Thursday, April 07, 2005

Exclusive: Israeli, Shimon Ben Tov, convicted in connection with the international network transporting boys for sex with men

13 Comments:

At 10:03 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

As usual the media misses the bigger story:

1) The smaller story -
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/561958.html

Last update - 22:12 06/04/2005
Jerusalem court sentences convicted child rapist to 16 years in prison
By Yuval Yoaz

The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court sentenced 52-year-old Shimon Ben-Tov to 16 years in prison Wednesday, and an additional 1.5 years suspended, for sexually assaulting minors on several occasions between 1998 and 2004.

On two separate occasions, the Jerusalem resident persuaded a 10-year-old and 12-year-old child to come to his home and play computer games, during which he began fondling their genitalia and even persuaded them to perform oral sex on him.

He also was convicted of sodomizing children in several instances while video taping them, and attempting to earn a profit by publishing the videos on the internet.

"The acts of the defendant provide a window for his distorted soul," wrote judges Zvi Segel, Yoram Noam, and Rafi Carmel. "The fact that he was not satisfied with fulfilling his dark urges, and even aspired to make a profit by turning his perversion into hard currency, demonstrates that the defendant lost all sense of morality, and sacrificed himself to evil, in which the souls and bodies of young children served him as legitimate tools for the fulfillment of his needs ? both sexual and financial."

2) The bigger story -
Shimon Ben-Tov was named by Canadian authorities as part of an investigation of an international network transporting boys for sex with men.

see:
1.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/01/exclusive-israeli-shimon-ben-tov.html
2.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-did-israeli-government-protect.html#comments
3.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/01/canadian-policepress-conference.html
4.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/02/israeli-foreign-affairsrefuse.html
5.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/01/canadian-police-international-network.html#comments
6.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/01/canadian-police-arrested-israeli-is.html#comments
7.
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/02/israeli-foreign-affairsrefuse.html#comments

 
At 3:28 AM, Anonymous enough already said...

Once again you've rescued the community from the powerful authoritative figures who only seek to abuse it. Indeed, I'm sure Rabbi Shimon Bedn Tov will not be so quick to carry another drasha of mussar and Torah before his congregation...

You don't think you're an anti-Semite, but you've just shown yourself to be simply a hater of Jews. The only significant thing about this guy is that he's an Israeli Jew. So whom are you protecting from the mighty and powerful by citing this? Of course, no one.

But "Jewwatch.com" and the rest of the white power folks know you well and cite everything you put out. Kol hakavod.

 
At 4:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it true this blog is run by a muslim apostate jew?

 
At 5:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nah, just a lonely Canadian kid, sitting in Toronto, waitging for a life.

 
At 5:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

EXCLUSIVE: GOT A PIC OF JWB!!!!

http://www.madcomics.de/osama/die%20osama%20bin%20laden!.jpg

 
At 5:21 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

I'm none of the above.

>Once again you've rescued the
>community from the powerful
>authoritative figures who only
>seek to abuse it. Indeed, I'm
>sure Rabbi Shimon Bedn Tov will
>not be so quick to carry another
>drasha of mussar and Torah
>before his congregation...

He's not a Rabbi.

>You don't think you're an anti-
>Semite, but you've just shown
>yourself to be simply a hater of
>Jews.

To the contrary, I am a Jew. I simply want to clean up my community. If you read the posts and articles at the links above, you would note the failure of the Israeli government to pursue child molester Vitaly Levshin which resulted in more tragedies.

>The only significant thing about
>this guy is that he's an Israeli
>Jew. So whom are you protecting
>from the mighty and powerful by
>citing this? Of course, no one.

Ben Tov is part of an international network transporting boys for sex with men. Levshin was arrested as part of this network in Canada and a non-jewish russian woman was also arrested and deported from Israel. Unfortunately, there are more people out there who are part of this ring that the police are trying to track down.

>But "Jewwatch.com" and the rest
>of the white power folks know
>you well and cite everything you
>put out. Kol hakavod.

The anti-semites will hate us regardless of anything I post/don't post.

 
At 7:03 AM, Anonymous enough already said...

You'ree not cleaning anything. No one in Israel is reading this, not officials, not regular citizens. No one is reading it here. Face it, you have about 10 regulars who are fighting each other. But look for your quotes across the web and you might begin to realize the damage you're doing. saying the anti-Semites will hate us anyway is thoughtless. It's misunderstanding the cumulative effect of anti-Jewish propaganda, which is what you're fueling.

