This is the case I blogged about a few months ago, in which a 17-year-old girl from a Muslim family ran away from home, claiming her father had threatened to “hurt her, kill her or send her back to Sri Lanka” because she had converted to Christianity. A police investigation apparently concluded that the girl’s charges were unfounded, though obviously there’s still a factual dispute between the girls and the parents on this. Now here’s the latest, from the AP:
[Bary and her family] must listen to each other’s views about religion if they are to reunite, a possibility that appears in jeopardy since the girl continues to refuse any contact with her parents or siblings, a caseworker says.A case-management plan filed Monday said Rifqa Bary and her parents should hear what each has to say about Islam and Christianity as a step toward a possible reunification. But the plan, written by a government caseworker, also said “severe differences” exist between the 17-year-old girl and her parents over what led Rifqa to run away to Florida over the summer....
Bary’s parents, Mohamed and Aysha Bary, agree with their daughter being in foster care for the moment, but are concerned about her and would like a family relationship with her again, according to the plan....
Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.
PatHMV says:
Has anybody figured out yet when she will turn 18, and the government can get out of this case entirely? PatHMV(Quote)
Off Kilter says:
Well, of course that’s a difficult calculation, PatHMV, but I understand the Obama administration hopes to use a few million in stimulus funds to hire unemployed mathematicians who will be able to answer that question... Off Kilter(Quote)
geokstr says:
Whatever happens with the legal aspects of this case, you can bet it will be followed by a lot of people for a long time. If anything ever happens to this girl, committed by the parents or other adherents of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage, I sure hope some of the child services bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges on the side of the parents get held to account, somehow. geokstr(Quote)
Eugene Volokh says:
PatHMV: The linked-to story says Aug. 10. Eugene Volokh(Quote)
Assistant Village Idiot says:
A great deal depends on who is being truthful here. That, as always, mucks up what we wish were clean civil liberties cases. Assistant Village Idiot(Quote)
David Drake says:
Seems to me that the better course would be for them to stop talking about religion altogether rather than to listen to each other’s views. David Drake(Quote)
geokstr says:
Especially since the religion of one side actually promotes and encourages taqqiyah, or lying to infidels, while the other considers it a sin to lie. geokstr(Quote)
geokstr says:
But this entire case revolves around religion and that one religion considers it a capital offense to leave. How exactly would a non-religious conversation go here?
“Hi Mom and Dad”, “Hi Rifqa”, “Bye”. geokstr(Quote)
thecabbage says:
A case-management plan filed Monday said Rifqa Bary and her parents should hear what each has to say about Islam and Christianity as a step toward a possible reunification.
Yeah, that’ll work. thecabbage(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Eugene, in the argot of Slashdot, you want me to RTFA? ;-)
Sorry, and thanks for the information.
I say, if you’re 17 years old and don’t want to live with your parents THAT badly, then you should be allowed to move out. Do we devote this many resources to tracking down and forcibly reuniting with their families average, non-religious teen runaways? PatHMV(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Assuming that the parents are decent, well-meaning people, don’t they see that at this point they should loosen their grip in order to avoid losing their daughter entirely? How would any of you respond to someone using the full powers of the state to try to coerce you to return to some place that you really didn’t want to return to? PatHMV(Quote)
Malvolio says:
Well, at least they aren’t Jewish, because we Jews use the blood of Christian children to make matzohs.
(Note for the irony– and sense-impaired: taqiyya (تقية) is the dispensation to lie if necessary to save your own life. Lying to win a custody dispute would be a sin in Islam as it would be in most religions.) Malvolio(Quote)
Peter Waldo says:
Maybe they could talk to each other about becoming atheists? Peter Waldo(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
This was my thought. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Ken Arromdee says:
Assuming that the parents are decent, well-meaning people, don’t they see that at this point they should loosen their grip in order to avoid losing their daughter entirely?
Either they didn’t threaten to kill the daughter, in which case there’s nothing to lose their grip with, or they did threaten her, in which case they’re lying and are not decent, well-meaning people.
In neither case is this advice much good. Ken Arromdee(Quote)
Cornellian says:
I say force them all to sit down for dinner at a nice restaurant with Richard Dawkins as their dinner guest. Cornellian(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Ken... assuming they did not threaten to kill their daughter, it’s still the case that their daughter wants nothing to do with them right now. Is she more likely to return to the family fold as a result of being compelled by the state, or is she more likely to do so if the parents accept, for the moment, her flat refusal to go home, and stop using the power of the state to coerce her return? PatHMV(Quote)
ASlyJD says:
Cornellian,
I’ll agree to that. The whole family will find something upon which they can agree, i.e. Dawkins is an ass. ASlyJD(Quote)
Joe says:
I agree with PatHMV. There should be a relatively simple method for a 17-year-old to emancipate him or herself.
