EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!

EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters
CLICK! For the full motion to quash: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/UOJ-motiontoquashmemo.pdf

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Standing in solidarity with Muslims after Orlando makes as much sense as standing in solidarity with Klansmen after the Charleston massacre. No one should be standing in solidarity with hate groups. Omar wasn’t radicalized by the “internet”. He got his ideas from Islamic clerics who got their ideas from Islam. He was “radicalized” by the holiest texts of Islam. Just like every other Muslim terrorist. His actions weren’t “senseless” or “nihilistic”, he was acting out the Muslim privilege of a bigoted ideology.

Muslim Privilege Killed 49 People in Orlando

Islamophobia kills… non-Muslims.




The deadliest mass shooting in American history happened because of Islamophobia.

Islamophobia killed 49 people in Orlando. It didn’t kill 49 Muslims. Instead it allowed Omar Mateen, a Muslim terrorist, to kill 49 people in the name of his Islamic ideology and the Islamic State.

Omar, like so many other Muslim killers, could have been stopped. He talked about killing people when he worked at G4S Security, a Federal contractor that provided services to the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. But, according to one of the co-workers he stalked, a former police officer, his employers refused to do anything about it because he was a Muslim.

The FBI conducted an investigation of Omar Mateen. They put him on a watch list and sent informants. They interviewed him and concluded that his claims of Al Qaeda ties and terrorist threats were reactions to “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Omar told the agents that he said those things because “his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”

And they believed him.

Poor Omar wasn’t a potential terrorist. He was just a victim of Islamophobia.

Omar got away with homophobic comments that would have gotten Americans fired because he was Muslim. He weathered an “extensive” FBI investigation because he was Muslim.

Anyone who says that there is no such thing as Muslim Privilege ought to look at Omar Mateen.

There is a direct line between Omar’s Muslim privilege and the Pulse massacre. Omar Mateen’s Muslim privilege protected him from consequences. While the media studiously paints the image of a beleaguered population of American Muslims suffering the stigma of constant suspicion, Omar’s Muslim background actually served as a shield and excused behavior that would have been unacceptable for anyone else. Omar Mateen’s Muslim privilege shielded him until he was actually murdering non-Muslims.

And Omar’s case is not unique. The Fort Hood killer, Nidal Hasan, handed out business cards announcing that he was a Jihadist. He delivered a presentation justifying suicide bombings, but no action was taken. Like Omar, the FBI was aware of Hasan. It knew that he was talking to Al Qaeda bigwig Anwar Al-Awlaki, yet nothing was done. Instead of worrying about his future victims, the FBI was concerned that investigating him and interviewing him would “harm Hasan’s career”.

One of his classmates later said that the military authorities, “Don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.”

Would the FBI have been as sensitive if Nidal Hasan had been named Frank Wright? No more than Omar Mateen would have kept his security job if his name had been Joe Johnson.
It’s an increasingly familiar story.

The neighbors of San Bernardino killers Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik noticed that something strange was going on, but they were afraid of profiling Muslims. If they had done the right thing, the 14 victims of the two Muslim killers would still be alive. If the FBI had done the right thing with Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood victims would still be alive and whole. If the FBI had done the right thing with Omar Mateen, his 49 victims would still be alive and those he wounded would still be whole.

We have some basic choices to make. We can empathize with Muslims or with their victims.

We cannot however do both.

After 9/11, Muslims somehow became the biggest victim group in America. And even if you contend that most Muslims are not responsible for the actions of Islamic fundamentalist groups, even if you believe that most Muslims are being wrongly blamed for the actions of a smaller group of radicals, the pernicious myth of Muslim victimhood has become a distorting force that protects terrorists.

Muslim victimhood has elevated Islamist groups such as CAIR to the front row of political discourse alongside legitimate civil rights organizations, despite their terror links and history of obstructing law enforcement efforts to fight Islamic terrorism, while mainstreaming their Islamist agendas.

Muslim victimhood has silenced the victims of Muslim terrorism. Every Muslim terror attack is swiftly diverted to the inevitable “backlash” narrative in which the media turns away from the bodies in the latest terror attack to bring us the stories of the real Muslim victims who fear being blamed for it.

This obscene act of media distraction silences the victims of Muslim terrorism and rewards the enablers and accomplices of Muslim terrorism instead. It is every bit as terrible as claiming that the real victims of a serial killer are his family members who are being blamed for not turning him in, instead of the people he killed and the loved ones they left behind.

Muslim victimhood protects Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen. It shields them from scrutiny. It invents excuses for them. While Omar made his preparations, while the FBI investigation of him was botched, the media leaped nimbly from a thousand petty claims of Muslim victimhood. And the worst of them may have been Tahera Ahmad, a Muslim woman who claimed she was discriminated against when a flight attendant poured her soda in a cup instead of being given a can. This insane nonsense received days of media coverage. That’s more airtime than any American victim of Islamic terrorism has received.

The media will wait as short a period as it can and turn away from Orlando to some manufactured viral media claim of Muslim discrimination that will be unbearably petty. Meanwhile the next Omar Mateen will be plotting his next act of terror.

It’s time to tell the truth.

Islamic terrorism is caused by Muslim privilege. These acts of violence are motivated by racism and supremacism in Islam. Allahu Akbar, the Islamic battle cry often associated with acts of terror and ethnic cleansing since its origin in Mohammed’s persecution of the Jews, is a statement of Muslim superiority to non-Muslims.

Muslim terrorism is not the groan of an oppressed minority. Its roots run back to racist and supremacist Islamic societies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt where non-Muslims have few if any civil rights. Muslims are a global majority. Islamic terrorism is their way of imposing their religious system on everyone.

Standing in solidarity with Muslims after Orlando makes as much sense as standing in solidarity with Klansmen after the Charleston massacre. No one should be standing in solidarity with hate groups.

Omar wasn’t radicalized by the “internet”. He got his ideas from Islamic clerics who got their ideas from Islam. He was “radicalized” by the holiest texts of Islam. Just like every other Muslim terrorist. His actions weren’t “senseless” or “nihilistic”, he was acting out the Muslim privilege of a bigoted ideology.

Even in this country, the majority of hate crimes are not directed at Muslims. Instead Muslims have disproportionately contributed to persecuting various minority groups. Orlando is only the latest example of this trend. In Europe, Jews are fleeing Sweden and France because of Muslim persecution. In Germany, gay refugees have to be housed separately from Muslim migrants. So do Christian refugees.

