Possibly, there are rogues somewhere in the Israeli government.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/SPECIAL_301_Report.html

This doesn’t necessarily have anything specific to do with this particular case, but why would Israel be as bad as some of these true rogue states?

Also, what exactly is the halachah regarding copyright? Is there any halachic prohibition beyond the obligation to obey secular law?

Huh? You lost me on this one? I know many soldiers in the IDF - have worked with many of them, and spent plenty of times on IDF bases and I have rarely met a soldier who is a die-hard enemy of Torah Judaism. Many of them want no part of it but they’re anything but die hard enemies. Furthermore, their stated goal and focus in life has never been to undermine Torah Judaism. The same cannot be said for the Reform movement in Israel nor for Mrs. Ragen. Joining their petition against a Chareidi entity [even one that some Chareidim oppose] is a form of strengthening their hand. I imagine a competent judge should be capable of appreciating this distinction.

A new trend actually is emerging within the leftist camp, (they certainly are highly hostile to Torah Judaism) to dodge army service.

I’m stunned to read this.

Are secular Israeli’s in the IDF “die hard enemies” of Torah Judaism? They are young (or not so young) hard working soldiers who have not (yet) had the opportunity to learn Torah. How about the many Religious Zionists in the IDF? Are they too enemies of Torah Judaism?

That’s ain’t so. Able-bodied young men and women are drafted, or least most of them. A minority of them are leftists. Most young Israelis are not enemies of Torah Judaism.

More broadly, this question pertains to evasive public statements by revolutionaries, past and present, who have found it necessary to conceal their true purposes until support increased enough to allow candid public disclosure.

Today, evasive public statements often come from feminists who wish themselves and their views to be thought of as 100% Orthodox. We read these in connection with worship at the Kotel, legal actions against Chareidim as a class, education of women to “pasken” (render decisions in Jewish law) for women, etc. Their idea is to confuse and disarm their opposition. We should not take their protestations at face value.

THose die hard enemies of Torah Judaism make up a large part of the Israeli army. Would you really NEVER join hands with them?

“In fact, I cannot even take credit for the idea of sending it to Ms. Ragen. It was suggested by several CHAREIDI friends – that’s right DIE HARD CHAREIDIM suggested I send it to Ms. Ragen.”

Does Mrs. Shear realize this sounds silly? I have no idea who these “DIE HARD CHAREIDIM” are, and how does it excuse joining hands with an avowed Chareidi basher [and I say this having read some of her books and being utterly repulsed by her portrayals of anything Chareidi]? It may have been an expedient means of disseminating the information, but surely a responsible woman like Mrs. Shear would be very careful before she gave a known Chareidi basher more fodder for her cannon. No?

“It was ONLY the reform group that informed me of a plan that WAS ALREADY IN PROCESS prior to my incident to submit a petition the High Court. At no point was I ever informed of the identity of the other litigants”

So not only did she decide that her cause warranted involving Mrs. Ragen, but she also joined hands with IRAC but DIDN’T know anything about their motives, either?

So we have here two parties that feature the disembowelment of Hareidim prominently on their agendas and everyone but Mrs. Shear knew about that, or she never knew they were involved. She only bothered to look into the details later. Is it not possible that Mrs. Shear may have acted a bit recklessly here?

“But really, what I don’t understand is why this is relevant to the discussion. If there is a situation in society that needs correcting as its existence DOES affect everyone, then what makes the difference who joins together in common cause on that particular issue? Do you patronize establishments owned by non-frum Jews? Do you associate with those who have different political views than your own? Do you still not try to find common ground where you can?”

The answer is yes to all, but I’d never join hands with sworn enemies of Torah Judaism. IRAC in Israel is bent on undermining Torah in every manner possible. I’d never join hands with them and provide them ammunition for that. Whatever it took, I’d look elsewhere for a solution. To date, I haven’t seen any evidence that you did so. You went straight to Ragen and mass emailing. No evidence of nuance there at all. After all, neither of those two can be accused of separating the “wheat from the chaff”. Both are hellbent on destroying Chareidim any way they can.

After all I’ve read, I’m sorry to say that something just doesn’t add up here.

Bob,

I trust KT understood. So did the rest of us.

This quote has taken on a life of its own in conversation, writing, etc., and has well-known connotations. See, for example,
http://www.goenglish.com/ProtestTooMuch.asp

In any case, I’m not saying this to Ms. Shear, but about Ms. Shear.