(My now 21-year-old daughter was quite strong willed and there wasn’t much we could do when she was 17. I found it rather annoying that I could be held responsible vis-a-vis school for decisions by her which were entirely out of my control. My daughter used to joke about this since she saw it as rather ludicrous too.) Joe(Quote)
rmd says:
Maybe they could all have a beer with the President. Um, wait... No, never mind. rmd(Quote)
Yankev says:
According to Islamic clerics on state-run radio and TV in Egypt, Iran and the PA (among others) we use that of Muslim children. Yankev(Quote)
LarryA says:
Been there, done that. One of these days she’ll have a daughter, and you’ll have your revenge.
Yeah. Wouldn’t want to force him to decide. ;-) LarryA(Quote)
Malvolio says:
Who changed the recipe and didn’t tell me? Why do I never get the memo about these kind of things! I’ve got three Episcopalian kids in the freezer at home and now what am I going to do with them?
Maybe soup... Malvolio(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
When evaluating the role of the religions in this sordid episode, the most important point appears to be that the guy who hid a minor female from the police and parents for an extended period, in apparent affront to criminal law and to morality, was the Christian religious leader.
Did the apparently not-ready-for-prime-time law enforcement personnel in the relevant jurisdiction get around to arresting that guy yet? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Malvolio says:
I’m an expert in neither law nor morality but my understanding of the first is that you are allowed to break most laws to prevent imminent serious harm to an innocent person and my understanding of the latter is that you are obligated to do so.
BTW, if I’m about to be murdered, by crazy parents or otherwise, I would like you to disregard any law or mores that would prevent you from rescuing me. Arthur, if you feel differently, please speak up now. Malvolio(Quote)
Fub says:
Run them for Congress in Louisiana? Fub(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
That might — although I am skeptical — explain the guy’s decision not to inform the parents of the child’s whereabouts, but how would it begin to explain an adult male’s conduct in refraining from alerting the police that an unrelated minor female is staying at his residence?
I find it difficult to believe the child would be in better hands with that guy — based on his conduct and demonstrated poor judgment — than she would have been with the police. Which explains the law that obligates the adult to report such a circumstance to the authorities. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
[I was gonna post in reply to geokstr but Malvolio got there first. Damn your delay, Google Reader!] Sarcastro(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
Is this really a crime? What statute forbids a non-sexual sharing of a residence? Bob from Ohio(Quote)
Ricardo says:
Indeed, it does appear she lied to police when she told them that her parents had no idea about her cheerleader activities and that it involved appearing in public with a short skirt. In a visit to the family home, investigators noticed pictures of Rifqa in her cheerleader outfit prominently displayed near the entrance. Obviously, she did not give up “taqqiyah” upon converting to Christianity. Ricardo(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
I do not know the citation to a Florida statute, but I believe it was provided at this site during an earlier discussion.
If I persuade your teenage daughter to leave your house, Bob, and stay with me for a while (without informing you), do you wish to be told by the police that it is none of their business and that you should leave me (and my new housemate) alone? Or, if you learn that the girl is with me, would you expect state law to authorize the police to reclaim the teenager and arrest me?
What, precisely, are people attempting to defend here? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Arthur, was he alone in that household with her? It was just the two of them? Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
I Callahan says:
In a visit to the family home, investigators noticed pictures of Rifqa in her cheerleader outfit prominently displayed near the entrance. Obviously, she did not give up “taqqiyah” upon converting to Christianity.
And of course, the parents wouldn’t put those pictures up just prior to the investigators’ visit (under advice from their attorney, of course). I Callahan(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
If I recall correctly, the preacher’s wife and child(ren) resided there, also.
I see no relevance. Several recent, prominent cases of abuse of children involved residences in which the abuser lived with a wife, sometimes with children. And I doubt any statute has a ‘if your wife knows you are secreting someone else’s child in the basement, that’s different’ provision.
What would cause anyone to defend an adult who hides a child from the parents and the police? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Ricardo says:
Where would they have gotten the pictures from? Rifqa claims her parents — being foreigners — did not know what cheerleading was about and had never seen her in her cheerleader uniform because they would have forced her to quit if they had found out. You are alleging that all this is true but that after Rifqa ran away, the parents consulted an attorney, found some other parent in the community who just happened to have pictures of Rifqa in cheerleading uniform, made copies and then had them framed in time for the investigator’s visit (it’s not clear whether it was a group or individual picture — if the latter, your explanation is even more incredible). And these collaborating parents have yet to come forward and give their story.
This is wild speculation compared to the Occam’s Razor explanation of what happened — teenagers sometimes lie about how horrible and oppressive their parents are. Rifqa also lied to police when she said that she had confided in a teacher about abuse she was suffering at home. When the teacher she named was interviewed, she not only said that she was never told of any abuse but that she was more concerned about her suspicion that Rifqa’s older brother was hosting parties involving alcohol at the family home while the parents were away. Ricardo(Quote)
Steve2 says:
Well, for me it’s the fact that I consider a 17-year-old woman an adult, not a child. What she does is her business and none of her ancestors’. Steve2(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
At what age do you draw the line, Steve2?