This isn’t the behavior of victims. These are the actions of oppressors.

Muslims are not part of the coalition of the oppressed, but of the oppressors. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can deal stop Islamic terrorism and protect the victims of Muslim terrorists.
Muslim privilege killed 49 people in Orlando. How many people will it kill next week or next month? How many will it kill in the next decade or the next century?

The Muslim genocide of non-Muslims is already happening in Syria and Iraq. Islam has a long genocidal history. And if we continue to confuse the oppressors and the oppressed, the next genocide we fail to stop may be our own.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263201/muslim-privilege-killed-49-people-orlando-daniel-greenfield

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

"Yes, you heard me correctly: 1 in 5 adults in the Orthodox Jewish community also suffers from some form of mental illness."



My Plea To The Jewish Community

Written Anonymously




Although I am only 24 years old, I see myself as having achieved more than most young adults.  A college graduate with a 3.94 GPA who balanced school, extracurricular activities, and other life responsibilities, I never could have predicted that I would one day be subject to a shidduch crisis of a different caliber.  I never imagined that I would be seen as incapable, damaged, and unworthy of the same life experiences as anyone else.

Although I may have spent six months in treatment for an eating disorder during my early college years, and three months in treatment for anxiety and depression post-college, I always believed that my experiences have made me stronger and more capable of coping with the challenges of life.  To me, recovery means the ability to live a meaningful life, a life that I would fill with passion, joy, and hobbies, most of which were lost in the throes of mental illness.  As part of my meaningful life, I’ve always looked forward to the day every little girl dreams of.  I looked forward to the day of my wedding – the day I would walk down the aisle in my white dress, walking around my chasan seven times, the day I would begin building my home on the foundation of Torah.

Little did I know what I would face when I would enter the dating turf of Orthodox Jews.  While in treatment, I was empowered to be open and honest about my struggles, and I was taught the importance of owning my past.  However, upon my return home, mentor after mentor, friend after friend, family member after family member encouraged me to keep these experiences a secret.  After all, how would I get a job?  How would I get a shidduch?  Besides one public speaking stint, I listened to these recommendations.  It was only as I worked my way through my first job that I began to understand the implications of my struggles on my life as an Orthodox Jew.

As a teacher, the way I represent myself is of utmost importance to my being a role model.  When it came out that I had struggled from mental health issues, a member of the administration politely told me that no student should ever find out.  Professionally, I understood this.  Personally, as someone who serves as a role model to vulnerable teenagers, I questioned if this was the correct approach.  Shouldn’t we be teaching our youth that it’s okay to struggle?  Shouldn’t we be showing them living proof that it is possible to overcome one’s obstacles?  What better role model than one whom they can potentially relate to and be empowered by?  While it is not easy to feel judged due to my past, I am grateful for the opportunity to break the stigma and prove to my colleagues that individuals who have suffered from mental illness can often be just as valuable and successful as anyone else.

Research done by the National Alliance on Mental Illness shows that approximately 1 in 5 adults in the US – 43.8 million, or 18.5% – experiences mental illness in a given year.  In fact, approximately 1 in 25 adults in the US – ten million, or 4.2% – experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.  You might be surprised, but these statistics don’t discount Orthodox Jews.  Yes, you heard me correctly: 1 in 5 adults in the Orthodox Jewish community also suffers from some form of mental illness.

Unfortunately, the general population is still fairly skeptical of those who suffer or have overcome mental illness, not realizing how complex it is.  People associate mental illness with homeless people walking the streets of New York City, psychiatric institutions, and a host of pills that may or may not help.  What we as a community have to come to understand is that not all forms of mental illness are the same.  Yes, some may need to be hospitalized.  Others may need to take medication to maintain their recovery.  That does not mean that individuals who suffer from mental illness do not deserve to live the same enjoyable, fulfilling lives as anyone else.  What many don’t realize is that mental illness can also affect people who have high-ranking jobs, loving families, and gratifying social lives. 

 Chances are you know someone who suffers from mental illness on some level.  It’s just not spoken about.

That is why people like me, whether recovered from mental illness, or suffering from just some anxiety, have a shidduch crisis of our own.  I have unfortunately been privy to the ups and downs of the “dating world” for the past four years and it has truly been a roller coaster.

Let us start with the first “serious” guy I dated.  He seemed slightly nervous when I told him about my history, but told me we would get through it and that everything would be okay.  The next thing I knew, his mother was calling individuals in my community to find out about me – individuals who had no idea about any of my struggles and now knew way more about my personal life than I was comfortable with.  His mother even went through the grapevine to find out who my therapist was and called her!  Don’t you think that’s taking things a little too far?  If her son is old enough to be getting married, shouldn’t he be making these phone calls himself?  His mother ended our relationship on account of not being comfortable with my history.

Enter a few other guys I dated within the next few years.  There were obviously the guys with whom things just didn’t work out.  I am okay with that.  Everyone experiences that.  Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t tell every guy I dated about my struggles.  I only revealed the information when the relationships got to the point where I was halachically obligated and felt comfortable doing so.  Then entered the guys who claimed they were okay with my past, but proceeded to end the relationship the date after they found out.  At this point I knew I hit a roadblock.  These guys were not comfortable with my past but felt too uncomfortable to tell me that.  I can understand that.  It must be awkward for them.  I always took these “rejections” in stride, believing that one day I would meet someone who would accept me.

Enter a serious marriage prospect: This guy was different from the others.  Being that we knew each other since the age of nineteen, he was no stranger to my history and had always been a supportive friend throughout my struggles.  Everyone who heard we were dating encouraged me to “make it work” because he already accepted me for all I had been through.  We had the same values, enjoyed each other’s company, and as the phrase goes, “we clicked.”  As the months went by and we continued to spend time together, he opened up to his parents about our next step: his plans to marry me.  After watching us date for five months, his parents were happy for him and completely supported our plan to build a home and spend the rest of our lives together – that is, until they asked the magic question: Does she take any medication?