You should come clean and state that you enjoy these stories, out of a prurient need, and fartik.

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>You'ree not cleaning anything.

http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/02/updated-brandeis-u-alert-sexual.html#comments

>No one in Israel is reading
>this, not officials, not regular
>citizens.

This involves an international ring.

>No one is reading it here.

You are.

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Face it, you have about 10
>regulars who are fighting each
>other.

Then leave. I'll only have 9.

>But look for your quotes
>across the web and you might
>begin to realize the damage
>you're doing.

Nonsense.

>saying the anti-
>Semites will hate us anyway is
>thoughtless.

No it's true.

>It's misunderstanding the
>cumulative effect of anti-Jewish
>propaganda, which is what you're
>fueling.

So basically, sweep the cries of women and children under the carpet for the good of the Jeish people.

Nonsense.

>You should come clean and state
>that you enjoy these stories,

I donm't enjoy them one bit. They make me angry.

>out of a prurient need, and
>fartik.

Pure mozi shem rah.

 
At 5:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jewish Cult Behavior. Visit "JewishIdea.blogspot.com" for insight

 
At 9:15 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

The Jerusalem Post also misses the bigger story.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1112754018919

Apr. 6, 2005
J'lem pedophile gets 16-year sentence
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

A 52-year-old Jerusalem pedophile convicted of more than 50 counts of sexual abuse was sentenced Wednesday in the Jerusalem district court to sixteen years in jail, in one of the worst child molestation cases in recent history.

The sexual predator, Shimon Ben-Tov, had plead guilty to more than 45 cases of sexually molesting minors, and at least nine other cases of sodomizing youths during a six year period from 1998-2004 as part
of a plea bargain.

Ben-Tov, who was arrested last year, would lure his young victims to his house by offering to let them play games on his computer.

Instead, once at his home, he would sexually molest the minors, filming his perverse actions on videotape.

In their ruling, the three justice panel, headed by court vice-president Judge Zvi Segal did not hide their disgust and revulsion for the crimes the defendant carried out.

"Only on rare occasions, does the court happen on a case where someone is convicted on such a long and frightening series of crimes to such an extent that it boggles the mind in disbelief, and one's soul unsuccessfully seeks out refuge from the monstrous descriptions of the acts carried out, and from the wickedness caused by them. Such is the case before us," the judges wrote in their blistering 11 page sentencing.

The three judge panel utterly rejected an appeal by the pedophile's attorney, Michael Horovitz, to hand down a lighter sentence since the pedophile was himself sexually abused as a child, writing in their ruling that the pedophile was "an intelligent man" who could distinguish between what was permitted and what was illegal, and who acted in sophisticated manner to attain his sick sexual desire.

In several cases, after abusing the youths, the pedophile even coaxed them to have sexual intercourse with an elderly woman, and even perform sexual acts between themselves.

"The accused lost all moral inhibitions and dedicated himself to his evil deeds whereby the souls and bodies of youth of a soft age where used in his hands as legitimate tools for the fulfillment of his needs," the judges wrote.

 
At 11:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least 10% of men in our country have suffered from trauma as a result of sexual assault. Like women, men who experience sexual assault may suffer from depression, PTSD, and other emotional problems as a result. However, because men and women have different life experiences due to their different gender roles, emotional symptoms following trauma can look different in men than they do in women.

Who are the perpetrators of male sexual assault?
Those who sexually assault men or boys differ in a number of ways from those who assault only females.

Boys are more likely than girls to be sexually abused by strangers or by authority figures in organizations such as schools, the church, or athletics programs.

Those who sexually assault males usually choose young men and male adolescents (the average age is 17 years old) as their victims and are more likely to assault many victims, compared to those who sexually assault females.

Perpetrators often assault young males in isolated areas where help is not readily available. For instance, a perpetrator who assaults males may pick up a teenage hitchhiker on a remote road or find some other way to isolate his intended victim.

As is true about those who assault and sexually abuse women and girls, most perpetrators of males are men. Specifically, men are perpetrators in about 86% of male victimization cases.

Despite popular belief that only gay men would sexually assault men or boys, most male perpetrators identify themselves as heterosexuals and often have consensual sexual relationships with women.

