I am delighted to share that last week, the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed proceedings brought by disgraced (Rabbi) Meir Shlomo Kluwgant against my friend and victims' advocate Phillip Weinberg for defamation.

Kluwgant had alleged that in 2017, immediately prior to his appointment as Principal of Adass, Weinberg defamed him in a telephone conversation with former Adass Israel School Secretary, Abe Weiszberger, which resulted in his forced resignation some six weeks after accepting the role. In fact, Kluwgant resigned following enormous media attention and protests from across the community in response to his appointment. The Association of Principals of Jewish Day Schools (Victoria) had even written to Adass insisting that the school send a representative other than Kluwgant to the meetings of the Association. Announcing his resignation, the Adass Board said at the time that Kluwgant resigned due to the reaction to his appointment by certain members of the Adass community and that he had no wish to cause further pain to victims of child sexual abuse. 

According to Kluwgant, Weinberg allegedly defamed him by communicating to Weiszberger that Kluwgant had:

a.       engaged in such serious wrongdoing in relation to sexual abuse of Jewish children that he was properly regarded as one of the worst people involved in those events;

b.       behaved in such a way that he was properly described as the scum of the earth; and,

c.       committed a criminal offence in relation to reporting of sexual abuse. 

In his defence, Weinberg argued that during the conversation (which had been initiated by Weiszberger), he had said no more than if the school went ahead with the appointment of Kluwgant then it was likely to ‘blow up in their face’ due to the likely distress that it would cause to victims of child sexual abuse in the community and that Adass should publicly apologise to victims who continued to suffer owing to its actions. 

Weinberg further argued that even if the conversation had taken place in the manner suggested by Kluwgant, the imputations arising from the alleged comments were true, which provided a complete defence against Kluwgant’s claim. They were true because, as demonstrated below, Kluwgant had sought to portray himself as a supporter of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other forms of abuse, and claimed to have encouraged such victims to report the crimes to the police, however, he had demonstrated substantial hypocrisy on these matters through his conduct. 

Alternatively, if the conversation had taken place as suggested by Kluwgant, its real meaning was that Kluwgant was one of the worst leaders in the Jewish community in his manner of dealing with the issue of child sexual abuse, which was also a true statement, and therefore provided a complete defence against Kluwgant’s claim. Indeed, there were few, if any, other Jewish leaders other than Kluwgant whose behaviour had been ‘so contemptuous, appalling and lacking in empathy in their manner of dealing with Jewish victims of child sexual abuse’.

Finally, Weinberg argued that Kluwgant’s misconduct on matters involving child sexual abuse had led to him being forced to resign from the roles of General Manager of Cultural and Spiritual Services at Jewish Care Victoria, President of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia, Executive Member of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV), Victoria Police Chaplain, Member of Victoria Police Multi-faith Council, and White Ribbon Ambassador. His reputation was so poor and had been so widely publicised that even if the conversation had taken place as suggested by Kluwgant, and even if he suffered damage as a result (which would be difficult to accept), then it should be mitigated by virtue of his already well known poor reputation.

The defence relied on the following as evidence of Kluwgant’s history of misconduct and the truth of the imputation that Kluwgant had behaved in such a way that he was properly described as the scum of the earth:

a.       In June 2011 Kluwgant confronted a survivor of child sexual abuse known as ‘AVB’ who had sent an email to members of the Yeshivah Melbourne community in which he had urged them to co-operate with police and to come forward with any information relating to child sexual abuse. Kluwgant highlighted his position as a Victoria Police Chaplain and told the survivor that he should not have sent the email and that he had no right to get involved. The survivor was made to feel threatened and intimidated.

b.       In April 2014, while he was President of the RCV, Kluwgant knowingly made a false allegation of child sexual abuse against a colleague. When first questioned about making the false allegation, Kluwgant tried to deny making the false allegation until he was shown proof and was forced to confess what he had done. Kluwgant subsequently admitted that he had no proper grounds for making the allegation and that he did not believe the allegation to be true. Kluwgant had made the allegation in an attempt to disparage victims/survivors of child sexual abuse, their families and people who spoke up in defence of such victims.

