Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[merithyn]

Oh, those wacky Jews!  :

No, but seriously, wtf is wrong with these people?

The two rabbis offered an unusual service to Jewish women who could not get their husbands to agree to a divorce, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For a fee, they would convene a rabbinical court and authorize the use of violence to get a recalcitrant husband to agree to a divorce, the F.B.I. said.

But that was not all, according to court papers unsealed Thursday morning. They were also willing to employ hired muscle, two men known as Ariel and Yaakov, to actually kidnap the man and torture him, until he pledged to divorce his wife, according a criminal complaint in Federal District Court in Newark.

Two men whom the authorities describe as rabbis – Martin Wolmark and Mendel Epstein – as well as a third man, Ariel Potash, have been charged in a kidnapping conspiracy according to court papers. In connection to the case, F.B.I. agents carried out raids in South Brooklyn and Monsey, N.Y., in Rockland County on Wednesday evening.

In some Orthodox Jewish communities, a divorce is granted only once a husband provides his wife with a document known as a get. And stories of the frustrations and obstacles that women face in their quest to obtain a get are commonplace. While a woman can sue in rabbinical court to try to secure a get, some husbands do not comply with the court's edict.

That, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is where the rabbis came in. "You need special rabbis who are going to take this thing and see it through to the end," Rabbi Wolmark said in a recorded telephone conversation with an undercover F.B.I. agent posing as a woman whose husband would not grant her a get.

During the telephone conversation, on Aug. 7, Rabbi Wolmark referred the undercover agent to Rabbi Epstein, whom he described as "a hired hand" who could help. The fee was high, according to the court papers: $10,000 to pay the rabbinical court to approve the kidnapping and an additional $50,000 or more to actually carry out the kidnapping.

In a subsequent meeting at Rabbi Epstein's home in Ocean County, New Jersey, Rabbi Epstein explained what he planned to do. "Basically what we are going to be doing is kidnapping a guy for a couple of hours and beating him up and torturing him and then getting him to give the get," according to a recorded conversation that is described in the criminal complaint. Rabbi Epstein, according to the court papers, mentioned that his "tough guys" utilized cattle prods and other torture techniques that were not likely to leave a mark.

Should the husband go to the police, Rabbi Epstein said, it was important that there were no obvious signs of injury. Without such physical evidence, Rabbi Epstein said, the police were unlikely to probe too deeply into the affairs of the Orthodox Jewish community, which can appear impenetrable to outsiders.

"Basically the reaction of the police is, if the guy does not have a mark on him then, uh, is there some Jewish crazy affair here, they don't want to get involved," Rabbi Epstein explained, according to the criminal complaint.

The court papers, which outline the undercover F.B.I. sting operation, do not describe instances in which the defendants actually carried out such kidnappings. But the authorities said that the evidence in the case includes a recorded conversation in which Rabbi Epstein "claimed that his organization kidnapped one recalcitrant husband approximately every year and a half."

[Berkut]

More examples of the over-bearing state interfering with freedom of religion. This is almost as bad as removing nativity scenes from public schools.

[Valmy]

"You need special rabbis who are going to take this thing and see it through to the end,"

Times are truly desperate when you need to put the feared special rabbis on the job.

[Malthus]

It's Ultra-Orthodox feminism in action. 

This sort of thing has been going on for years and years - albeit without thugs-for-hire. I heard about it when I was a kid. Only the ultra-Orthodox do it, of course.

The issue is this: it is part of The Law(tm) that a man must grant a divorce - known as a "get". It is also part of The Law(tm) that a man must provide a "get" when asked by his wife. In short, the whole "the man must agree" thing is a formality - under The Law(m) - but it must be done because, as you know, an ultra-Orthodox Jew simply cannot short-circuit a meaningless formality. Half of Judaism (at least, of the Orthodox variety) is finding work-arounds to avoid short-circuiting meaningless formalities. 

The problem then arises - what happens when a man, let's call him "Mr. Asshole", doesn't do what The Law(tm) says he's supposed to? Say, he's a bitter guy and hates his wife, and doesn't feel like remarrying.

Well, he can simply refuse to grant the get. That fucks up his wife's ability to remarry. She can't do it without the get, and there is no mechanism under The Law(tm) to force Mr. Asshole to do what he's supposed to do. So Mr. Asshole "gets" (  ) a veto over his ex-wife's sex life (because, being Orthodox, she presumably won't have sex without being married). Of course, neither can he, but maybe he doesn't give a shit - he's already flouting The Law(tm), so maybe he's getting it on the side anyway.

What to do? Well, the first thing is that Mr. Asshole gets ostracized. Maybe he doesn't care.

Next thing, traditionally, was for a posse of the congregation - the younger, hairier and meaner ones, often those related to ex-Mrs. Asshole - to "reason" with Mr. Asshole in private. What form this "reasoning" took ... well, let's just say, what's done in the yeshiva stays in the yeshiva ...

These days, in Ontario at least, the courts have decided to intervene and give Mr. Asshole a purely legal beating, instead of condoning assault and religious vigilanteism.