I do not believe in lying.  I told him he had to tell his parents, especially since my recovery was such a large part of my past and made me who I am today.  I feared holding back this information would lead to issues in the future, if his parents found out about my past later on in our lives.  Upon hearing my struggles, his parents made a complete 180.  They were no longer supportive.  They wanted to do research and find out everything about anything I had ever struggled with.  I sat on a chair while they asked me question after question about both my past and my present, listening for any red flags that may come up.  I offered them to speak to my therapist and psychiatrist, but they had no interest.  They believed my therapist would only be trying to “sell” me and would have no concern for the wellbeing of their son.

They took a different approach.  They Googled my medications, printing out the side effects and showing them to the man I thought I would marry, making it seem like every side effect must affect me.  They estimated the cost of therapy for a year, telling him I was very expensive and that he wouldn’t have to worry about these costs with another girl.  Wow.  I am now an object.  I am expensive.  What if my taste in clothing was expensive?  They blamed my excellent organization and time management skills on my anxiety, while those are truly just basic elements of my temperament that some people struggle with their whole lives!

Yes, you heard me correctly: 1 in 5 adults in the Orthodox Jewish community also suffers from some form of mental illness.

We spoke with rabbis, mentors, and even psychologists in the field.  Nothing seemed to help.  His parents would return to the same arguments over and over, as to why my condition was concerning, despite the fact that no professional deemed it so.  The guy I was seeing tried his hardest to defend me, yet also knew in the end of the day that he would have to respect his parents’ wishes.

After two and a half weeks of waiting for his parents to make their decision, I began to question some of their behaviors.  Why was all this research necessary?  Why did they have to read article after article when these articles were prototypes, barely applicable to my experiences?  Why couldn’t they just look at me without my diagnostic label, and appreciate me for what I have to offer?  Why can’t they see that I am a successful teacher devoted to a life of Torah, family, and tikun olam?  Why can’t they look at the fact that I love their son and he loves me?  Why can’t they trust him that he knows what he’s “getting himself into,” that despite the challenges I’ve been through, he wants me to be his wife?  Why couldn’t they let him make the most important decision of his life?

After everything I had been through in life, I couldn’t allow myself to be treated like damaged goods.  I could not stick around and continue to be insulted, viewed as an object for sale, with each and every flaw being scrutinized.  I do not suffer from severe mental illness that affects my daily living.  So I have occasional bouts of depression and generalized anxiety.  Yet, I also hold down a job.  In fact, I even get promotions.  I have friends.  I have a loving and tight-knit family.  I do not deserve to be treated as a pariah, an unwanted nuisance, and interloper to a perfect family.

If I didn’t believe in Hashem to the extent that I do, if my faith in Judaism wasn’t as strong as it is, I can tell you that after my experiences in the dating world, I would no longer want to be frum.  I have friends outside the Orthodox world, and while there is still stigma surrounding the topic of mental illness, it does not exist to the same degree.  There is more education, awareness, and sensitivity towards those who struggle or may have struggled in the past.  Parents are not as involved in their children’s dating lives and don’t end relationships that are on the path to marriage.  Couples who want to get married do so with or without parental support, knowing that in the end of the day they are at least getting to spend the rest of their lives with the persons they love.

Our relationship ended two weeks ago and I don’t write this as a plea to his family.  This is a plea to the Jewish community at large.  Don’t wait until your child comes home and says he or she wants to marry someone who has been diagnosed with depression.  Don’t wait until you are set up on a date with a guy or girl who you soon find out has anxiety.  Educate yourself now.  Learn about what it means to suffer from these disorders on a daily basis.  Understand that just because one suffers from a mental illness, it doesn’t mean that the person is unable to take care of him or herself and live a stable, happy, productive life.  The “buzzwords” of mental illness are nowhere near as scary as they sound.

I often read articles about the “shidduch crisis” and marriage horror stories.  Numerous shiurim and dating books describe red flags and obstacles that lead to unhealthy marriages.  None of them (at least that I’ve come across) have described what to do when the person you are dating is everything one is looking for but comes with one – just one – of these red flags.  Depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses are all seen as red flags.  Does this mean people with the slightest case of depression are not marriage material?  What if a woman has a baby and gets postpartum depression?  Is she no longer marriage material?  Is a divorce in order?  I can assure you that numerous people with some form of mental illness get married every day and do just fine.

Instead of looking at mental illness as a red flag, we need to view it on a spectrum.  I am not going to lie.  Some forms of mental illness are in fact red flags, and do need to be evaluated as such.  When searching for a spouse or “investigating” your child’s future partner, keep in mind that medication does not mean mediocrity.  Remember to be sensitive in the questions you ask and the way you go about your questioning.  Speak with a psychologist or doctor trained specifically in the illness your loved one suffers from, preferably one who works with him or her.  You will need your partner’s permission due to confidentiality, but I can assure you that if he or she loves you, permission will be granted.  The doctor will not only be looking out for his patient’s welfare.  In fact, once speaking with you, the doctor is obligated to tell you the truth about your loved one and you do not have to worry about lies.  Speak to a rabbi who works with and understands mental illness.  Find a neutral party to help guide you in this process.  If you truly love someone, it will be worth it.

I have a challenge for the Jewish community.  We need to open up a dialogue – a dialogue about dating and mental health in an open-minded, calm, and sensitive manner.  We need to raise awareness about the challenges of dating when diagnosed with mental illness, and educate our community that the nature of a diagnosis is different for everyone.  The Jewish people are a nation built on the foundation of Torah, avodah, and g’milus chasadim.  As we navigate the dating world, let us keep in mind some of the most basic bein adam l’chaveiro tenets and limit the lashon ha’ra that comes out of our mouths.  I urge you to do your avodah, but do it properly.  Make sure to reach out to the proper people and take advantage of the correct resources.  Lastly, be kind.  Do not forget that you are dealing with another person’s emotions, self-respect, and dignity.  I plead to you: If confronted with a situation related to shidduchim and mental health, act with kindness, sensitivity, and understanding.  In this way, we will together be addressing a different aspect of the shidduch crisis – one that often goes misunderstood, unrecognized, and unheard.  Let us be a light unto the nations by being a light unto ourselves.

http://www.queensjewishlink.com/style-and-living/dating-marriage/plea-jewish-community/

65 MILLION! WOW!

CLICK:https://plus.google.com/106580239978263655484/posts

The problem with Obama’s attitude is that they are coming here to chop our heads off, only they’re not doing it one by one with kidnapped Americans...