c.       In February 2015, Kluwgant sent a text message to the editor of the Australian Jewish News relating to the evidence then being given by Mr Zephaniah Waks (my father) to the Royal Commission which read: “Zephaniah is killing us. Zephaniah is attacking Chabad. He is a lunatic on the fringe, guilty of neglect of his own children. Where was he when all of this was happening?” The text message sought to shift blame to my father for the sexual abuse of his three children at the Yeshivah Centre. 

d.       On 13 February 2015, Kluwgant gave evidence to the Royal Commission which was false or misleading in relation to whether he had watched the evidence being given by my father and whether he had sent the above text message. Kluwgant had responded that he was ‘undergoing surgery and was under general anaesthetic’ at the time my father gave evidence and was not really following proceedings that day.

e.       The Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (RCANZ) was established to replace the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia whose executive had forced Kluwgant to resign as President in response to his misconduct. In November 2016, the RCANZ issued a joint statement together with the Rabbinical Council of New South Wales and the RCV: “We believe that those who denigrated or undermined the victims have lost their moral right to serve as leaders in our communities.” This was a reference to Kluwgant.

f.        In March 2017, an investigation by the RCV into Kluwgant’s misconduct in relation to the sexual abuse of Jewish children found that his actions ‘were not consistent with Torah values or the standards expected of members of the RCV’.

g.       In March 2017 the RCV issued a letter stating that ‘the RCV did not authorise and would not authorise (Rabbi Kluwgant’s) conduct and disavows and distances itself from Rabbi Kluwgant's conduct and condemns it in the strongest possible terms’.

h.       In June 2017, as part of his attempts to gain employment at the Adass Israel School, Kluwgant misled Adass by telling them that:

                                 i.            he had issued apologies, made amends for his conduct and resolved issues with victims of child sexual abuse and their families including Manny Waks, Zephaniah Waks and ‘AVB’. These statements were false and Kluwgant must have known that they were false at the time he made them.

                               ii.            other than the matters revealed at the Royal Commission, he had not otherwise conducted himself inappropriately on matters involving child sexual abuse. He did not refer to, or mention, the other matters set out above.

Thus Kluwgant has become the second rabbi since the Royal Commission (see (Rabbi) Yossi Feldman) who has tried to restore his reputation through legal action only to fail spectacularly and suffer further humiliation in the process.

This was a case which Kluwgant could never have won and should never have started. He succeeded only in drawing more attention to his hypocrisy and dishonesty in relation to his handling of matters involving child sexual abuse and allowed previously unknown details of his conduct to become public.

As I have done in the past, I encourage Kluwgant to take full responsibility for his actions, seek to understand the hurt and damage he has repeatedly caused to victims/survivors of child sexual abuse and the Jewish community, and undergo appropriate training and counseling.

It seems for now, he remains in a state of denial.

While the Malka Leifer extradition scandal drags on and victims continue to suffer from this prolonged terrible injustice, it is timely to remember that the Adass Israel School, the organisation responsible for this mess, maintain their shameful silence and continue to force their victims to fight for justice alone and without their support.

Based on the dozens of charges against her, Leifer should have been in an Australian jail cell for the last 10 years, not living as a free woman in Israel. The battle to bring her back and the trauma that has caused so many should never have been necessary. However, when the Adass Board found out what Leifer had done, they simply arranged for her to flee to Israel in the middle of the night to escape justice. 

In a 2015 judgement, Justice Rush of the Supreme Court of Victoria held that the decision of the Adass Board to arrange urgent flights was “likely motivated by a desire to conceal her wrongdoing and confine and isolate the conduct and its consequences to within the Adass community. The conduct amounts to disgraceful, contumelious behaviour demonstrating a complete disregard of Leifer’s victims. The conduct demonstrates a disdain for due process of criminal investigation in
this state.”

​​As a follow-up to my recent blog post titled Some caution regarding the Malka Leifer case, where I argued against blaming the Israeli government for the Leifer scandal, I have now been provided with the following additional important information:

• According to Israeli Law, for a legal matter to proceed, a defendant must be present in court.
• There is a legal debate in Israel whether this law is only applicable in local Israeli matters or also in international cases.
• This is the first time the Israeli legal system has been faced with this scenario – it has never had to deal with an extradition case being stopped due to the apparent mental health of a defendant.
• Currently, one judge in the case has ruled that the Leifer extradition case may proceed even though Leifer is apparently unable to be present in court, while another judge has ruled that Leifer must be fit to attend court. At this stage, the third judge believes it is unnecessary to give their ruling on the matter and that it should be resolved through government legislation.
• It is important to emphasise that, as per the court ruling, Leifer has monthly psychiatric assessments by a psychiatrist from the Israeli public service (the ruling is for 10 years). There have been two such psychiatrists involved in this monthly process.
• As per the court ruling, every six months, a three-member government-appointed psychiatric committee (a member from the legal fraternity and a psychiatrist from both the private and public sectors) reviews the information from Leifer’s monthly assessments, sees Leifer briefly and makes a determination as to her current mental state. This committee is the sole decision-maker (not the Judge or the Court).
• At this stage, the Israeli judicial system is precluded from getting directly involved.
• There are two options that would force Leifer to face the much-sought extradition hearing. First, if her psychiatric assessors state that Leifer’s mental health has improved to a satisfactory level. Second, if there is sufficient evidence that she has been misleading the court and/or her psychiatrists regarding her mental state.
• Nothing can be done at this stage to prevent Leifer from teaching in Israel or being in contact with children, as the matter is no longer before the court.
• Significant work is continuing by many stakeholders, publicly and privately, to ensure justice is achieved and that Leifer is not a risk to children around her.

Often, in addressing the issue of child sexual abuse, I’m confronted with difficult decisions. For example, when is it appropriate to share something publicly? How many opportunities should one be given to do the right thing? At what point do we start to question whether our confidence in people has been misplaced? And there are plenty more.

Last week, the Australian Jewish News reported that the Principals of 6 of the 7 Jewish Schools that make up the Association of Principals of Jewish Day Schools in Victoria, Australia, had written to Adass insisting that they 'send a representative other than Rabbi Kluwgant to the meetings of the Principals' Association'. The only principal that was not part of this was Yeshivah Principal, Rabbi Yehoshua (Shua) Smukler.

Members of the broader community, members of the Yeshivah community and particularly those who were sexually abused at Yeshivah and who were impacted by Kluwgant's conduct towards them, have a legitimate right to ask how it came to pass that Rabbi Smukler and Yeshivah were the only Jewish school principal and Jewish school that did not join with all of the others, from all streams of Judaism, in making their feelings known to Adass. Is there a difference in Rabbi Smukler's and Yeshivah's approach to child sexual abuse matters compared to every other Jewish school and principal? Is there still a propensity to protect their own at Yeshivah when you think nobody will ever find out? Whatever the case, an explanation is due. In fact, overdue.

In this context, I sent the email below to Rabbi Smukler, over a week ago. He responded by expressing a desire to clarify these matters, and suggested I call him. I tried. I followed up with an email with my number and told him he could call me any time. Over a week later, and still no response. I had hoped he would do me the courtesy of responding in the circumstances, like he told me he was going to, but unfortunately that has still not happened.

While the vast majority of the interactions I have regarding child sexual abuse matters never make it into the public domain, there are times when people need to be called out, either to encourage a response or to raise legitimate questions. As difficult as this decision may be to make, this is such a time.

I am confident Rabbi Smukler has a reasonable explanation as to why he was not on the same page as every other Jewish school principal, though his avoidance of the matter to date and the longer he takes to explain himself, does not reflect well on him or Yeshivah. Clearly a response is warranted in the circumstances.
​
My email to Rabbi Smukler (17 August 2017):

Hi Shua,

It's been a while - I trust you're well.

I'm disappointed and upset (although not completely surprised) that Yeshivah was the only Jewish school in Melbourne not to take a stand on the unconscionable Kluwgant appointment by Adass. To their enormous credit, all the other six schools took an unequivocal position. Yeshivah was silent.

The message this sends out to victims/survivors and the broader community is that Yeshivah doesn't see an issue with Kluwgant playing such a role in our community at this time. With what we have witnessed over the past few years, Yeshivah's (in)action regarding this matter is very concerning.

Obviously I'm not privy to the precise reasons behind Yeshivah's decision but I would appreciate if you could explain how it came to be that Yeshivah was the only school not to act. As you can imagine, this is not a good look and the community are entitled to ask questions as to whether the protection of certain individuals implicated in the child sexual abuse scandal at Yeshivah continues, despite everything that has happened. 

I can't help but be reminded of your hurtful decision in 2015 to appoint Kluwgant to a teaching role at Beth Rivkah College only months after his exposure at the Royal Commission. Thankfully you eventually heeded our repeated and ongoing pleas to remove Kluwgant from his new position - but only after we were forced to go to the media and after we, and some of the Yeshivah board members, had been provided with misleading information about his role. Honestly, I was hoping that at some point you'd reach out to apologise for that deeply offensive decision. Unfortunately you never did.

So as you can imagine, Yeshivah's sole exclusion from the petition to Adass by all the other principals is yet another major slap in the face to many in our community, especially some of the many Yeshivah victims/survivors.
I'd urge you and Yeshivah to try to rectify the situation, to explain why your response is out of touch with every other school and to try to learn from your mistakes.

Regards,
Manny

UPDATE (Sunday 27 August 2017):

​Within around an hour of this blog post, Rabbi Smukler contacted me and we had a very productive conversation on the matters raised.

Rabbi Smukler confirmed to me that he had spoken privately to an advisor to the Adass Board prior to Kluwgant's appointment and, without making a recommendation one way or another about Kluwgant's possible appointment, indicated that there were some repairs that ought to take place first and that they should satisfy themselves that Kluwgant had indeed made amends with victims and their families.

Rabbi Smukler claims that he had no prior knowledge of any letter to Adass from the Principal's Association of which he is a member. He is currently in the process of addressing this matter with his colleagues.

Rabbi Smukler also apologised for not contacting me earlier and acknowledged that he should have done so.

In relation to allowing Kluwgant to teach at Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah on a voluntary basis in 2015, Rabbi Smukler stated that Kluwgant had mis-represented facts to him. However, after Kluwgant commenced in the role, a lot of things that Rabbi Smukler had not known about Kluwgant's involvement in the child sex abuse scandal came to light (i.e. beyond what was exposed at the Royal Commission) and upon learning of those matters, Rabbi Smukler made the decision to stand Kluwgant down.

My brief response:

1. I hope that the Adass letter matter gets clarified.
2. Kluwgant should never have been welcome to teach at Yeshivah so soon after his public exposure at the Royal Commission (I'm only re-stating this here because I raised it in my letter to Rabbi Smukler to highlight what seemed like a behavioural pattern).
3. I accept Rabbi Smukler's apology for not addressing this matter promptly and look forward to maintaining our relationship.

On behalf of several victims of child sexual abuse and other members of the community, I welcome the news that the Addas Israel School Board and (Rabbi) Meir Shlomo Kluwgant are parting ways.
 
Both Adass and Kluwgant have horrific histories when it comes to mishandling matters relating to child sexual abuse. Kluwgant’s appointment was a slap in the face to the Yeshivah victims who worked so hard to expose his true character and to the Adass victims who continue to suffer terribly as a result of the lack of education and poor decision-making of the Adass School Board. The appointment also needlessly brought the entire Adass community into disrepute and the community is entitled to question whether this Board can be trusted with ensuring the safety of their children and whether it is appropriate for them to continue in their current roles.
 
There were many parties who worked behind the scenes to ensure the right outcome was achieved and it was particularly heartening for many to see Rabbi Beck (long-standing head Rabbi of Adass), members of the Adass staff, members of the Adass community and the broader community standing up for victims on this occasion, something for which we have been crying out for too long.
 
Yet it is disappointing to note that not a single ‘leader’ of our Jewish communal organisations or Rabbinic bodies spoke out in support of victims against this ridiculous and offensive appointment. Once again, it fell to victims of sexual abuse to expose this matter and to lead the campaign against Kluwgant’s appointment. This role cannot be continuously imposed upon victims and survivors while the communal and Rabbinic leadership remain silent.
 
Now that this is over, we call on Adass to ensure that it addresses its past, including through offering unequivocal apologies and communal support to the institution’s numerous victims, taking all necessary steps to ensure the safety of their students today and doing everything possible to assist in having Malka Leifer returned to Australia to face justice for her alleged crimes.

In recent months, we have seen Kluwgant and others who were responsible for the horrific failures which led Yeshivah/Chabad to a Royal Commission, attempting to quietly find their way into other Jewish institutions. They must understand that until such time as they acknowledge their conduct and do genuine teshuvah (repentance), there will be no place for them in any Jewish institution in any capacity, especially institutions which are responsible for the safety of children. When these people are ready, I (and others) will be willing to engage with them.