal action. The next question is this: What are our obligations as parents, teachers, writers, website editors, or just plain adult citizens, when it comes to abuse? On one hand we are talking about protecting innocent people from criminal predators, which clearly is a major obligation and priority concern. On the other hand, we do have laws prohibiting embarrassing people (even criminals) in public, always hopeful, allowing people to correct their ways. We have laws about avoiding gossip and speaking ill about others (loshon hora), and not feeding into the base instinct of “talking about others” or “mob mentality” witch-hunting expeditions.[...]
R' Avi Shafran's offensive article regarding child abuse
That is, put bluntly, an unmitigated insult to Judaism. Jewish life holds high the ideals of family, community, compassion for others, control of anger and passions, and ethical behavior. There will always be seemingly observant individuals who are hypocritical, or who may sadly fail the test of self-control, even with horrendous impacts on the lives of others.
Those words, sandwiching an important admission between a sinister question and an unfounded speculation, were written back in 2006 by Robert Kolker in New York magazine.
Mr. Kolker’s “reason to believe” was based on speculation by the New York Jewish Week’s Hella Winston, who has since established herself as someone who views the Orthodox community through heavily jaundiced eyes.
Our hearts must ache with the anguish of victims of abuse, especially children. And it’s natural for people who have met survivors of terrible things to feel deeply for them, and angry at their abusers. But extrapolating from the harrowing accounts of carefully sought-out victims that abuse, which sadly exists in the Orthodox community as it does in all communities, is somehow emblematic of Orthodox life is like visiting Sloan Kettering and concluding that there is a national cancer epidemic raging.
The New York writer went on to offer an even more offensive, even less grounded, conjecture, protectively qualified by the preface “There are some who believe…” What the safely unnamed “some” believe is that “repression in the ultra-Orthodox community”—namely, dedication to Jewish law and custom—“can foster abuse” [emphasis mine].
That is, put bluntly, an unmitigated insult to Judaism. Jewish life holds high the ideals of family, community, compassion for others, control of anger and passions, and ethical behavior. There will always be seemingly observant individuals who are hypocritical, or who may sadly fail the test of self-control, even with horrendous impacts on the lives of others. But does the existence of corrupt police and unethical doctors indict the professions of law enforcement or medicine?
If any belief system enables immoral and unethical behavior, it is not Judaism but its polar opposite, the conviction that no higher authority exists. While atheists may live upstanding lives, it should be self-evident that denial of a Higher Power and divine laws for mankind leaves a human being with no authority but himself, and no compelling reason—other than getting caught—to shun bad behavior.
These thoughts come to mind in the wake of a recent highly-publicized abuse scandal in England. One Jimmy Savile, a famous entertainment figure who died last year, was posthumously exposed as a serial abuser of children, including patients in hospitals he visited in the course of charitable fundraising work.
The British National Health Service, police, and the BBC all stand accused of turning a blind eye to the man’s crimes—which were the subject of a BBC broadcast that the network canceled.
Astoundingly, in Mr. Savile’s 1976 autobiography, he did not shy from describing some of his abusive behavior, which clearly crossed the moral and legal line, bragging that had “not been found out.”
“Which, after all,” he added, in an attempt at humor, “is the 11th commandment, is it not?”
No, Mr. Kolker and your “some who believe,” a religious Jew is imbued with consciousness that, as Rabi Yehudah Hanasi expressed in Massechta Avos (2:1): “An eye sees and an ear hears, and all of your actions are in the record written.”
That truth, though, can be occasionally forgotten even by us non-atheists. That is the message of the initially puzzling blessing Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai offered his students as he lay dying, that “the fear of Heaven be to you like the fear of flesh and blood” (Brachos 28b).
“Is that all?” they exclaimed. The sage’s response: “If only!”
“Think.” he continued. “When a person commits a sin in private, he says ‘May no person see me!’.”
And yet, of course, he is seen all the same. Jimmy Savile was seen, and so are we all.