What are some symptoms related to sexual trauma in boys and men?
Particularly when the assailant is a woman, the impact of sexual assault upon men may be downplayed by professionals and the public. However, men who have early sexual experiences with adults report problems in various areas at a much higher rate than those who do not.

Emotional Disorders – Men and boys who have been sexually assaulted are more likely to suffer from PTSD, other anxiety disorders, and depression than those who have never been abused sexually.

Substance Abuse – Men who have been sexually assaulted have a high incidence of alcohol and drug use. For example, the probability for alcohol problems in adulthood is about 80% for men who have experienced sexual abuse, as compared to 11% for men who have never been sexually abused.

Encopresis – One study revealed that a percentage of boys who suffer from encopresis (bowel incontinence) had been sexually abused.

Risk Taking Behavior – Exposure to sexual trauma can lead to risk-taking behavior during adolescence, such as running away and other delinquent behaviors. Having been sexually assaulted also makes boys more likely to engage in behaviors that put them at risk for contracting HIV (such as having sex without using condoms).

How does male gender socialization affect the recognition of male sexual assault?
Men who have not dealt with the symptoms of their sexual assault may experience confusion about their sexuality and role as men (their gender role). This confusion occurs for many reasons. The traditional gender role for men in our society dictates that males be strong, self-reliant, and in control. Our society often does not recognize that men and boys can also be victims. Boys and men may be taught that being victimized implies that they are weak and, thus, not a man.
Furthermore, when the perpetrator of a sexual assault is a man, feelings of shame, stigmatization, and negative reactions from others may also result from the social taboos.
When the perpetrator of a sexual assault is a woman, some people do not take the assault seriously, and men may feel as though they are unheard and unrecognized as victims.
Parents often know very little about male sexual assault and may harm their male children who are sexually abused by downplaying or denying the experience.
What impact does gender socialization have upon men who have been sexually assaulted?
Because of their experience of sexual assault, some men attempt to prove their masculinity by becoming hyper-masculine. For example, some men deal with their experience of sexual assault by having multiple female sexual partners or engaging in dangerous "macho" behaviors to prove their masculinity. Parents of boys who have been sexually abused may inadvertently encourage this process.

Men who acknowledge their assault may have to struggle with feeling ignored and invalidated by others who do not recognize that men can also be victimized.

Because of ignorance and myths about sexual abuse, men sometimes fear that the sexual assault by another man will cause them to become gay. This belief is false. Sexual assault does not cause someone to have a particular sexual orientation.

Because of these various gender-related issues, men are more likely than women to feel ashamed of the assault, to not talk about it, and to not seek help from professionals.

Are men who were sexually assaulted as children more likely to become child molesters?
Another myth that male victims of sexual assault face is the assumption that they will become abusers themselves. For instance, they may have heard that survivors of sexual abuse tend to repeat the cycle of abuse by abusing children themselves. Some research has shown that men who were sexually abused by men during their childhood have a greater number of sexual thoughts and fantasies about sexual contact with male children and adolescents. However, it is important to know that most male victims of child sexual abuse do not become sex offenders.

Furthermore, many male perpetrators do not have a history of child sexual abuse. Rather, sexual offenders more often grew up in families where they suffered from several other forms of abuse, such as physical and emotional. Men who assault others also have difficulty with empathy, and thus put their own needs above the needs of their victims.

Is there help for men who have been sexually assaulted?
It is important for men who have been sexually assaulted to understand the connection between sexual assault and hyper-masculine, aggressive, and self-destructive behavior. Through therapy, men often learn to resist myths about what a "real man" is and adopt a more realistic model for safe and rewarding living.

It is important for men who have been sexually assaulted and who are confused about their sexual orientation to confront misleading societal ideas about sexual assault and homosexuality.

Men who have been assaulted often feel stigmatized, which can be the most damaging aspect of the assault. It is important for men to discuss the assault with a caring and unbiased support person, whether that person is a friend, clergyman, or clinician. However, it is vital that this person be knowledgeable about sexual assault and men.

A local rape crisis center may be able to refer men to mental-health practitioners who are well-informed about the needs of male sexual assault victims.

Summary
There is a bias in our culture against viewing the sexual assault of boys and men as prevalent and abusive. Because of this bias, there is a belief that boys and men do not experience abuse and do not suffer from the same negative impact that girls and women do. However, research shows that at least 10% of boys and men are sexually assaulted and that boys and men can suffer profoundly from the experience. Because so few people have information about male sexual assault, men often suffer from a sense of being different, which can make it more difficult for men to seek help. If you are a man who has been assaulted and you suffer from any of these difficulties, please seek help from a mental-health professional who has expertise working with men who have been sexually assaulted.

 
At 7:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A proposed bill to ban male circumcision
The clash of gender, religion and the protection of children

By Sherry Colb
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, April 8, 2005 Posted: 4:49 PM EDT (2049 GMT)

(FindLaw) -- A San Diego, California-based group that calls itself a health and human rights organization recently submitted a proposed bill to Congress called the Male Genital Mutilation Bill ("MGM bill"). The bill, if adopted, would ban the practice of circumcising baby boys.

The MGM bill has not yet found a Congressional sponsor and is therefore unlikely to go anywhere in the near future. Nonetheless, it raises important questions about the relationship between the protection of children, gender equality, and religious freedom, questions that have ramifications beyond the proposed bill itself.

Reportedly, at this time, more than half of the baby boys born in the United States undergo circumcision. For most of these infants, a doctor performs the procedure. For a minority, however, circumcision is a religious ceremony. It ordinarily occurs on the eighth day of a Jewish baby's life. For Muslim children, it may occur on the seventh or eighth day of the boy's life, some time in his first five years, or during adolescence.

The ceremony serves, for many Jewish and Muslim families, as both a celebration of their children and an assertion of religious identity.
What is male circumcision?

Circumcision, in males, involves the cutting and removal of the foreskin, a fold of skin that covers the head of the penis. Because the procedure typically occurs during the baby's first month, anesthesia (other than topical) is generally considered unsafe. This means that a vulnerable newborn infant undergoes the surgical removal of a part of his body that is dense with nervous tissue, without anesthesia.

Notwithstanding the pain suffered during, and in the immediate aftermath of, the procedure, circumcision does not -- when performed correctly -- prevent the young boy from growing up to be a sexually functioning and fertile man. (Some argue, though, that sex is more enjoyable for the uncircumcised male.).
Is circumcision like 'female genital mutilation'?

This apparent lack of permanent harmful consequences significantly distinguishes male circumcision from the practice sometimes called "female circumcision" but also known as female genital mutilation ("FGM") or female genital cutting. FGM is prohibited by a federal statute passed in 1996.

FGM typically involves the removal of a girl's entire clitoris (an excision that virtually eliminates the possibility of orgasm). In addition, clitoridectomy is often accompanied by the removal of the girl's labia and the sewing together of remaining raw surfaces, leaving only a small opening for the outflow of urine and menstrual blood, a process known as infibulation. Infibulation itself can have life-long deleterious consequences, including urinary distress, pain during intercourse, and dangerous complications during labor and the delivery of children.

Though the federal statute that prohibits female genital mutilation is limited to the protection of female anatomy, the extreme nature of FGM does not have a true analogue in male circumcision. In the light of this reality, it is somewhat misleading for advocates of the MGM bill to claim - as they have -- that federal law currently discriminates against boys subjected to genital mutilation by outlawing FGM alone. No modern culture subjects male children to anything so extreme as clitoridectomy and infibulation are for girls.

That said, the practice of male circumcision is not a trivial matter. As described above, highly sensitive and healthy tissue is removed with a knife, generally without anything but a topical anesthetic, and the patient is ordinarily a newborn infant. Though some people suggest that newborn babies do not actually suffer pain, this claim has always been suspect and is now at odds with what is known to the scientific community.
But is the pain 'unnecessary'?

The suggestion that circumcision causes unnecessary pain is, of course, a controversial one. The reason for the controversy is twofold. First, Muslims and Jews have performed circumcision on their sons for thousands of years as a religiously required practice. It serves as an affirmation, at a very basic level, of their religion and culture. To suggest that such a practice is "unnecessary" is accordingly to ignore this feature of circumcision, the fact that it is experienced by many as an essential and imperative component of their religious and cultural identity.

Second, for a long time, there were medical professionals who believed that routine circumcision of infants could be beneficial to their later health. Circumcision can prevent infections where hygiene is less than adequate. There were also some studies that suggested that women partners of circumcised men are less likely to develop cervical cancer. More recently, some have even claimed that circumcision helps to prevent HIV transmission to the circumcised male. The American Academy of Pediatrics, however, issued a statement in 1999 indicating that the data do not support routine circumcision (a retraction of its 1989 statement suggesting a range of possible benefits).