No One’s Looking for ‘Magic Words’


A
After the president’s statement on Sunday, which focused on the anti-gay “hate crime” aspect of the attack on Pulse and disregarded the specific fact that the shooter pledged his fealty to ISIS before and during his monstrous spree, the counterattack on those of us appalled by the astounding gap in the president’s words was perfectly captured by Jeffrey Goldberg’s tweet: “If Obama invokes the magical incantation ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ will the problem go away? If yes, then he should do it right away.”

And though Hillary Clinton herself mentioned “radical Islamism” as a cause of the attack on Monday, she oddly echoed Goldberg on Tuesday by saying Donald Trump seemed to think they were “magic words.” So did the president, who said, “There’s no magic to the phrase  ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a talking point.”

This is all an effort at misdirection. The problem with Obama’s conduct isn’t that naming radical Islam would solve the problem. Of course, it wouldn’t solve the problem. The issue is that the refusal to name radical Islam is part of the problem. Obama’s refusal speaks to the mindset at work in the White House about the threat we face.

Ironically, we’ve learned a great deal about this mindset from none other than Jeffrey Goldberg, whose stunning piece “The Obama Doctrine” essentially made the case that the president is almost clinically allergic to viewing the threats posed by these incidents as major national-security issues:
He has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when isis was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.
Here the blindness is staggering. Israeli resilience doesn’t involve ignoring terrorist acts. If Israel’s leaders went around saying “they’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” they would not be its leaders any longer. Israeli resilience in the face of constant terror involves moving against terrorists constantly in a multiplicity of ways, including the use of the military. Israel has fought four wars in the past 15 years to deal with “terrorism,” and quite successfully, I might add.

The problem with Obama’s attitude is that they are coming here to chop our heads off, only they’re not doing it one by one with kidnapped Americans. They’re shooting up their fellow workers in San Bernardino and a bar in Orlando. They may or may not be under foreign direction, but they are self-proclaimed jihadists. Obama won’t say it because saying it would oblige a kind of action he does not wish to take. That refusal is crystallized in his unwillingness to name the enemy. It’s proof of a deep ideological choice.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/radical-islam-magic-words/



Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Everyone is talking about it on the street and in synagogues. Teachers and parents are talking about it at schools. No one can ignore it, and many people are terrified....

Web Teaches ultra-Orthodox Israelis About Sex Crimes in Their Midst

A 15-page indictment filed last month against a well-known ultra-Orthodox rabbi included detailed descriptions of sex crimes he allegedly committed against female relatives over many years. The indictment, filed in the Jerusalem District Court, caused an earthquake in ultra-Orthodox society.

The affair has been covered with unprecedented intensity on news sites for the Haredi community, but most of the ultra-Orthodox media – newspapers and radio stations – haven’t even hinted that such an affair exists.

The indictment has been shared on Haredi Facebook pages and in internet forums. It has been sent out via email and WhatsApp, and has penetrated the layer that has thickened in the ultra-Orthodox community over decades, if not generations.

The dissemination of the indictment hasn’t just broken down conspiracies of silence, it has ended the automatic lack of trust against the complainants and the accuser – the Israeli government.

Everyone is talking about it on the street and in synagogues. Teachers and parents are talking about it at schools. No one can ignore it, and many people are terrified.

The Bais Yaakov girls school in Elad sent parents a note with instructions on how to be cautious against any threats. “In case of any doubt, refuse and say no categorically,” is rule number seven out of 10.

Rule nine advises girls: “Be careful of people you know or don’t know, and don’t be tempted to go with them. Even if they approach you in a friendly way, break off contact, keep away from them and tell your parents.”

The defendant has only been known as “anonymous,” but now everyone knows who the 50-year-old is. He was a “supervisor” – a mentor in a renowned yeshiva in Jerusalem for older boys, whom it seems he has not harmed.

Some of the acts described in the indictment were allegedly committed in his office at the yeshiva. His fame as a member of the elite of the yeshiva world – with family connections that reach the highest levels of the so-called Lithuanian, non-Hasidic community – was a disadvantage in this case.

The names of three sisters, his relatives, have also passed by word of mouth; the indictment describes how he allegedly raped them hundreds of times. Two were victims starting in their childhood, and the violence allegedly continued after they were married, even in their parents’ home and while they were recovering from childbirth.

These purported acts against the two sisters are detailed in wording that is painful to quote. Still, the allegations have made their way in full to huge numbers of Haredim.

In fact, the Haredi community is agitated over a number of affairs that have been made public, including an indictment against another Jerusalem rabbi for extreme violence and sex offenses against his wife and other women. Also, footage has been taken that seems to expose sex offenders in the largely ultra-Orthodox city of Bnei Brak near Tel Aviv.

Such revelations were exposed on the Hebrew-language Thou Shalt Not Be Silent Facebook page, which has been operating for about six months to let Haredi victims of sexual abuse tell their stories and receive help.


Slowly, and many years too late, the community’s leaders are beginning to respond.

Two months ago, the police held a conference of senior rabbis from Haredi towns on “modesty and holiness in the community” in order to combat sex offenders. Programs for students have been launched in a number of schools on the matter.

These are just the first signs of people speaking out openly, but over the past three weeks the best-known Haredi websites such as Kikar Hashabbat and Behadrei Haredim have followed the “supervisor” affair closely with both news stories and opinion pieces. They have also followed three other cases of sexual assault in the Haredi community, with some of the alleged attackers coming from the school system.

“We must talk about it!” wrote Avigayil Karlinsky, one of the women behind Thou Shalt Not Be Silent. “Every time such a case is publicized is one small step in a great, blessed process of increasing awareness and bringing this burning matter to the forefront,” she wrote for the Haredim 10 website.

Karlinsky told Haaretz that the “supervisor” affair has brought her and three colleagues on the Facebook page a new wave of complaints from victims, including against “figures even more senior and better-known.”

Haredi society is opening up to the existence of sex crimes, which Karlinsky partly attributes to the programs that have been introduced in the schools. In the “supervisor” case, no rabbi has come out in defense of the accused or claimed that the charges were a fabrication, which Karlinsky says is probably due to the accessibility of the indictment.