© 2012 Rabbi Avi Shafran
Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/11/16/the-evil-eleventh/#ixzz2CW0TqOKt
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Royal Commission: Sydney rabbi 'did not know' it was a crime for an adult to touch a child's genitals
Abuse an example of concept creep
The main contention of this article is that in recent decades the meanings of several of psychology’s key concepts have changed in a systematic way. I argue that those changes have targeted particular kinds of concept and moved in a particular direction. Specifically, it is psychology’s negative concepts—those that refer to undesirable, harmful, or pathological aspects of human experience and behavior—that had meaning changes, and these changes have consistently expanded those meanings. The concepts denoted at an earlier time, but they now also refer to a horizontally and vertically enlarged range of additional phenomena. This semantic inflation is not widely appreciated by psychologists. When it has been noted it has been discussed in relation to a single concept, and the general pattern has been missed. In the body of the article I illustrate the “concept creep” hypothesis by reviewing changes in six concepts drawn from the provinces of developmental, clinical, and social psychology: abuse, bullying, trauma, mental disorder, addiction, and prejudice After presenting these six case studies, I examine the causes and implications of the changes they illustrate. I argue that a good explanation of concept creep must account for why the changes are specific to negative concepts and why they involve expansion rather than contraction. It should also encompass both vertical and horizontal expansion and account for the consistency of the effect across diverse concepts rather than explaining each change on its own terms. Explanations that invoke technological, social, and cultural developments are entertained, as are some that implicate psychology as a discipline. I then discuss the wider consequences of concept creep. As Hacking argued, changes in human kind concepts alter social reality, looping back into how people understand themselves and one another and bringing new kinds of people into existence through what he called “dynamic nominalism” (Hacking, 1986). I am at pains not to present concept creep as unambiguously desirable or undesirable, or to write it off as arbitrary or unwarranted. Conceptual revision is to be expected in view of changing scientific and social realities, and it may be appropriately responsive to those changes. Although many critics have held psychological concepts responsible for damaging cultural trends—such as supposed cultures of fear, therapy, and victimhood—the conceptual shifts I present have some positive implications. Nevertheless, they also have potentially damaging ramifications for society and for psychology that cannot be ignored. Case Study 1: Abuse The concept of abuse has grown in prominence within psychology and related fields, largely through the growing awareness that maltreatment of children and adults, and its implications for mental health, has been underestimated in the past. This underestimation goes back at least as far as Freud’s abandonment of the seduction theory of hysteria. Decades of research have established the disturbing high prevalence of their causal role in a variety of mental disorders. Hacking (1991) has written at length about the shifting understandings of abuse and the relevance of looping effects to those shifts. He documented the malleability of ideas of child abuse and how these were shaped by cultural trends, legal institutions, and social movements such as feminism and children’s rights activism. However, his historical study primarily addresses changes in professional and popular representations of abuse from the 19th century through to the 1970s and does not focus specifically on psychology. My emphasis here is on more recent changes in the definition of abuse within that field. Classic psychological investigations of abuse recognized two forms, physical and sexual. Physical abuse involved the intentional infliction of bodily harm, whereas sexual abuse involved inappropriate sexual contact, including penetrative sex or nonpenerative molestation. Childhood exposure to these forms of abuse was found to increase vulnerability to adult psychopathology, relationship difficulties, and physical ill health. Three changes to the conceptualization of abuse that have occurred within the psychological literature over recent decades represent clear cases of horizontal expansion. First, “emotional abuse” (Thompson & Kaplan, 1996)—sometimes labeled “psychological abuse”—was introduced as a new abuse subtype. It refers to forms of maltreatment that need not involve bodily contact, unlike physical and sexual abuse, but includes verbal aggression and other behavior that is domineering, intimidating, threatening, rejecting, degrading, possessive, inconsistent, or emotionally unresponsive. This form of abuse was commonly studied within intimate domestic relationships. This new focus on behavior exchanged between adults represents a second horizontal extension of the abuse concept from its traditional focus on the behavior of adults toward children. A third horizontal extension of the abuse concept is its incorporation of neglect. Neglect implies a lack of appropriate care and concern, as when negligent parents fail to tend to their children’s basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, physical contact, and affection. In the early literature on child maltreatment, neglect and abuse were traditionally considered separately—the field’s flagship journal, which commenced publication in 1976, was entitled Child Abuse and Neglect—but increasingly neglect has been understood as a form of abuse. Cicchetti and Barnett’s (1991) taxonomy of child abuse, for example, considers physical neglect as one of its subtypes. Similarly, Goldsmith and Freyd (2005) considered emotional neglect, or “emotional unavailability,” to be a form of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse and neglect as abuse are ideas that represent horizontal extensions of the abuse concept. The former extends abuse into the realm of non physical harm, where damage is done indirectly through language or social interaction. The latter extends the abuse concept by including acts of omission. Whereas physical and sexual forms of abuse represent the commission of undesirable acts toward a victim, neglect involves the failure to commit desirable acts. Neglect, like physical or sexual abuse, can be an act in the sense of being deliberate, but it differs from these prototypes of abuse by referring to inaction. The inclusion of emotional abuse and neglect within a broadened concept of abuse may also represent a vertical expansion of that concept. Emotional abuse encompasses some forms of interpersonal treatment that are more diffuse and ambiguous than those that fall within the realms of physical and sexual abuse, which, because they require bodily con tact, are intrinsically more tangible. Determining what counts as emotional abuse may have a larger element of subjectivity. Whether a particular interaction represents humiliation or teasing, possessiveness or protectiveness, and aggressiveness or assertiveness may be uncertain and the parties involved may have very different perceptions. If deciding whether emotional abuse has occurred depends on the self identified victim’s perception, abuse can be invoked as a description that might seem innocuous from an independent observer’s standpoint. This reliance on highly subjective impressions is a feature of some methods of assessing abuse, as in the following item from a popular self report measure: “As a child, did you feel unwanted or emotionally neglected?” A similar vertical expansion of the abuse concept can result when it incorporates neglect. Because criteria for judging omissions (i.e., what was not done that should have been) tend to be less concrete than those for judging commissions (i.e., what was done that should not have been), the boundary of neglect is indistinct. As a consequence, the concept of neglect can become overinclusive, identifying behavior as negligent that is substantially milder or more subtle than other forms of abuse. This is not to deny that some forms of neglect are profoundly damaging, merely to argue that the concept’s boundaries are sufficiently vague and elastic to encompass forms that are not severe. This brief discussion of abuse reveals that the concept’s meaning has undergone significant inflation, horizontal and vertical. Its message is well captured by Furedi (2006), who noted a “continuous expansion of the range of human experiences which can be labelled as abusive,” such that “neglect and unintended insult become equated with physical violence and incorporated into an all purpose generic category ” (p. 86).</div>