Comments on: Rabbi Glick: His solicitor speaks

By: Liat Nagar

Liat Nagar — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 04:38:05 +0000

David,
If you reread my comments you will see that I have very carefully and clearly expressed the fact that I have no idea of the truth of Rabbi Glick’s situation, nor am I making a judgement, nor am I assuming guilt until proved innocent (although that is within the legal system of some countries, France for instance). I well know that mud sticks, and I well know the irresponsibility of the media and the tendency of people to want to believe the worst, to enjoy gossip and sensationalist situations. I endorse none of that and I certainly don’t get involved in it.
My comments seek to take apart the remarkably general comments of Rabbi Glick’s solicitor, Bill Doogue. The assumptions made by Mr Doogue on the strength of what he has to say are farcical. That’s where my interest lies as far as this J-Wire article is concerned. I am also extremely concerned that anyone would think an act committed thirty years ago is of no consequence (if indeed that’s what Doogue’s single line on the matter is meant to convey), because as I have already said, that would imply we shouldn’t be concerned with exposing Nazis who might have escaped the justice system.
People such as Mr Waks might indeed become obsessive about their goal, or develop a kind of witchhunt mentality. If your imagination is good, and you are capable of ‘walking in another’s shoes’, you might understand why this is. Yes, he must make every attempt to rein himself in, distance himself in order not to project what he thinks is the case on to something that is not actually the case. However, it is a complex situation.

By: David

David — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:17:41 +0000

List Nagir’s post demonstrates one thing to me – that mud sticks.

If I reported to the police that I had been raped 30 years ago by Liat – or her parent if she was not old nough to have done it- and if that allegation were widely publicized, but totally false, how could the accused ever demonstrate their innocence? Liat seems to suggest that a person is guilty until proved innocent.

One of the guilty parties here is Waks. Another is the witch hunt mentality he represents. The press is the ever present accomplice to character assassination.

By: David

David — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:17:41 +0000

List Nagir’s post demonstrates one thing to me – that mud sticks.

One of the guilty parties here is Waks. Another is the witch hunt mentality he represents. The press is the ever present accomplice to character assassination.

By: Liat Nagar

Liat Nagar — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 04:19:16 +0000

Again, a huge thumping silence from subscribers in relation to anything concerning a Rabbi and possible wrong-doing.

I have absolutely no idea of the truth of the situation discussed, but am interested to comment on a couple of the lawyer’s observations and assumptions related to those observations:

1. Why does it matter if the allegation is 30 years old? What is the significance of that comment – that therefore it doesn’t matter? If that were the case as a premise we could forget about the finding and exposing of Nazi war criminals or past sexual abuse acts, or anything else for that matter.

2. The middle of a synagogue is hardly as busy as the Bourke Street Mall on a Friday, and a truly poor analogy to make.

3. If the busiest part of the day referred to in relation to the synagogue was when parents were picking up their children from the attached school, it’s highly likely they’d be concentrating on going home rather than entering the synagogue. ( Mr. Doogue doesn’t mention the actual time of day.)

4. The reason for the Victoria Police dropping their investigation into the allegations against Rabbi Glick is obviously because it was thought there was not enough, or no, evidence to support the allegations. This in itself is not a sign of innocence or guilt.

We, as public, have no right to make a judgement on innocence or guilt, most especially by way of sensationalist media reportage, and it’s true that the publicity the situation attracted would be principally because of Rabbi Glick’s position and the fact that he is a Rabbi. They’re out to get him and how to salvage his reputation after what has been written and aired is a vexed question, because most probably things will never be the same for him again. However, just as we can’t make firm judgements on what we have before us here,and shouldn’t, neither can ‘people who know’ Rabbi Glick do so. Mr Doogue says, “No one I actually met who knows him thought there was a skerrick of truth in the allegation.” We would not need courts of law or juries if we were happy to know the truth of a matter through the opinions of people who know us. How well can you ever really know another, even members of your own family? How often are people shocked by knowledge revealed about people they thought they knew well, thought they could trust implicitly? I don’t say this to imply negative misgivings about Rabbi Glick; I say it as a response to what as a general observation by a solicitor is appallingly lacking when applied to the reality of human affairs and psychology.