The case of fugitive Rabbi Eliezer Berland, who fled Israel after being suspected of sex offenses, is different. In Berland’s case, the Haredi websites and media have let his followers claim that he was falsely accused. This is almost certainly linked to Berland’s standing and his followers’ influence, and maybe to the fact that no indictment has yet been filed.

by Yair Ettinger
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.723948

Friday, June 10, 2016

Stefan Colmer, who was convicted and imprisoned for molesting minors, has moved to Passaic, New Jersey

Passaic-Clifton Jewish Community Warns of Convicted Sex Offender’s Presence


ShareAll the shuls and yeshivas in Passaic-Clifton have prohibited him from entering their premises. The community leadership is doing everything possible in coordination with the authorities to ensure the community’s safety. Individuals should not take the law into their own hands.

Mr. Colmer’s picture and the details of his criminal record can be found here: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/SomsSUBDirectory/offenderDetails.jsp?offenderid=36837

The Jewish Family Service of Passaic-Clifton will be hosting a forum after yom tov that will address concerns and appropriate steps on how to keep one’s children safe. Please check http://www.jfsclifton.org for updates.

http://jewishlinknj.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13517%3Apassaic-clifton-jewish-community-warns-of-convicted-sex-offenders-presence&catid=151%3Acommunity-news&Itemid=584

A friend and reader writes August 3, 2007......

I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. And I don't want to be accused of practicing any of those fine scientific/medical professions without a license. But in my life experiences, I've noticed something about passionate, vocalized extremism. When someone is expressing very passionate views, and they are doing it loudly or emotionally and it strikes the average person as being "over the top," it usually means one of two things: Either the speaker has "drunk the kool-aid," meaning that they believe what they are saying totally, or they using this intense and extreme expressiveness to cover up their own deficiencies in practice or belief.

Some examples will help explain what I mean. Congressman Mark Foley was passionate and outspoken in his public speeches attacking sexual predators and then it turned out he was a sexual predator preying on underage male Congressional pages. I remember many years ago in my shul, a long-time member got up at a meeting and railed against the shul not being frum enough, not doing enough to make sure the children of the community were frummer, etc. He said things that raised many eyebrows given the fact that he was not that wildly frum himself. Many people could not figure out where this was coming from. Two weeks later, he left his wife and kids and ran off with his non-Jewish black secretary. His actions that day explained a lot about his performance at the meeting two weeks earlier.

I write this because I knew Stefan Colmer, not well and not intimately, but enough to recognize his face and name and to have spoken to him a few times. He was a computer consultant doing occasional work for a firm I was with. I also saw him at a midtown mincha minyan from time to time.

It was at that mincha minyan some time ago that we started talking about water filters and bugs in the water in Flatbush. Because the water panic had come on the heels of the Indian-hair sheitel panic – which, according to most poskim, turned out to be misguided and overblown – I was naturally skeptical of "trafe water." While I was not well-read on the subject, I expressed my opinion that the panic was overblown, and that microscopic particles of whatever in the water cannot be halachically impermissible. He argued passionately that I was factually wrong, (I may have been,) and that these things were visible to the naked eye. He told me he was installing filters and was using bottled water for drinking and cooking until then. He spoke passionately about having to live a proper life of halacha and adhering to all the rules and piskei halacha of our Gedolim.

I have thought back to that conversation many times since the revelations here - and subsequently in the press - of his alleged vile sexual misconduct against yeshiva boys, which was taking place about the time that we had that conversation. Excuse my sarcasm, but I'm so glad that while he was allegedly molesting young yeshiva students, Stefan was not imbibing in bug-laden, trafe water. What a tzaddik!
 

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2007/07/stefan-colmer-and-bugs-in-water.html

Here Is The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read Aloud To Her Attacker

A former Stanford swimmer who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman was sentenced to six months in jail because a longer sentence would have “a severe impact on him,” according to a judge. At his sentencing Thursday, his victim read him a letter describing the “severe impact” the assault had on her.

One night in January 2015, two Stanford University graduate students biking across campus spotted a freshman thrusting his body on top of an unconscious, half-naked woman behind a dumpster. This March, a California jury found the former student, 20-year-old Brock Allen Turner, guilty of three counts of sexual assault. Turner faced a maximum of 14 years in state prison. On Thursday, he was sentenced to six months in county jail and probation. The judge said he feared a longer sentence would have a “severe impact” on Turner, a champion swimmer who once aspired to compete in the Olympics — a point repeatedly brought up during the trial.

On Thursday, Turner’s victim addressed him directly, detailing the severe impact his actions had on her — from the night she learned she had been assaulted by a stranger while unconscious, to the grueling trial during which Turner’s attorneys argued that she had eagerly consented.

The woman, now 23, told BuzzFeed News she was disappointed with the “gentle” sentence and angry that Turner still denied sexually assaulting her.

“Even if the sentence is light, hopefully this will wake people up,” she said. “I want the judge to know that he ignited a tiny fire. If anything, this is a reason for all of us to speak even louder.”
She provided her statement, printed in full below, to BuzzFeed News.

READ IT ALL AND FORWARD IT TO YOUR ORTHODOX RABBI:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.ioZZ0BVMA#.uaJxwPWa1

Thursday, June 09, 2016

What The Agudath Israel of America (and their ilk) Will Never - or Refuses - to Understand!

The Jewish Take on the Stanford Rape Case—And How We Can Teach Our Kids Not to Rape

stanford rape case

Just when you think the Stanford rape case couldn’t get any worse, it does. In addition to the judge handing down a lenient sentence to a man who was convicted on three felony charges because of the way it might impact his future, now Brock Turner’s father has written an open letter, claiming that his son should not have to face prison for what he called “20 minutes of action.” In a powerful statement, the victim explained just what those 20 minutes did to her and how it robbed her of so much.

Judaism teaches that anyone who destroys a single life, it is as though he has destroyed a world. In those 20 minutes, Brock Turner not only destroyed his victim’s life, but her world as well. She writes, “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.”

It is remarkable that, out of that destruction, the destruction of the entire world, she finds her voice. Although her world was destroyed, she is attempting to bring some tikkun, some repair, to her life and the lives of those around her.

I am outraged that a father would choose, in attempting to protect his son, to discount the real and lasting impact his son’s actions had on this woman. But outrage does nothing without action, and this is a chance for us as parents to join this woman in making a tikkun. So I commit to teaching my children to respect boundaries, to understand that their bodies and the bodies of those around them are created in the image of God.