I gather you would not object were I to persuade your teenage daughter to leave your house, then drive her to my fraternity chapter’s house, and let the 36 current active brothers entertain her for a few weeks (I believe at least one of the lads would be generous enough to find a suitable spot in his room for her), and refrain from telling you where she is.
And if the reason you are defending the child-hiding preacher is the religious angle, I am confident your daughter would be shouting “Oh God,” “Jesus Christ,” “Oh My God” and similar phrases frequently during her time at the house.
If you don’t want to share your daughter’s address in a public comment, Steve, let me know so I can provide an e-mail address.
If you reconsider your position and decide you do not think it would be a good idea for anyone to hide your daughter from you and the police, I will understand. The boys would be disappointed, though. Maybe your daughter would be, too. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Diana says:
Lets say for the sake of argument that Bary’s parents are moderates and they truly have no desire to harm her. There is still another problem. The tragedy at Fort Hood illustrates the fact that there are among us unbalanced people and fanatics. Rifqa has garnered a lot of media attention and it is too much to hope that one or more of them has not noticed. She is going to need protection from jihadists of all stripes for months or years until this is all forgotten. Diana(Quote)
Ken Arromdee says:
I’m reminded of the person who said that lots of kids think their parents would kill them.
Remember Woody Allen’s quip that he doesn’t want to achieve immortality through his work; he wants to achieve it through not dying. Well, kids thinking their parents would figuratively kill them is no comparison to them literally dying. And jokes about teenagers saying “God” during sex don’t work so well when the discussion is about literally getting killed because of literal worship of God. It’s like watching someone in the throes of cardiac arrest and saying “oh, my kids give me heart attacks all the time”, or reacting to a strangler on the loose by saying “that’s nothing special, lots of people are a pain in the neck”.
(And to answer the actual question: I’m sure he wouldn’t want his daughter taken away even if he really was going to kill her. In general, abusive parents don’t want their kids taken away; but sometimes it has to be done anyway. If he was in a similar situation to the one described, the fact that he wouldn’t want his daughter taken would be completely irrelevant.) Ken Arromdee(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
This story doesn’t seem to be about anyone with a legitimate fear of religion-inspired death. The girl’s story seemed weak from the beginning. The pastor hid her from the police as well as from the parents, demolishing the “rescue” angle. And it appears the investigation has vindicated the parents.
The only reasons I can believe anyone would support the pastor in this case — he hid the girl from the parents and the police, and violated the law in the process — are 1) hatred of Islam, 2) a perverted promotion of Christianity or 3) both. In those circumstances, if anyone thinks it’s OK for a teenage daughter to spend time hidden by the pastor, I think it would be equally acceptable for that girl to spend time hidden at the fraternity house.
If she wants to spend her time at either location screaming religious phrases, that is up to her. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Ken, some people prefer to put their energy into the cleverness of their response rather than the reasoning. You have to fight through that with Arthur, who actually does make a reasonable point from time to time.
As I originally thought, there is a lot of assuming here that Rifqa must be lying, or that her parents must be lying.
She does have a G.A.L. I think we should lean pretty heavily on that that until we have facts. Assistant Village Idiot(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
Whether the girl was telling or truth or lying or something else altogether, the only proper and lawful course for any adult harboring her would have been to report the girl’s whereabouts to the police (or child welfare authorities).
Does anyone wish to explain why the authorities should not have been notified? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Ricardo says:
It’s a fact that some of the information she gave police — information which would have made her fear of being killed more legitimate or credible if it was true — was inconsistent with their investigation. If a significant other or co-worker ever came to the police claiming you hit him or her and the police found blatant inconsistencies and falsehoods in the details of the statement, you would rightly demand that the police discount this person’s credibility in deciding how to handle the complaint. It is not an assumption that Rifqa is lying — it is an established fact that she is lying about certain things which makes it more likely than not that her central accusation is false as well. Ricardo(Quote)
Ken Arromdee says:
In other words, if you assume that the pastor is wrong (because the girl’s fear isn’t legitimate), he’s even more wrong (because he hid someone whose fear isn’t legitimate). This is a very uninteresting conclusion which can be made about any activity whatsoever; generally, if something is wrong, than anything done in furtherance of it is also wrong. It’s like saying “if he wasn’t attacking me, then it’s wrong to hurt him in self-defense”. That’s not false, but it really doesn’t tell you anything, either. Ken Arromdee(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
Why would anyone have feared the police in this circumstance? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Malvolio says:
What would cause it? An IQ of 80 or better?
The child and the adult believed, with good cause, that parents would murder the child.