From the Family Law Act:

Statement re removal of barriers to remarriage

(4)  A party to an application under section 7 (net family property), 10 (questions of title between spouses), 33 (support), 34 (powers of court) or 37 (variation) may serve on the other party and file with the court a statement, verified by oath or statutory declaration, indicating that,

(a) the author of the statement has removed all barriers that are within his or her control and that would prevent the other spouse's remarriage within that spouse's faith; and

(b) the other party has not done so, despite a request. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 2 (4).

Idem

(5)  Within ten days after service of the statement, or within such longer period as the court allows, the party served with a statement under subsection (4) shall serve on the other party and file with the court a statement, verified by oath or statutory declaration, indicating that the author of the statement has removed all barriers that are within his or her control and that would prevent the other spouse's remarriage within that spouse's faith. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 2 (5).

Dismissal, etc.

(6)  When a party fails to comply with subsection (5),

(a) if the party is an applicant, the proceeding may be dismissed;

(b) if the party is a respondent, the defence may be struck out.

In short - fail to give a "get" and your wife cleans up in the courts - she gets everything.

[merithyn]

I'm confused. I assume that all of this is in the religious courts, not the legal ones. In other words, a woman can get a legal divorce, and then have to fight with Mr Asshole to get the religious one, in order to remarry, right?

So how does the whole "she gets all his stuff" fit into it?

[Malthus]

I'm confused. I assume that all of this is in the religious courts, not the legal ones. In other words, a woman can get a legal divorce, and then have to fight with Mr Asshole to get the religious one, in order to remarry, right?

So how does the whole "she gets all his stuff" fit into it?

No, not so. This is secular legislation.

The "get" is a purely religious barrier to remarriage. If a woman doesn't get the "get" from Mr. Asshole, she can get a legal divorce in an Ontario court all right, but her religious community will not view that divorce as "valid". If she has a "get" in hand, they will view her divorce as valid.

Assuming she is religious herself, or cares what her religious community thinks of her, having an invalid divorce can cause her great unhappiness - her subsequent remarriage would be considered "bigamous" and her kids by that marriage "bastards".

Under this legislation, she can go to the purely secular Ontario court on divorce and say "Know what, your Honour? Mr. Asshole refuses to give me a get, so I can't remarry in my faith even with this divorce you are so abily ruling on".

The Court then, in essence, turns around and tells Mr. Asshole "well, Mr. Asshole, you have a choice. We won't interfere with your exercise of religion - that's between you and your God - but we will do this: if you refuse to give your ex-wife a "get", we will rule in her favour on everything. You will be *so* fucked, you won't have two cents to rub together when we are done with you. So, are you gonna stand on principle or what?" 

[merithyn]

Wow. That's... impressive. Seems odd that a secular court would agree to go along with this.

[Malthus]

Wow. That's... impressive. Seems odd that a secular court would agree to go along with this.

'Freedom of religion' doesn't mean 'freedom to act like an asshole without consequences'. 

I'm in favour of this sort of legislation - it solves an actual problem that would otherwise sometimes lead to violence (as in the OP), without actually interfereing with freedoms.

[Jacob]

Yup. It's imminently sensible, IMO.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

[DGuller]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

I'm inclined to agree.  If you choose to live in a fundamentalist society, you choose to deal with the consequences.

[Malthus]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

[DGuller]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

[Jacob]

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

Why?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Anyone who ever watched The Sopranos would have known all about this.

There is an episode where the Jew that often pals around with the Sopranos (and has a thing for black women) introduces Tony & crew to an Orthodox Jew that needs the help of the mob. The situation being, the Orthodox Jew has a daughter who is married to an asshole. Tony only cares because the Orthodox Jew is rich and owns a hotel, which his asshole son-in-law manages. The Orthodox Jew and his son, want their daughter/sister to get her divorce, but without having to part with any financial interest in the hotel. The asshole son-in-law insists that since he has slaved away at the hotel for years managing it, he is going to demand a share of the hotel in exchange for the get--which he is 100% unwilling to grant otherwise. So the Orthodox Jew offers Tony a share of the business in exchange for roughing up his son and law and securing a get (I'm guessing that they reasoned the share they were offering Tony was at least smaller than what the son in law was going to demand himself.)

Tony and gang basically kidnap the son-in-law and torture him for 10-11 hours, and are fairly shocked at how resilient he is. He basically says he'll never give them what they want--and they can't just kill him, because the Orthodox Jew has specifically said they can't do that. So finally they get out a pair of bolt cutters and threaten to cut his balls off, at which point he relents and gives the get.

Then, he goes to his father in law and offers to give the get "willingly" for an even lower share of the hotel than Tony was going to get. The father in law agrees, and informs Tony that they "didn't need your help after all, so we settled for him getting a smaller share." Tony just smiles and says, "if you want to give him part of your share, that's fine. But my share has already been agreed upon and paid for." The Orthodox Jew then realizes he's dealing with a guy that runs a mob family, and he's just lost something like 25% of his hotel to Tony.