This starts young, by not forcing them to hug or touch people they don’t want to, by teaching them the proper names and proper uses for their body parts (even if it leads to lots of shouting of “penis!” every bath time), and that everyone deserves to be looked in the eye and spoken to respectfully. It also means teaching them that the lines of communication are open, and that they should come to me if they have a question about how they, or another person, has acted. It means teaching them to accept reasonable consequences, like an early bedtime if they can’t get up for school in the morning. It means starting small, and building on their knowledge and experience until they are able to make these, and more difficult choices, on their own.

In the Talmud, the rabbis lay out the obligations that a parent has towards their child. In addition to the ones you would expect, like teaching your child a trade and teaching them Torah, the rabbis say that parents should teach a child to swim. Rabbi David Hartman, in his commentary on this verse, says that swimming is a metaphor for teaching a child to cope with unpredictable circumstances and events. You give your child the strokes and the kicks, but you can’t control every wave and current.

Eventually, in the course of teaching your child to swim, you must let go and let them swim alone. Eventually, we must teach our children that they need to make their own choices in a changing and unpredictable world knowing that we gave them the tools for success.

You can argue that once a child becomes an adult, a parent is no longer responsible for their actions. But what we teach our children when they are young shapes who they are. In Proverbs, we learn to educate a child in the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it. If we all commit to teaching our children to respect others, to care for others and to do tikkun olam when they are young, they will grow up with this imprinted on their minds and hearts.

And we all know, that as much as Judaism might say we are done when our kids hit 13, that we will always be their parents, that our guidance and teachings will impact how they act in the world. Our obligation to continue teaching our children does not stop just because they also have responsibility for their actions.

But it is not enough to teach our children not to destroy a world. You see, Judaism also tells us that if you save one life, you have saved a world. Two men on bikes saw what was happening and intervened. They stopped Turner from continuing his rape and from sending his victim’s world further into a spiral of destruction.

And so, as a parent, I want my children to grow up to be the two men on bikes. The way we respond to this tragedy and miscarriage of justice is to actively work to save the world, to respect those around us and intervene. After all, saving one life is no small thing.

http://kveller.com/the-jewish-take-on-the-stanford-rape-case-and-how-we-teach-our-kids-not-to-rape/?utm_source=Kveller+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7e473d54ff-Kveller_6_7_20166_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_eece40deea-7e473d54ff-28562397

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

This community of perverts gets aroused by little girls riding bikes!

Ultra-orthodox Israeli rabbi bans girls over five from riding bikes because it is 'provocative'

Ruling is latest in series of restrictions imposed on groups of Haredis









    19K



    An ultra-orthodox Jewish leader has reportedly banned girls aged five and older in some areas of Israel from riding bicycles - claiming it is “immodest”.

    The rabbi of the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Nahloat distributed the stringent decree to his followers in synagogues across the area.

    He had said young girls riding bicycles could “cause serious damage to their modesty” and that bicycle seats caused young girls to sit in a way men found “provocative”, according to the Arutz Sheva 7 website.

    The ruling said: “We inform parents that they are obligated to forbid their daughters from age five and up from acting in this illegitimate way.”

    Those affected by the ruling are members of the ultra-orthodox Haredi branch of Judaism.

    In December ultra-orthodox rabbis requested women in Israeli city Bnei Brak refrain from studying in higher education.

    They claimed institutions which teach secular subjects presented a real danger, and that girls and women should not study.

    Haredi leaders have also attempted to effectively ban the internet from their communities, even declaring smartphones non-kosher.

    However, studies suggest this interdict has had little effect, with ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel using the internet just as much as anyone else, according to the Washington Post.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ultra-orthodox-judaism-haredi-israeli-rabbi-bans-girls-over-five-riding-bikes-provocative-a7064201.html

    Tuesday, June 07, 2016

    The 17-page indictment, obtained by JTA, accuses Maklev of raping his alleged victims — sisters now aged 23 and 27 — hundreds of times since they were 6 and 7, sodomizing them, performing obscene acts on them and assaulting them while telling them that the sexual contact was required by religious law, or halacha. He also is charged with attempting to perform and performing an indecent act under deceitful pretenses on a third sister, now 29, when she was 19.


    Man’s alleged rape of relatives’ daughters seen denting insularity of Jerusalem’s haredim

    (JTA) — A court in Jerusalem extended the remand of a haredi Orthodox school supervisor from Jerusalem whose indictment for the alleged rape of two girls from his own family is reportedly eroding taboos on reporting  sex crimes within his community.

    The Jerusalem District Court’s decision Thursday on Naftali Maklev, 50, came two weeks after his May 18 indictment, the news site Kikar HaShabbat reported. According to Haaretz, the affair is leading to unusual developments within highly insular haredi Orthodox communities, including increased reporting of molestation and warnings to haredi schoolchildren to be wary even of adults known to them.

    Maklev’s lawyer, Yehuda Fried, told Kikar his client was innocent and that a “detailed examination of the evidence will show the accusations and alleged evidence are made up.” Maklev is not accused of molesting pupils at the Jerusalem religious school for boys where he worked.

    The 17-page indictment, obtained by JTA, accuses Maklev of raping his alleged victims — sisters now aged 23 and 27 — hundreds of times since they were 6 and 7, sodomizing them, performing obscene acts on them and assaulting them while telling them that the sexual contact was required by religious law, or halacha. He also is charged with attempting to perform and performing an indecent act under deceitful pretenses on a third sister, now 29, when she was 19.

    The indictment said the alleged acts happened at Maklev’s home, at the homes of the complainants, at his office at the yeshiva and in his car. Spanning over 20 years, his actions are said to have begun in his alleged victims’ early childhood and continued until they were young mothers in their 20s.

    According to the indictment, Maklev began molesting one of the girls when she was was 6, “turning her into an instrument for the fulfillment of his sexual desires.”

    “The defendant used his status in the family and the community, as an authority on the Torah, and the fact that he supported financially the families of the victim, while encouraging her sense of dependence and duty,” the indictment said of one victim. “As she matured, the defendant added to these manipulations, falsehoods and lies, claiming halacha makes his actions not only permissible, but a mitzvah.”

    The document also said Maklev claimed his life and health depended on the girl’s compliance and that his actions with her were necessary to repair damages to her soul sustained during a previous incarnation.