The child and the adult believed the police would attempt to return the child to the parents, and that belief has been demonstrated to be correct.
Forget the religious aspects for a moment. If you, Arthur Kirkland, came to believe that a particular 17-year-old neighbor of yours was in imminent danger of being savagely butchered, would you, Arthur Kirkland, attempt to protect her or not?
Before you answer, be aware that if your answer is “no”, you, Arthur Kirkland, are a horrible, horrible person. Malvolio(Quote)
d-berg says:
It is easy. As we all can see from the story unfolding, state authorities are working diligently to put the girl back into her parents’ house. If you really believe she is in danger and needs to be rescued, you wouldn’t be in a rush to turn her over to them. d-berg(Quote)
Ohioan says:
It seems to me that truth has been a casualty in this
case from the beginning. Sometimes one has to think inside
the logic of a dysfunctional situation to understand the actions
of seemingly irrational people. Setting Rifqa aside for the
moment and viewing her somewhat more appropriately as perhaps
a victim of the ongoing insanity (appropriate to her minor status) rather than as a primary decision-maker may be helpful.
The decisions made by the players on the Christian side make
sense only within a context that understands that Muslims are
somehow “not like the rest of us,” concurrent with a belief
that the duly constituted authorities do not know this. This is
where far right politicos meet up with far right religionists.
Within their context, it is first off absolutely a given that not
only do some people who are Muslim commit acts of violence
against family members, particularly females, but that they do
so because they are bound to this behavior either through profound
ignorance, mind-control, fear or evil. In other words–unless
cleansed by the blood of the lamb (and there is a growing list
of these folks)–there is absolutely no trusting them to do
otherwise. The second belief is that the United States has been
over-run by mindless (dare I use the term) infidels, who either
due to stupidity or actual evil intent, are in support of such
actions, or do not believe in their existence, because of an
adherence to a religion of “diversity.” Further–there is an ongoing threat to the US of “creeping Sharia law” from an Islam absolutely bent on world domination.
I am reminded of G. Gordon Liddy justifying Watergate with a belief that the US was at war–not only in Vietnam, but an active war on domestic soil against anti-war protestors. It’s a frightening thought–but he was absolutely serious. As are the chain of folks in various ministerial roles who believe that their actions (totally NOT in keeping with any code of minesterial ethics) have been appropriate to the situation. Ohioan(Quote)
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Ricardo, that some of the girl’s story is untrue does not make it “more likely than not” that her central claim is untrue. It increases that likelihood, but doesn’t get you anywhere near 50%.
I make my daily bread in acute psychiatric emergency evaluations. If I did the kind of leaping to conclusions I see here, I would long ago have been fired, and certainly would have made decisions which were terribly unjust.
1. The girl might be overdramatic and volatile, and will be accusing the couple next.
2. The girl may be legitimately frightened and trying to make her story sound as good as it can, even stretching the truth, to keep herself safe.
3. The parents may be lying start-to-finish and have actually threatened her with death.
4. The parents may be difficult but not homicidal, seeking other revenge for her embarrassing them if she returns.
5. The parents may not be minded toward honor-killing, but may have friends or relatives who are, creating an original legitimate fear in the girl.
6. The parents may be wonderful people who have a difficult daughter.
7. The Christian couple may be bigots who believe that all Muslims whose children convert are likely to kill them.
8. The Christian couple may be equally frightened and not know quite what to do to get a minor child out of danger.
9. The local police might have been content to bring the girl back into district, identify her location to her parents, and turned the whole thing over to DSS with no further protection.
10. The local police in FL may know that this couple cries wolf all too often and ignore their concerns if reported, even though this time it is true.
I can go on forever with possibilities that could be true. One has to stand back from all of them. Assistant Village Idiot(Quote)
Malvolio says:
The “Christian side”? Which side is the Christian side?
I’m not a Christian, but I think that a young girl should not be left to be murdered even if it might put Muslims in a bad light — and I’d really like someone to explain to me the logic of the opposite position. Malvolio(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Arthur, my question was relevant because you are acting like this girl and the pastor had a little love-nest going there. It makes a TREMENDOUS difference whether a 17-yr-old girl is shacking up with a grown man, just the two of them, or whether a family is sheltering her. Do you disagree? (Probably.) Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
To further this — for two spring breaks, and then for a period of time after graduation, we hosted our daughter’s college roommate. Our daughter was there, I was there, but I suppose the fact that my husband was there means that her parents were frightfully negligent in letting her come and stay with us.
I didn’t think anyone thought this way anymore. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Ohioan says:
“The “Christian side”? Which side is the Christian side?”
Perhaps I worded that badly, as I am a Christian and Pam Geller is a Zionist. However, so many have cast this as a Christianity vs Islam issue. I have been accused by many of being Muslim. In fact, I would term the Christians in this case to be of an extremist variety, bordering on cult status.