From e-notes.com “Queen Gertrude speaks these famous words to her son, Prince Hamlet, while watching a play at court. Gertrude does not realize that Hamlet has staged this play to trap her ” So if you (taking the role of Queen Gertrude) are saying this to Ms. Shear (taking the role of Hamlet)…… Hameivin Yavin (he who understands will understand)

Thanks to Rabbi L Dulitz for being both a great Rebbe and senior English teacher in MTA

KT

The lady doth protest too much…

[Full disclosure: note that I just quoted Shakespeare or someone else thought to be Shakespeare]

Miriam Shear writes:

“I do not have any “association” with Ms. Ragen; in fact, I had no idea she was even one of the petitioners until it was published in the press. The identities of the petitioners are totally irrelevant to the facts of the case.”

I do not understand how Mrs. Shear can say this. I still have her original email, as distributed widely, right in front of me. The one where she spelled out the incident in all its gory detail. That email was addressed to Naomi Ragen [naomi@naomiragen.com], begins with the words “Dear Naomi” and concludes with the following:

“P.S. I have sent an email to Egged filing a formal complaint. I am asking that the # 2 bus not be granted Mehadrin status as I feel that this privilege has been nullified by the actions and inactions of the # 2 passengers. And YES - you may print this, post it on your web site, forward it, do with it as you please. Covering up what we are afraid will be a Chillul Hashem will not rein in such evil – only exposure.”

How can she honestly say that she had no idea Naomi Ragen would join the petitioners after she invited Ragen to join her fight with Egged? Because “all she did” was invite Ragen to post it on her web site and spread the word?

Mrs. Shear enlisted Ragen as her ally, whether or not she knew every detail of what her ally was doing.”

Mark, When I sent the original email - to approximately 50 people - I did indeed address it to Naomi Ragen. However, I had no idea that there was any plan of action by Ms. Ragen - or anyone else for that matter - to file a petition with the High Court on this issue. In fact, I cannot even take credit for the idea of sending it to Ms. Ragen. It was suggested by several CHAREIDI friends - that’s right DIE HARD CHAREIDIM suggested I send it to Ms. Ragen. I had no problem with Ms. Ragen - or anyone else - publicizing this atrocious event for the reasons you cite in my original email. Furthermore, I pretty much had resigned myself to the fact that pretty much nothing would ever come of it other than to raise people’s consciousness of the dangers of extremism. I was contacted by several groups - some orthodox, some feminist, and IRAC, a reform legal advocay group. I responded to each group but made it clear that I do not view this as a “feminist” issue but rather a societal one. It was ONLY the reform group that informed me of a plan that WAS ALREADY IN PROCESS prior to my incident to submit a petition the High Court. At no point was I ever informed of the identity of the other litigants. As I’ve already said here before, I didn’t ask either for the simple reason that it is irrelevant. Truth is truth and fact is fact whether the other litigants are Moshiach or Mickey Mouse. Would I be willing to file an affidavit adjoining the petition? I asked what cause of action was being sought. I agreed to file a notarized affidavit detailing the events which was being attached to the petition. It was only after I submitted my affidavit did I later become aware of whom the other litigants were (through the press). So, Mark, that is how I can honestly say that I had no idea Ms. Ragen was part of the petition. But really, what I don’t understand is why this is relevant to the discussion. If there is a situation in society that needs correcting as its existence DOES affect everyone, then what makes the difference who joins together in common cause on that particular issue? Do you patronize establishments owned by non-frum Jews? Do you associate with those who have different political views than your own? Do you still not try to find common ground where you can? If anything, a person should be applauded for separating the wheat from the chaff and not creating more division by taking the “all or nothing” approach.

“I do not have any “association” with Ms. Ragen; in fact, I had no idea she was even one of the petitioners until it was published in the press. The identities of the petitioners are totally irrelevant to the facts of the case.”

I do not understand how Mrs. Shear can say this. I still have her original email, as distributed widely, right in front of me. The one where she spelled out the incident in all its gory detail. That email was addressed to Naomi Ragen [naomi@naomiragen.com], begins with the words “Dear Naomi” and concludes with the following:

“P.S. I have sent an email to Egged filing a formal complaint. I am asking that the # 2 bus not be granted Mehadrin status as I feel that this privilege has been nullified by the actions and inactions of the # 2 passengers. And YES - you may print this, post it on your web site, forward it, do with it as you please. Covering up what we are afraid will be a Chillul Hashem will not rein in such evil - only exposure.”