    The mainstream haredi Orthodox media has ignored the case, but coverage of it in other media, including Kikar and Behadrei Haredim, as well as reports on social media is “sending shockwaves through the haredi society,” Yair Ettinger, a Haaretz reporter who covered the case, wrote in an article published last week.

    Some haredi schools, including the Beit Yaakov school for girls in Elad near Tel Aviv, have handed out fliers warning pupils against sexual predators, Ettinger reported.

    “In any case of doubt, respond with a resolute ‘no’,” one flyer urges. “Beware of people you know or do not know, and do not be tempted to accompany him even if he is friendly to you. Disengage, stay away and tell your parents,“ it adds.

    The affair has resulted in a surge of dozens of reports about sex crimes at Lo Tishtok, a group set up by three activists six months ago to encourage victims from insular Orthodox communities to report abuse to the authorities, according to a co-founder of the group, Avigail Karlinsky.

    http://jta.org/2016/06/03/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/israels-haredi-community-rattled-by-sex-abuse-case-involving-jerusalem-yeshiva-supervisor

    Friday, June 03, 2016

    The Disappearance of Yemenite Babies During the Aliyah of 1949-1954...An Ugly History of What Happens To Jewish Children When There Is No Accountability..."Especially By People Who Call Themselves Religious"...

     
    The Yemenite Children Affair (Hebrew: פרשת ילדי תימן) was the disappearance of hundreds of babies and toddlers of new immigrants to the newly founded state of Israel, mainly from Yemen, between the years 1948 to 1954. Most cases involved the parents being told in the hospital that their newborn children had died although they never received additional reliable information about their fates.[1] The parents claim that their children were really kidnapped and given or sold to Ashkenazi families. In several cases, the children tracked down their parents many years later and conclusively determined their relationship to their Yemenite relations using DNA testing.[2]
     "There is reason to believe according to the Cohen Committee that a Rabbi Bernard Bergman of New York had allegedly brought many babies to the U.S. However in order to do so, passports must have been issued. So logic then tells you that besides nurses, doctors, drivers, and the Jewish Agency, the Immigration Department was also involved. Otherwise, how did the children leave the country?

    Yossiphov also asked if I could set up a meeting with the New York City Prosecutor Charles Hynes, who had prosecuted Rabbi Bernard Bergman. This powerful and wealthy Rabbi in New York was indicted and sent to prison for stealing a huge amount of money from elderly people in the nursing homes he operated. He was also known to be the middle-man, according to an article published by the journalist Uri Avneri. On January 11, 1967, under the title: “The Earthshaking Discovery of the Year. The children of Yemenite immigrants were sold to America - $5000 per child.”

    By this time, Bergman had died in jail and Charles Hynes was now the District Attorney of Brooklyn. The hope was that when Bergman’s phones were tapped, he may have mentioned Yalde Teman. Through my friend Jack Chartier, the N.Y. State Deputy Comptroller, I was able to set up an appointment for Yosseph Yossiphov and Charles Hynes. Mr. Hynes said he would also invite all the investigators of Bergman to the meeting...."
     
    READ MORE:
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/judah-moshe/the-disappearance-of-yemenite-babies-during-the-aliyah-of-1949-1954/699857353380856/
     
     It is also crucial to mention that Rabbi Dr. Bergman died a few
    years ago while in jail for a different crime - his fraud and
    abuse in New York nursing homes that he ran. This was an issue
    covered thoroughly in the United States and Israel. The New-York
    Times reports:

    "Bernard Bergman, the central figure in investigations into
    possible fraud and abuse in New York nursing homes, has decided
    to abandon his public defense of his business dealings. In
    refusing to testify at televised Senate hearings last week, he
    invoked his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. His
    lawyer has argued that to testify would be prejudicial if
    inquiries by Federal and state prosecutors result in criminal
    proceedings against Mr. Bergman. A Federal grand jury is known to
    be looking into his affairs. And a state grand jury, assisted by
    Special State Prosecutor Charles J. Hynes, has also been
    impaneled to study alleged improprieties in the state's nursing
    homes. This is not the first time Mr. Bergman has been prominent
    in such inquiries. At a state hearing on nursing homes last week,
    Civil Court Judge Louis I. Kaplan, who in 1960 issued a report on
    city nursing-home abuses, testified that Mr. Bergman was then,
    too, the major figure in the industry under investigation. He
    said he presented evidence of criminal fraud in the industry to
    former Mayor Wagner. No prosecutions followed and Mr. Wagner says
    he doesn't recall what happened to the so-called Kaplan report.
    The first indictments in the investigations of the industry have
    been handed up. The owner of a Smithtown, L.I., nursing home and
    an accountant were accused of swindling Medicaid out of more than
    $500,000 by charging personal and improper business expenses to
    the program. In Connecticut, which is also investigating its
    nursing homes, a state official said at General Assembly hearings
    that top state officials had financial interests in nursing homes
    and used their influence to get favorable treatment for them".

    It appears that the entire issue of Rabbi Dr. Issachar Dov
    Bernard Bergman, and the nursing homes in New-York were a big issue
    in the United States back then, and the New-York times spent much
    work on getting articles about it written. Bergman was a main
    figure in the Orthodox religious community in the States,as well as
    President of the United States branch of the "Mizrachi" movement...
     
    MORE: http://unorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2005/11/bigger-bastardpart-two-yemenite.html

    Thursday, June 02, 2016

    The assault transformed and shaped his life. More than 30 years later, the trauma of the four-hour-long assault continues to have repercussions, and Dr. Douglas argues persuasively that rape is an experience that one can never really relegate to one’s past. Rape, he says, “is always now.”

    Talking About Male Rape




    Raymond M. Douglas

    In his new book, “On Being Raped,” Raymond M. Douglas, a professor of history at Colgate University, writes publicly for the first time about being brutally beaten and raped at the age of 18 by a familiar parish priest. The assault transformed and shaped his life. More than 30 years later, the trauma of the four-hour-long assault continues to have repercussions, and Dr. Douglas argues persuasively that rape is an experience that one can never really relegate to one’s past. Rape, he says, “is always now.”

    I recently spoke with Dr. Douglas about his decision to break his decades-long silence about the assault, why he prefers the word “victim” to “survivor” when talking about sexual violence, and his hope of initiating a broader public conversation about sexual assaults on men and boys. Here’s an edited excerpt of our conversation.