The responses of any of the “ministers” involved (and their ministerial standing is in doubt in several cases) was not what would be either legally or ethically required in a case in which they believed that a minor was in danger of abuse or other violence at the hands of parents. Ministers are mandated reporters in both Ohio and Florida. Their obligation was to make a report to either the police or child protective services. They did neither, and in fact not only hid Rifqa from her parents, but also hid her from the very authorities charged with her protection. Pastor Lorenz preached about how the Kansas City police were persecuting Christians because after uncovering a connection between Rifqa and the Pastor(?) Williams–the contacted him there and demanded that he come clean about her whereabouts. Ohioan(Quote)
Ohioan says:
No–if they let her come, that is different. Florida law prohibits keeping a minor for more than 24 hours without either knowledge and permission of parents, or notification of proper authorities. Seems reasonable to me. Ohioan(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Ohian, different issue.
Arthur is implying that there was something indecent about Rifka being with that man.
Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Didacticus says:
She said no such thing. What she said is that her parents NEVER saw her cheerlead and did not really know what it obtains; and that they NEVER got a yearbook; and that she HID her cheerleading pictures from them but that NOW they have them.
Absolutely NOTHING from the above was contradicted by any published evidence.
Yet a picture or two of Rifqa prominently displayed to be noticed by police, AFTER her allegation became well known, is enough for you to conclude this girl is a liar? Talk about gullible... Didacticus(Quote)
Didacticus says:
Rifqa said no such thing. In fact she said nearly the opposite, that she’s not sure she told the teacher about the abuse, since the beatings became infrequent in high school (compared to middle school). Rifqa in her interview said the teacher offered her her home but not specifically why, except that she was concerned for her after she became openly Christian at school.
FDLE said the alleged reason was to protect Rifqa from repercussions at home due to her Christian beliefs, but this is never stated by Rifqa in her interview.
Even had the FDLE summary not be false — even had Rifqa stated the teacher was concerned about repercussions — it easily could have been a misunderstanding. Rifqa said she spoke to the teacher about many things, so if the teacher offered her her home if need be, what if they had different reasons in mind?
But it’s much more convenient to label a minor girl a liar, isn’t it?
And of course if Rifqa did tell the teacher about physical abuse, the teacher would admit a criminal act if she did not report it. So let’s see... on one hand Rifqa telling FDLE to go and speak to the teacher and check with her, knowing full well that they can, and on the other an adult who, if she admits Rifqa reported abuse, is certain to destroy her career and possibly end up in jail. Oh of course, it must be the girl who, having absolutely nothing to gain by it and having no chance of getting away with it, must be lying. Not the teacher who has EVERYTHING to lose by NOT lying.
Why not call you a liar from now on to forever. After all, what you wrote was false. Given your own standards towards Rifqa, we’d be treating you more leniently than a child if we let you get away with it, right?
It just amazes how much hate people have for Rifqa. Didacticus(Quote)
Didacticus says:
It’s an “established fact” now that you’re lying. Didacticus(Quote)
LN says:
It amazes me how much you hate her parents, her teacher, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, calling them all liars, fools, and potential murderers and enablers of murderers. Does your God force you to fanatically hate all of these people or do you do it of your own free will? LN(Quote)
Ricardo says:
Didactus, do you have any citation for the claim that police visited the parents only after the details of Rifqa’s interview with police became public knowledge? If you read the interview, the questions are so specific it is obvious the police were looking for information they could corroborate on their own. It’s not really believable that the police would go through this exercise and then publish the information in the interview before visiting the parents or other witnesses.
In any case, that’s not the only inconsistency. Her claims to have confided in a teacher about abuse at home were not confirmed by the teacher. She claims that her family were all active members at a mosque: this has not been confirmed by either the mosque or any of the members of the mosque (I know, I know, Muslims always lie to infidels so this doesn’t mean anything). She also claims to have a very devout upbringing but at the beginning of the interview she refers to her local Muslim preacher as “a Rabbi person, I don’t know, I guess they’re called Imams.” I know many, many people who were raised as devout Muslims and not one would stumble over the correct word or who would call a Muslim preacher “a Rabbi person.” That’s like a devout Christian not being able to recite the Lord’s Prayer.
You can choose to believe whatever you want but don’t pretend there is any objective evidence leading you to that belief. The police, who are kind of experts in this sort of thing, concluded that Rifqa was not a credible witness because of inconsistencies like this. None of the other evidence they examined led them to believe she was in danger. You can never prove a negative (that her parents were not planning to kill her), but under any fair view of the evidence, there is no case here.
And if you cannot respond like a civil adult, don’t bother. Ricardo(Quote)
Malvolio says:
I am not calling them that! Rifqa is calling them that — and she should know.
It’s possible that Rifqa is wrong or lying about her parents, which means, whatever else is true, Rifqa’s parents are bad enough parents that they raised at least one child who would make such an accusation falsely.