How can she honestly say that she had no idea Naomi Ragen would join the petitioners after she invited Ragen to join her fight with Egged? Because “all she did” was invite Ragen to post it on her web site and spread the word?

Mrs. Shear enlisted Ragen as her ally, whether or not she knew every detail of what her ally was doing.

Note that the professor’s comments are somewhat bogus. Any normal listener would have agreed with the judge’s decision and analysis as excerpted there.

When I first heard the copycat song years ago, I was immediately struck by its blatant use of a well-known tune, with altered lyrics. I didn’t need some judge to fill me in.

Similarly, I think Rabbi Goldberg and I are also in agreement on point, and only arguing procedure. The procedural question is whether, by going to print now, Mrs. Shapiro might bias (Hebrew-speaking, non-blog-reading) dayanim or the eventual jurors in a civil trial. According to the comment by Atty. Corinaldi, the dayanim themselves were unconcerned.

But to reiterate what I said earlier, Mrs. Shapiro’s expressions of her own emotions are incidental. The force of her article is found in the examples given and the accompanying tables. Mrs. Shapiro’s only “weapons” are the texts themselves, side by side.

So when Rabbi Goldberg says that some might call this article a “hatchet job,” he is saying that the comparison is damning all by itself. On that, he, Prof. Kaplan and I are in complete agreement.

Some of the bloggers constantly find a way to divert attention from the issue by forbidding its discussion and equating the Jewish Religion with thought control and censorship. Such people always find a way to hide issues under the carpet by invoking their idea of what Judaism says. Instead of appreciating Mrs. Shear or Mrs. Shapiro, they implicitly demean their character over and over again like a broken record. As far as Naomi Ragen, there is also a distinction between legitimate criticism of a sub group e.g. chareidim and false stereotypes that reveal an animus. A lot of her criticism may stem from righteous indignation at what she views as a perversion of the religion she was taught. Unfortunately, when she uses fiction to create vile stereotypes she goes too far and hurts her cause. Instead of a concerned member of the orthodox community she becomes a bearer of false tales. There is plenty of “bathwater” to throw out but she causes others to throw out the ‘baby” also.

SM-thanks for the quote from Professor Gavison. Although it does not address how judges are selected, the selected passages ilustrate my point about how the High Court of Justice has overstepped its boundaries and eviscerated procedural doctrines such as standing, justiciability, etc in order to serve as a supreme legislature and promulgate what it deems appropriate in a manner that constitutional scholars in the US would call “substantive due process.”

That was his opinion, and were I at liberty to share his name it would be one every observant reader would respect. In this instance, what we are showing, thoughtfully and honestly, is that her dishonest portrayal is coming from a place of dishonesty.

Sander Goldberg responds: I wish you were at liberty to share his name so that I could discuss this with him. Although I probably respect him for his knowledge in other matters, I question whether his opinion is a correct expression of Torah justice in this matter, especially since it would appear from your words that he accepted as true the entire claim of one side to a dispute prior to any decision of an adjudicating body. I have no problem for you or anyone else to lambaste Ms. Ragen’s writings for their content, but the Torah doesn’t give anyone the right to decide a matter in dispute and air it to the public outside of a proper judicial venue. Once the case will be heard and decided by a Bais Din (or under the proper circumstances, a court) then it is perfectly legitimate to link the guilty party’s proven dishonesty with their hostile and distorted opinions as expressed in their writings. It is quite possible that Ms. Ragen’s loyal readership will take the CC expose’ as a hatchet job, and even if Ms. Ragen later loses in a judicial venue, they will blame it on the media castigation she received before she even had the opportunity to state her case. We all know how common it is nowadays that people who are tried in the press can no longer get a fair trial. I personally was involved in a case that once it went to press, destroyed the availability of equitable and just treatment for a particular person. However, had CC waited until a verdict was rendered, and only then exposed Ms. Ragen based on the outcome of an impartial trial, the linkage of dishonesty with the contents of her writing would make a much greater impression on her loyal readership, those who most need to be convinced that her portrayals of Torah Judaism are distorted.

Dovid, I share your disgust and disdain of many of the High Court’s decisions and what happened to your niece is abominal beyond words. Unfortunately, there is no other alternative to correct the abuses of the Mehadrin bus system. What motivated me more than anything to file this petition is the fact that the incident involving myself happened on a NON-mehadrin bus. Dovid, if you have a suggestion or alternative to correcting this without going through the High Court, I would like to hear it. But so far nobody has come up with anything.

The important thing here, in the interest of intellectual honesty, is not to mix apples and oranges. Ragen’s petition to the High Court should not be used as “proof” that she plagiarized a Chareidi woman’s work because filing such a petition is another “proof” of an anti-Chareidi agenda. At least 2 other petitioners are also Orthodox. Our issue - shared by many - is to suspend the mehadrin buses because of the abuses that are taking place. These abuses were not occurring when Mehadrin status was confined to private bus lines.

“Our Supreme Court is very impressive. All told, it has excellent people, it enjoys a very strong status at home and high professional prestige abroad. We can all take pride in it. At the same time, this is a court that has opened its doors to everyone and every matter and has shed almost every limitation. As such, it is very different from the old court, which was far more modest, which showed far more respect for authority and for the autonomy of the elected political authorities; it believed that justiciability has limitations and thought its role was to be a supreme professional judicial authority, not a tribunal of social reformers and moral tutors. I personally prefer the approach of the old court.

“I think it is proper for the court to give expression to our common values, such as the basic human rights. But I do not think it is right for the court to make use of its power to give priority to the values of one group in society at the expense of the values held by other groups. I do not think it is right for the court to decide in favor of Westernism and against traditionalism; or in favor of modernity and individualism and against communitarianism. I find that very problematic.

“I also do not think that it is the court’s role to be the supreme moral arbiter of society. That was not why it was appointed, and it also unclear that it has the necessary skills for that. Judges in Israel are not selected on the basis of their integrity or their ethical code or for the social leadership they have demonstrated. They are chosen on the basis of their professional ability as jurists. There is nothing in their training that affords them the right, the authority or the ability to determine moral norms, to be the teachers of the generation.

“The paradox is that precisely when the court purports to be a supreme moral authority, it undercuts its legitimacy as a supreme judicial authority. So it is the court itself, with its attempts at role expansion, that endangers the legitimacy of the legal system. Because as a supreme moral authority it is far from clear that the court is better than [Shas spiritual leader Rabbi] Ovadia Yosef. And it is equally unclear that the supra-legal values of the enlightened public in whose name the court acts are worthier than the supra-legal values of the religious public, for example. There are many people in this country for whom Ovadia Yosef is the supreme moral authority and for whom the halacha [Jewish religious law] is the worthy supra-legal authority. The court should not ignore them. The court should not compete with Rabbi Yosef for their hearts. The court should make it clear that it functions in a different space, where it imbues and enforces the values of the common democratic framework.”

The position is, as can be seen, a bit more complicated than Steve sets out in his post (again, no complaint. His was short, mine is long).

She disclaims bias and unprofessionalism. She criticises overly thin skins leading to double standards, and a determination to be acitivist in areas that she believes the Court should not be active in.

The double standards is obviously a problem. BUT you caanot simply assume that a double standard about criticism of Judges equates to a double standard when dealing with litigants and Prof Gavison EXPRESSLY disclaims that point. The dispute about activism is the main area of jurisprudential debate today - to what extent do courts enforce a coomon morality against a government/interest group that has the law on their side if one interprets the law as restrictively as possible?

The truth is that there is no right answer. THe UK Courts have traditionally been non-activist but went through a period in the 1980’s when they were (esp Lord Denning). In the USA it depends on the political make up of the Supreme Court. In Australia - non-acitvist. In Canada - activist. In Israel, as Prof Gavison makes clear, the current Court is more activist than its predecessor.

But none of this suggests that a deliberate stance is being chosen to get at Charedim and I do not believe that to be the case. Moreover, when people assert that it is the case they simply sound paranoid. Where is the evidence? There are a bunch of decisions people don;t like? Big deal - what has to be understood about litigation is that it is axiomatic that there will be a winner and a loser. And the loser ususally doesn’t like it.

As for an amicus curiae - in the UK such a person is appointed by the Court itself to assist with an objective view on a complicated issue. I have no experience of their role in other jurisdictions.

Sorry to be so lengthy.