    Q.
    You’ve avoided discussing the assault for more than three decades. Why are you breaking your silence now?
    A.
    There wasn’t a specific trigger, but advancing age may have had something to do with it. I have been aware for many years that little has changed for men since the time of my attack. I am familiar with the women’s anti-rape movement in the late 1960s and early ’70s, and it was clear to me that what moved the needle of public perception about rape at that time was the willingness of victims to speak publicly under their own names about their experiences. In my mother’s time, rape was very much the “Great Unspeakable” for women. What changed that was people coming out and challenging the depictions of their experience. I didn’t see things changing for men unless they started doing the same thing.
    Q.
    Talking about the assault was so traumatic for you that you confided in very few people, and did not even tell your wife, whom you met many years after the assault. How did you prepare her for the book?
    A.
    We did have a conversation, and I did disclose to her. It didn’t come as a massive surprise to her, oddly enough. She said that she had suspected something of the kind for quite a few years, though she always assumed that it had been something that had happened to me in childhood, rather than early adulthood. That took her aback to a degree.
    Q.
    After the assault, you found out that there had been rumors about this priest for years and that there had been jokes about him having sexually assaulted other young men. Was his behavior an open secret?
    A.
    It certainly wasn’t [an open secret] to me. My friends knew him as a certain kind of, shall we say, boundary pusher. I don’t think they had the faintest idea just how dangerous he was. But I found out — and I was neither the first nor the last of his victims — that it went further than that. You need to remember the time and the place this occurred, and especially the time. It was a period where priests were quite literally gods anointed. They were the moral exemplars, the arbiters of good and evil, of what is acceptable conduct and what is not. They were not used to being contradicted and those who did challenge them were not supported – especially if you were an 18-year-old kid just out of school.
    Q.
    One of the most powerful messages of the book is that the trauma of being raped never goes away. Why do you think this is the case?
    A.
    In my opinion the real damage, the lasting damage, isn’t done by the episode as much as by the aftermath. Humans encounter trauma not infrequently. What’s different about sexual trauma is the type of social response one encounters from both sexes. I’ve spoken to people who have managed quite successfully to get over what were objectively pretty ghastly episodes of sexual victimization — much, much worse than anything I experienced. The common factor I’ve seen in those circumstances is that you find appropriate reactions on the part of others in the victim’s circle.
    When you experience something as a big deal, and everybody else around you asserts with great certainty that no, it isn’t, or worse, that it isn’t even a thing, then trying to bridge that conceptual gap is likely to exacerbate difficulties with adjustment.
    When you’re encountering denial, impatience, dismissal, contempt – which of course is something common to victims of both sexes – or when there is not even a vocabulary with which to describe the events to oneself, much less to others, the difficulties are increased exponentially.
    Q.
    In the book you tell us that you still have an aversion to being touched without permission and would prefer to sleep with the lights on. You say there is occasionally a “third person” in the room with you and your wife. Is your response typical?
    A.
    People respond to things like this in different ways. Some engage in a great deal of sexual activity, often risky sexual activity which can frequently lead to re-victimization. Another common way out is to withdraw into oneself. This was, as you know, my first sexual experience. It wasn’t of the nature to make me look forward to the next one with keen anticipation.
    Q.
    You talk about language a lot in this book, and say you prefer the word “victim” to “survivor.” Can you explain that?
    A.
    I strongly believe people should be able to call themselves whatever they like. But just as there are problematic overtones bound up with the word “victim,” it seems to me that there are problematic elements with the term “survivor.” It takes for granted something that requires demonstration. For both men and women, the suicide rate is increased very dramatically when people have undergone experiences of this kind. One can never be entirely sure that one has survived. I think most people who have had experiences like this would agree that years and decades afterward it still has the capacity to surprise them.
    Our notion of trauma is a linear sort of notion: a bad experience, followed by a crisis, followed by re-normalization when you put it behind you, as the saying goes. I think most specialists would tell you that’s not really how it works in real life. Sometimes people are fine in the immediate aftermath and only have difficulties afterward. A lot of people have problems when they have children of their own, or when those children reach the age that they were when they were assaulted. Sometimes they get over some aspects of the experience and not others. I don’t think it’s ever safe to say one is ever completely past this kind of thing.
    Q.
    You say that you have maintained your Catholic faith, but have lost your trust in the leadership of the church, which never took action against your assailant. Is it difficult to walk this fine line?
    A.
    It’s very difficult, and that is reinforced every time I go to Mass on Sunday. The record of the church on this question is atrociously bad. It’s not on the radar screens of any of the major Christian denominations. This is something that we have a duty to do for our brothers and sisters, against whom we are sinning by omission as well as by commission.
    Q.
    Has any progress been made since your assault?
    A.
    At the time the very existence of male rape outside correctional institutions was largely and explicitly denied. This was a huge stumbling block for me at the time. I was assured that what I had experienced did not in fact happen.
    Q.
    You say your book is a first step to drawing attention to male-on-male rape. What must come next?
    A.
    I think we’re doing an abominable job of listening to men and boys who have been raped. When we notice their existence at all — which is a rare thing — we’re extremely prone to talk over them and to redefine their experience for them. We need more research that’s victim-centered. Our current understanding of what that experience involves is obtained from the crudest possible stereotypes, principally Hollywood films like “Deliverance” or “The Shawshank Redemption.” It’s not merely because men and boys are not speaking about it. The question worth asking is: What needs to be done that would make them feel safe in disclosing their experience?

    Second, we need somewhere for men and boys to go when this has happened to them. We don’t have that. If one of my female students came to me on a Monday morning and said that something terrible happened last Saturday night, I have a good idea where to send her for support. If one of my male students came to me, I haven’t a bloody clue where to send him.

    Third, we need an integrated approach to the whole problem of sexual violence. Right now there are numerous bodies and agencies and victims’ groups, each with its own particular mission, but in my view this situation is not advantageous to anybody. 

    We can talk about the gendered aspects certainly, but in my view, the fight against sexual violence in all its aspects is a single fight that ought to unite people of all genders and sexual orientations. The basic elements are fundamentally the same.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/talking-about-male-rape/?emc=edit_tnt_20160601&nlid=32999454&tntemail0=y&_r=0