As for the Florida cops: Rifqa’s parents might not be murderers but there are parents out there who are and Florida law enforcement will serve up their child with just as much alacrity as they did with Rifqa.
I’m an atheist. Everything I do is of my own free will. Other commenters are Christians, whose doctrine likewise says they act of their own free will. Malvolio(Quote)
Assistant Village Idiot says:
This seems to be a Rorschach Test that folks are unable to stop answering. Assistant Village Idiot(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
Since AK provided no answer to my question, I find this.
So, I guess there is a law that supports AK.
But like most crimes, there are defenses.
The preacher can’t us the (a) defense unless he filed a report but (c) seems applicable.
If she told police that it was her idea, how would you get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe in many situations, but under these facts? Bob from Ohio(Quote)
LN says:
I was responding directly to Didacticus, Malvolio. Did you see what I did there?
AVI is right, this is a Rorschach test. It would be fun to pretend that the girl in question was an outspoken feminist who was accusing a white Christian man of rape, to see how the standard of proof changes. Maybe she could be a black stripper accusing a lacrosse team of rape. LN(Quote)
Ricardo says:
If the accusers cannot get their story straight and say things inconsistent with the facts, then the cases should be dismissed which does, in fact, happen in the real world. The burden of proof should be the same regardless of the race or religion of the accusers or the accused. The problem is some here want to say that since the parents are Muslims and that there is a Muslim doctrine that says that those who convert away from Islam should be killed, the case should be based on views imputed to the parents without any evidence rather than on the individual facts or circumstances of the case. I agree with Eugene Volokh that religion should play no role in family law disputes one way or another.
I also note that some commenters here complain about child protection services in many states and how quick they are to take children away. If Florida relaxed the burden of proof to a level that some are demanding here, there would be many more cases of parents being falsely accused of abuse and loosing their children. Rifqa is 17: as far as I’m concerned, the law should allow her to emancipate herself if that’s what she wants. The law apparently does not allow that though. According to the law, a burden of proof for a 17-year-old girl from a Muslim family would be the same burden of proof applied to a 7-year-old from a Christian family. Is that what you want? Ricardo(Quote)
LN says:
Hey dude, I’m actually on your side here. LN(Quote)
Ricardo says:
By that standard, the state should never bother with an investigation when a child comes forward with abuse accusations. By your reasoning, only lousy parents would raise a child to make false accusations like that and the child’s best interests would best be served by denying the children custody. It is a fact that children do sometimes make false accusations against parents in a fit of rage, as an act of rebellion or as a way to get the upper-hand in a more trivial domestic dispute. Do you want states to uniformly apply this burden of proof in all family law disputes or only in disputes involving Muslims?
They are not, in fact, murderers. They have neither been accused nor convicted of murder. You meant potential murderers and, sure, the American legal system does frown upon the idea of potential criminals to some extent. If there is credible evidence that there is a potential for abuse or violence, the state should remove a child from custody. If there is not any credible evidence, it should not. The broader principle here is that denying the parents in this case the right to custody of their child means accepting an almost non-existent burden of proof in the future of abuse allegations to deny parents custody of their children. People who are suspicious of child welfare authorities overreaching ought to be very, very troubled by this. Ricardo(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
After substantial discussion, I sense that a substantial number of commenters continue to believe that it is morally acceptable (if not laudable) and is (or should be) lawful for an adult to hide a minor child from parents and from the police.
This blog attracts some strange agents. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Malvolio says:
Yes, by and large, I would think a substantial number of commenters, and people generally, would believe that allowing parents to murder their children is not a great idea.
Yeah, and I pretty much stand by that. Why, do you think that children hurling wild accusation is a mark of a good upbringing?
They should investigate. The question is, what if the investigation turns up, as it did, inconclusive?
In Ricardo and Arthur’s world, the girl is dragged back to her parent. The good scenario is that she spends the next 10 months in a nightmare of recriminations and bitterness in a home she hates. The bad scenario, she’s raped, tortured and murdered. At least, I hope that Ricardo and Arthur regard that as a bad scenario, they’ve certainly never mentioned it.
My plan is, she spends the rest of her childhood with adults she likes and respects. If her statements about her parents were incorrect, then those parents are spared the burden of a child they obviously weren’t getting along with. Malvolio(Quote)
Yankev says:
I do not know whether she is or is not, nor do I know whether or not the charges against her parents are justified. But as a non-Christian raised and living in c Christian society, I can tell you that one sometimes stumbles over concepts that one is very familiar with when trying to explain them to Christians; not because of one’s own unfamiliarity, but because of uncertainty how best to explain in English a concept that does not exist in Christianity and that is alien those raised in the larger culture. Even matters like the Sabbath or dietary restriction — which many Christians think they understand — requires considerable deliberation when choosing English words to express Hebrew concepts. E.g. the Hebrew word, “malacha” has no English analogue, and is often mistranslated as “work” or “labor”, which reinforces the onn-Jewish misconception that an activity’s permissibility on the Sabbath depends somehow on the degree of effort that the activity requires. If I had to explain other concepts, such as tumah, tahara, taharas mishpoha, to a non-Jewish listener, you can bet it would take considerable forethought, and I have more than 40 years over this teenager.