If the evidence continues to provide little or no medical basis for circumcision, that will leave only the religious and cultural reasons for the continuing choice of parents to circumcise their children.

But those bases are powerful. Many Muslims and Jews continue to circumcise their sons, even when they -- the parents -- are otherwise unobservant. Circumcision is thus, for Jews and Muslims alike, an important identifying mark.

Others continue to circumcise their children because the practice has been routine in America for some time. Studies suggest, as well, that there may be a cosmetic preference for the look of the circumcised penis.

But over time, the number of those who continue circumcise their sons without a religious justification is likely to dwindle, a development that may lead to more support for the outright banning of the practice.
When may the law intervene in religious practice?

When it comes to matters of religion, legislators are, for good reason, hesitant to ban a practice that represents a religious mandate. The U.S. Constitution itself, however, as construed by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, does not actually require the accommodation of religious conduct, provided that any prohibition applied to that conduct is part of a neutral, generally applicable law. In the absence of evident discriminatory intent, a prohibition against the cutting of male children's genitals would therefore satisfy the demands of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Moreover, even when the Court had interpreted the Free Exercise Clause more broadly, as a requirement that religious practice be affirmatively accommodated, that accommodation did not extend to practices that subjected minor children to health risks on account of their parents' religious observance. In Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, the Court held that a mother could be prosecuted under child labor laws for having her children distribute literature for the Jehovah's Witnesses in the streets, notwithstanding her religious motivation for her actions.
Should the law intervene?

If circumcision turns out to be what medical professionals are saying that it is -- unanesthetized amputation from a newborn child of living, healthy tissue flush with nerve endings, for no medically beneficial result -- then it might seem quite proper to prevent parents from subjecting their infants to this cruelty.

Yet there is a worry, and it is significant. The worry is that perhaps, out of the many painful things that people do to their children, the law could be singling this one out for prohibition at least in part because the practitioners are religiously motivated, and the religions in question are minority religions in the United States.

There is a troubling precedent for this sort of targeting. In Nazi Germany, for example, the law prohibited Kosher slaughter of animals. Though the treatment of so-called food animals and their slaughter -- Kosher or otherwise -- is indeed extremely cruel, the law in Nazi Germany did not address itself to the whole category of cruelty to the sentient warm-blooded animals who are routinely and unnecessarily killed for food. Rather, it singled out the Jews' religious practice, and it did so out of anti-Semitism rather than any true humane concerns for animals.

We do not live in Nazi Germany, of course, and the proposed law against circumcision does not nominally single out Jewish or Muslim practice. Yet the worry about discrimination has two separate components, one of which applies even to ostensibly neutral laws. The first component is that the law might deliberately aim at harming a minority group. That is what the Nazis were doing in prohibiting Kosher slaughter. The second is about the willingness to pass legislation that may impose serious costs when a majority will not have to worry about bearing those costs.

The second concern animates the idea that one way to ensure that the majority does not pass excessively burdensome legislation (in which the costs outweigh the benefits) is to require that the burdens of the law fall equally upon everyone. The equality principle, in other words, protects everyone from overreaching by ensuring that the majority truly experiences the negative consequences of its decisions and will therefore -- on its own -- seek to weigh costs and benefits in an honest fashion.

Because a prohibition against circumcision would not burden every group equally, there is a substantial risk that any cost/benefit analysis performed would largely ignore the true costs to Jews and Muslims, while perhaps exaggerating the benefits of the legislation.
The best solution: Wait

Does this mean that religiously motivated practices should be immune from legal intervention, no matter how harmful and abusive? Of course not. The ban on female genital mutilation, in fact, is a good example of appropriate legislation banning a practice embraced by a minority in this country for a combination of religious and cultural reasons. The costs to girls and women who have suffered the procedure are just too great to permit it to continue.

But male circumcision is different. Though professionals have (with some hedging and ambivalence) decided to oppose the practice, it does not pose the obvious risks and harms of FGM. Until we can say with certainty that circumcision is truly harmful to children in a lasting way, we should probably leave it alone.

In the meantime, the groups with the most to lose by a ban on the practice -- Muslims and Jews -- can absorb the medical evidence and have a chance to respond on their own. If the evidence of harm mounts, it is likely that religious groups will eventually find a way to modify their practices accordingly.


Sherry F. Colb, a FindLawcolumnist, is a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, New Jersey.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home