From what little I know about Islam, Christianity has no position analogous to an Imam. Rifqa may well have been searching for the closest analogue that she thought an American non-Muslim might understand. Her choice of terms was probably fairly accurate, but given the average American’s misconception of what a Rabbi is and does, she may not have succeeded in communicating what she had hoped to. Yankev(Quote)
Didacticus says:
You’re a liar.
I never called her parents or her teacher or FDLE liars or fools or enablers of murderers etc. Nor do I hate any of them.
And I’m an agnostic, you presumptuous fool. Didacticus(Quote)
LN says:
Oh that’s right — you didn’t call her parents or her teacher or FDLE liars. The only people you’re calling liars are those who accept their accounts.
If someone doesn’t think that the cheerleader pictures were an elaborate ruse to trick the police, then you call them a liar and full of hate towards Rifqa (interesting that you’re on a first-name basis with her). But the parents who not only want to murder her but are also devious enough to trick the police with this ruse? You withhold judgment on them. You wouldn’t call them liars, oh no sir. Just the people who accept their version of events. LN(Quote)
Didacticus says:
I wrote “allegations”, not “details of Rifqa’s interview”. Her allegations against her parents became widely known before and, furthermore, her being cheerleader has been raised by several media commentators and bloggers as evidence that her parents could not have been so devout.
Her mom’s lawyer, for example, was quoted by TIME as saying “This is a family with Westernized kids. Their daughter is a cheerleader.” A columnist for Orlando Sentinel wrote: “Somehow I can’t imagine a Muslim extremist allowing his daughter to wear short skirts and shake pompoms in front of a crowd of infidels.” And so on, this all BEFORE FDLE interviewed the parents.
Yet, according to you, it is unthinkable the parents put up her cheerleading pictures AFTER the allegations against them. It is unthinkable that CAIR advised them to do so, just as they likely advised them to selectively leak portions of Rifqa’s diaries (a very cruel thing to do to a teenage girl).
Mind you, you do not even have a statement from her parents asserting those pictures were there BEFORE she ran away. No, you simply KNOW they were there, and we have to take that on faith. Anything so you can declare a child to be a liar.
How noble of you. Didacticus(Quote)
Didacticus says:
That’s right, as you well know.
I called YOU a liar. Stop hiding behind others. You lied; so either apologize or get used to being called LIAR.
More lies.
And it was Ricardo who declared Rifqa a liar, without any proof. Saying you *think* she lied because you *believe* her parents is light years away from simply declaring her a liar as if it was a fact.
I mocked Ricardo by saying it is an “established fact” (in quotes) that he’s lying, because he wrote several falsehoods and because I wished him to reflect on how he’s treating Rifqa, who’s not even an adult. My point was he should treat her at least like he’d like others to treat himself (or his own child).
YOU I called a liar outright because... you are a liar. Didacticus(Quote)
Didacticus says:
You didn’t show her to be “inconsistent” in any way. And look up the word in a dictionary before you reply.
I already answered this. And even if the teacher disputed what Rifqa said — which by the released evidence she did not — that would not amount to being “inconsistent”.
You mean the mosque said her family never went there?!?
Why not quote precisely what Rifqa said and precisely what someone else said that contradicted it.
Not that it would be an “inconsistency” on Rifqa’s part in any way.
Why do you interject with something so stupid? I never indicated ANYTHING of this sort.
Somehow objecting to a girl barely 17 being savagely attacked as a liar on blogs with bogus arguments makes into some kind of fanatical anti-Muslim?
It seems you’re just as much of a fanatic as those you imagine you are fighting.
That’s false — she did NOT say it was a local Muslim preacher.
And you conveniently left out the fact that she was 5 (FIVE!) years old when this occurred.
It makes perfect sense that she may not have been told at that age what the proper term was for the teacher, OR that she may not be certain what the proper translation of the term into English should be.
In fact it’s not that certain he was an Imam. He might have been simply a mullah. And that’s not taking into account regional and sectarian differences in the use of the word “Imam” — e.g. Shi’a usage differs greatly from Sunni usage, and there may be other, regional variations within Sunni usage.
Rifqa was talking to people she knew most likely know nothing about Islam. In that sense likening him to a Rabbi was quite appropriate. And Yankev already explained nicely why a thoughtful and careful person may stumble over the proper English term, if there even is one at all.
But I guess Yankev must be a fanatic who thinks all Muslims lie to infidels, right?
You’re hell-bent on denouncing this girl as a liar and obviously nothing will stop you — you’ll just keep making up fantasies as you go. Anything just to defame her. Didacticus(Quote)
Didacticus says:
Quote precisely where FDLE said Rifqa is not a credible witness.
As far as I know, all they said was they found no CLEAR evidence of a criminal activity that would SUPPORT her allegations. In other words no judgment of her credibility, only a report of a lack of CLEAR supporting evidence.
If you allege someone threatened you but there are no witnesses and he denies it, just because the police does not arrest him does not mean they think you’re a liar. If you think otherwise you really do not know much about law enforcement. And in this case FDLE could not even make an arrest (Ohio would have to).
BTW, Rifqa stated in her interview that she has no proof of her allegations and worried about the implications of that. So no surprise FDLE was unable to find any outright proof.
That does not mean they concluded she’s not a credible witness.
Again, try to get this through your head:
In the U.S. not being arrested, not to mention convicted, even if someone alleges you committed a crime, does not mean you are innocent and that the witness is not credible.
It simply means there’s not enough evidence to make a definite conclusion.
Unlike you, I do not go around and call children liars just because they accuse someone in a manner I dislike. I’m calling neither Rifqa nor her father a liar. One or the other, possibly both, is lying in a substantial manner, but I do not know which one.
You may have an opinion, but as long as you pretend your opinion is fact, be prepared for people like me to call you on it. Especially when the target of your baseless attacks is a mere child. Didacticus(Quote)
Steve2 says:
The ancient Hebrews may well have had it right that 13’s adulthood. I tend to think it varies by person in the 14–16 range, myself, so average it out and draw the line at 15 I guess. As to my hypothetical daughter (I being 25 and childless), it would depend on the manner of the “persuasion”. If it’s a coercive form of persuasion, that’s a problem — you’ve no right to coerce her, and I’ve an obligation to interfere. If, though, she really wants to move into a frat house, I may have an obligation to explain to her why that’s an execrable idea, but no right to interfere — a 15/16/17 year-old-woman has the right (and the law should recognize that right) to ensconce herself in a frathouse bedroom as long as she likes. The frat’s got no right to keep her there if she doesn’t want to be, but I don’t see anyone else having a right to keep her out, and I look at trying to as being bad for the same reason the frat’s kidnapping would be. Steve2(Quote)
Ohioan says:
Would coercion include repeated assertions that all Muslims believe absolutely that the required punishment for apostasy is death, that this absolute is known as “honor killing” and that it happens every day to converts in the United States? How about the deliberate conflation of the practice of reclaiming family honor in the case of sexual misconduct with that of killing a family convert in order to acquire great honor. What about providing a bus ticket and a ride to the bus station–would that count? or providing a specially decorated bedroom in a Florida ranch–clearly much nicer than the two-bedroom second-floor apartment of her parents–could that be tipping the balance? Or providing national coverage of her conversion story and video of her tearful assertion that her father is duty-bound to kill her. Might these things make it difficult to ever face her family again–even if they should prove to have no other conflict than the relative roles of Jesus and Mohammed in the revelation of God’s word?
There are good reasons why certain kinds of “consent” are considered null and void. The consent of a minor in almost all dealings with adults. The consent of an employee, a counselee, a parishioner, or a patient to the sexual advances of an employer, a counselor, a clergy-member, or a physician, respectively. These are cases in which the power-differentials must be accounted for. In the case of Rifqa, many of these come into play. Ohioan(Quote)
Eugene Volokh says:
Ohioan: Just one tangential point — the consent of an employee to the sexual advances of an employer is by no means deemed null and void. Certainly employer-employee sex is generally not treated as rape unless there’s specific evidence of coercion (and usually coercion by threat of violence, not just of firing). And in the absence of violence, threat of violence, or a threat of firing, employer-employee sex (or more broadly manager-subordinate sex) is generally not even treated as sexual harassment.
To be sure, there are legal risks in manager-subordinate sex, and a jury may be more likely to infer some implied threat in certain situations. But that’s far from certain. And in any event, it’s not correct to assert that employer-employee sex (even if the employer is the one is making the advances) is treated the same as adult-pre-age-of-consent-minor sex (which is a crime) or physician-patient sex (which is usually treated as a basis for professional discipline) or counselor-patient sex (which is usually treated as a basis for professional discipline and may be a basis for a tort law suit). Clergy-adult-parishioner sex is a whole other matter; my sense is that it is not the basis for any sort of governmental action unless it’s outright rape, or unless the clergy member is acting as a psychiatrist. Eugene Volokh(Quote)
Yankev says:
He did nothing of the kind, and it would be absurd on its face to do so, given that they would by definition have no first hand knowledge. Gullible, perhaps, even dangerously so, but I did not see where he called them liars. Yankev(Quote)
An Interesting (Though Sad) Development in the Rifqa Bary Case | theConstitutional.org says: