Thursday, November 17, 2016

Anna Maranta: Linguistic Disposition in Threat Assessment Analysis


In assessing the level of a threat, we seek to identify the one making the threat.  The words the person making the threat will reveal:

1.  His Background
2.  His Experiences 
3.  His Priority
4  His Personality 

By getting to know the threat maker, we are better able to assess the level or seriousness of the threat, itself.  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  

Here we seek to learn the 

Background, experiences, priority and personality of the person who painted "kike" and a swastika on the door of Anna Marteen, from Ottawa, Canada. 


Anna  Marteena is "deception indicated" regarding the painting of a swastika and the removal of the evidence.  She concealed the identity of the remover, which may be under the context of "responsibility" over "identity."  For example, if she instructed another to remove it, she may not want his or her name used; but passivity conceals "identity and/or responsibility" which avoids saying, "I had John Smith remove..." 

Here she gave another account of "what happened" to her:

"This is what I woke up to at about 3 o’clock this morning. 

Note first the passive language of the statement.  This is an intrusive and traumatic threat but the subject begins her statement with passivity.  

Passivity can be used to conceal identity and/or responsibility, such as "the gun went off", while avoiding responsibility for pulling the trigger.  

Next note that she gives us the context of timing, "3 o'clock this morning" which tells us that it has not even been 24 hours time allowed for processing the traumatic information.  


 Rather disturbing.  

The missing pronoun and the qualified "disturbance" speak to a lack of commitment.  An outright lie comes from creativity; not experiential memory, and is stressful, which is why it is often (90%) avoided.  

Then we note that the element of "disturbing" is qualified with "rather", which is a dependent word (comparative) that is used to compare "disturb" with something else.  

She does not say "I was disturbed by it" which would be a technically stronger sentence. 

Yet, above all of this, we have the hallmark of narrative building or what police call, "story telling."  She places her emotions at the time of the "waking up" period.  Given the short time period (under 24 hours), this is an indication of artificial placement of emotion in the statement.  

In this alone, we have 3 indicators of possible deception:

1.  The dropped pronoun 
2.  The location of the emotion
3.  The minimizing of the emotion


Um, I’ve never experienced anything like this directly before.  

This is where deceptive people are caught because the need to persuade her audience causes her to use additional and unnecessary language.  In her earlier statement she said she had never experienced this before, and now she adds in the word "directly", which changes the information. 

She now needs to be asked what, like this, did she experience indirectly.  

This simple word, "directly", should also cause advanced analysis to consider not simply the question about "indirect" experiences, but to explore (and consider) that "indirect" experience may include the experience of conception and execution of a plan.  This may be her "indirect" experience. 

We look at the "linguistic relationship" between subject and perpetrator.  If the subject is the perpetrator, she should have a neutral (favorable) disposition towards the perpetrator.   

For example, "ATTN:  African American Family" began the "fake hate" note written by the subject, herself, who is black.  The anonymous threatening letter telling her to move out of her house showed a favorable disposition through the language.  She was 'polite' and even accommodating to the stresses of having to move out.  In fact, the author of that letter, herself, did not reveal herself as a racist (racism towards white), but one who sought publicity and used a pragmatic technique of exploiting the "politically correct" environment of the United States, as Americans bow before a deceptive system, while congratulating themselves as moral supremacists, and condemning others. 

We now look to listen to the linguistic disposition:  


Somebody obviously came in between about 11 o’clock when I was in bed last night and spray-painted my front door.  


The perpetrator of the self described "hate crime" is "somebody"; gender neutral and singular.  He is not a "hateful" person, nor even a "NAZI"

This, she unnecessarily says, is "obvious."  We take nothing for granted and it is she that has the need to persuade that it was "obvious"; and this need, itself, is weak. 

Next note the focus of the sentence is the time.  This is called "alibi building" in analysis.  

The subject is establishing her alibi similar to Billie Jean Dunn, mother of murdered 13 year old Hailey, was asked,

"What happened?" to which she said, "she went missing while at was at work."

She was not asked "when did she go missing?" but had the need (priority) to establish her alibi, thus bringing our attention to her involvement in her daughter's murder.  

Rabbi Anna has a need to establish an alibi and that it is "obvious", meaning:  do not question it.  

This need to establish an alibi brings the investigation's focus upon her, along with the linguistic disposition towards the perpetrator of a "hate crime."  


Not really sure what to say. 

Again the subject drops the pronoun "I", psychologically removing herself from this sentence.  It is a strong signal that she knows exactly what she wants to communicate.  Note in the previous analysis that she had "the message", with the word "message" and the article, "the", showing preparation. 

Guilty subjects will often repeat the alibi due to nervousness.  Here we have the continued editing of emotion and a revisiting of her alibi:  

 It’s just a really, deeply, hurtful, experience to wake up to this kind of message.  

a.  Note the artificial placement of emotion
b.  Note the minimized emotion.  This is a frightening threat against Jews.  
c.  Note that she calls is a message but when she deceptively talked about removing the evidence, she called it "graffiti."

This further keys advanced analysis to focus upon the real message that this deceptive subject wishes to convey.  Although her FB post blamed Donald Trump and those who voted for him, analysis of her statement does not show a political motive. 

Like the "African American" woman from Lindenhurst, the motive is specific:  publicity.  

We see that she shows a lack of acceptance from the local Jewish community, and likely a lack of formal recognition of her self claimed status of "rabbi."

She used this deception to gain attention for her work, and the employment of deception shows:

a.  Contempt for the public
b.  Contempt for police (including the washing of the paint)
c.  A personality unafraid to harm others for her own purposes.  

This is something that is likely easily affirmed by family members. She is willing for at least one innocent Ottawa citizen to be arrested for "hate crime" in order to further her own promotion.  She has worked for "more than five years" at trying to be accepted as a rabbi and here shows how dangerous her ambition is.  

This is not her first attempt at exploitation via deception.  


Um, I’m covering it back up because I take care of a two-year old and I don’t actually want to explain the pictures on the door to her. 

The need to explain why she is covering it back up is sensitive; she has not been asked such.  

Yet, how many two year olds will both recognize a swastika, read the word "kike"with understanding, and will thus inquire about why it is on her door?

The parent of the two year old should be very concerned about leaving a vulnerable child with this subject.  

Back to context:  A threatening message has been posted on her front door, with paint.  It is a direct message of death to Jews.  It is thus reported to police for investigation.  Will her words reflect this?

  Uh, uh it’s uh, rather alarming to have this kind of experience happen to me directly and also to have it happen here in Ottawa.  But as uh, I shared with others already this morning, I really think that the president-elect south of the border has kind of opened the pandora’s box to people feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others, 

Here we have projection via the linguistic disposition continuing.  Consider only a few simple points:

This vile and frightful threat is now a "kind of experience", which is soft minimizing language.  

Question:  Why would she use such soft language?

Answer:  Because she does not wish to portray herself as "hateful" or "Nazi like" as the painter.  

Note that she did not "report" this "crime", she "shared" this "experience."

Note the weak commitment to condemning Donald Trump.

Question:  Why would she only weakly condemn him?

Answer:  Because she is the author of the painting and to give strong commitment (Pronoun "I", strong verbiage, etc) would be to condemn herself.  This is to continue to look at the "linguistic disposition" towards anyone targeted with blame. 

She does not show animosity towards the President elect, even though she wishes him to take the blame for it.  This further affirms that her motive was not an anti-Trump or anti-American or any other political agenda;

her agenda is profit.  

Here, she has a very soft stance:

has kind of opened the pandora’s box to people feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others, 

The pandora's box is not opened, but has "kind of" opened to "people" who (now note the soft language) 

"feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others."

This is not "hateful people" but "people";
This is not people "expressing their hatred" but are "feeling" (a) "comfortable" (b) with this comfort being increased "more" (c) 

their hatred. 

Although she has expressed hatred for herself, no matter how intense it may be, it is subordinated to her ambition for publicity.  This continues to indicate that although she may have strong hatred for both Donald Trump and those who voted for him, her own desire for acceptance and publicity remain paramount.  


um about others about anybody different than themselves

The lack of acceptance by her own community has likely led her to a personal crisis.  She may have heard people tell her, in a negative sense, that she is "different" than they are.  This is not likely taken by her as a compliment but a criticism.  Exploring her status as a "spiritualist" who calls herself "rabbi" may show some very "different" beliefs she has attempted to peddle to the Jewish community who has not accepted her:  


anything they don’t understand um, and this is just an example of that.  

She is not 'understood' and hopes that this "anti-semitic" attack will cause Jews to rally around her. 

By her own words on the previous analysis:  they did not.  



Um, where people feel because others in power have had the permission granted to them to speak about their bigotry, their racism, their sexism, to speak um horribly about women and others and not be censored for it, that it’s okay for everyone to do that.  

The gratuitous use of propaganda directly appeals to those who have fallen for deception where:

if you disagree with Obama, you are "racist"
if you did not vote for Hillary, you are "sexist"
if you do not endorse what the politicians demand you endorse, you are given to "bigotry";

It is interesting to note that what is missing from the list of media victims, is

Jews.

Consider the message painted on her door was directly written to Jews. 

It recalled, specifically, the killing of at least 6 million Jews in Europe.  

Yet, she chose to use other victims.

She chose victims other than the intended victim. 

This is a very strong indication that she knows the "threat" to herself and Jews is not a threat at all.  

This is further confirmation of the analysis conclusion:  Deception Indicated



Um, however, as the campaign message often said um, over the last few weeks, “Love Trumps Hate” and my response is to go on with my day and continue to do what I normally do which is to be a spiritual leader, care for children and mothers and families in this community 

Some will question her sanity and in the very least, no matter where one's understanding of deception is, she is not safe around children.  

Note after this threat of death against Jews, she tells us she is going to do what she "normally" does.

What might this suggest?

It might suggest that the subject is concerned about something very "not normal" coming her way.  

The subject may fear arrest and the publicity fall out from the false claim.  

This is my assertion to now follow.  We always remain open about such assertions and submit to the statement.  This means that I must change my mind if the subject goes in a different direction.  In analysis training we ask:

Will the statement now affirm, deny, or remain neutral to the assertion?

We let the subject guide us:  


and just hope that whoever did this um has an opportunity to speak 

The "somebody" is now "whoever" (a non negative linguistic disposition is "favorable" in threat analysis) 

The painter needs:

1.  opportunity 

This has entered her language.  Consider the motive that was revealed before where ambition trumped politics. 

2.  communication 

The "somebody" who did this is not a hateful Nazi, but someone who needs an opportunity to be heard.  

This is not simply a narcissistic attempt at 'forgiveness, understanding and tolerance' less than 24 hours after a hateful and dangerous threat, but it is specifically the words her brain is telling her to use:

Somebody, the painter,  needs  opportunity and Somebody, the painter, has a need to be heard.  

What do you know about the painter?

The painter's gender is concealed.  
The painter is given favorable linguistic disposition
The painter needs an opportunity 
The painter needs to be heard. 
The painter is not understood.   
The painter wants Jews, specifically, to hear her message. 

The painter is not a "nazi" nor "hater" making a threat against her and all Jews.  

The painter needs to have her message heard and the erasing of the message (destruction of evidence) tells us that "kike" and swastika are not the message.  

She tells us more about the painter:

The painter feels hurt.  


to somebody about why they feel so hurt that they need to strike out 

The painter has been silenced and hurt for too long and now shows a need to "strike out."

Keep in mind:  the intention of fake hate is not a victimless crime.  Besides resources there is always the chance of innocent citizens being falsely arrested, incarcerated and convicted.  

To whom is the painter "speaking"?


to someone whom they don’t know, um, probably have never encountered or only encountered uh, minimally.  

The painter has had contact with the subject. 


And really come to a uh, uh greater level of self-awareness 

The disposition continues:  "a greater level of self-awareness." 

How does she feel about the hateful Nazi who made this threat?

Uh, hurt people hurt people so I have a, some compassion for this person knowing that people who do these kinds of acts are hurting themselves and need to have the a-need to have the attention that comes with this kind of activity."

As if Adolf Hitler only needed to be understood, heard and told to stop hurting himself?

                    Analysis Conclusion:


Get to know the one making the threat, and you are better prepared to assess the level of harm within the threat. 

Deception Indicated 

There is no threat because Anna Maranta is deceptive about the threat.

The threat is directly made to Jews, but in the subject's language, she does not direct the threat to Jews. 

The "linguistic disposition" of the subject to the painter is "Favorable" status.  This means she is either the painter, or she had someone paint it for her, but it is an expression of who she is.  

Although Anna Maranta was deceptive about the "hate crime" alleged, she has revealed information about the painter.

The painter has a need to be heard.  She is misunderstood and not recognized.  She is "different" and people have not acknowledged her accomplishments and in particular, Jews have not supported her.  

She shows an awareness of the political environment of which she seeks to take advantage of, and connects herself, as a liar, to children.  This is a danger to both children and their parents, as her word is not only unreliable, but she has such ambition that she will harm others if it benefits her.  

She shows a desperate need for relevance, which she indicates fatigue over her efforts for acceptance.  She uses 'sales techniques' and sets herself up as a moral narcissist.  This is where she uses a fake threat to 'preach' how wonderful she is, as if Hitler (the author and orchestrator of the holocaust) was only hurting "himself" and needed to be 'healed', showing a willingness to be absurd if it serves her desire for publicity.  

There is no threat to Jews, by the subject.  

The danger lies in how far one will go in order to fulfill her own ambition.  

Few understand the risks involved in those who are willing to fabricate reality. 

Honest people who say, "Aunt Polly, your blue hair looks really nice", using a 'white' or social lie, often project this upon others.  

It is not supported by truth, nor by criminal statistics.  

To Human Resource professionals:  

What does the profile of this subject tell you what she might be like if you hired her?

She may not be a "social justice warrior" in the pure sense (she is, but here, her ambition lies in publicity, not a cause of justice), but consider: 

         The pragmatic viewpoint she carries in life.  

If hired, she would invent a "crisis" which would cost the company dearly, including financial, court costs, attorney fees, stress and reputation.  

We teach HR professionals how to screen for deception before hiring.  

For law enforcement hiring:  we teach how to screen out for poor impulse control and violence before hiring.  One violent law enforcement official taints the multitude of servants.  

If you wish to learn deception detection, please click Hyatt Analysis Services for training opportunities. 

Lie detection is hard work.  It takes disciplined, concerted study.  Those claiming special 'gifts' of such will not permit career growth.  The information is often entertaining, but it will betray you professionally.  

In learning a strong foundation, the investigator, analyst, journalist, etc, is prepared for future content analysis, psycho-linguistic profiling, and interview/investigation strategy and tactics leading to the ultimate conclusion:

the confession.  






34 comments:

Anonymous said...

I cannot remember the last time I heard the word kike. Most young people likely are unfamiliar with it. An older person placed it on her door. Someone who understands the historical context of persecution in Europe.

Hey Jude said...

Yes, why, really, did she wash or have the paint washed off when there might even have been fingerprints on the glass or door? Anyone knows not to touch a crime scene until after police and forensics are finished - she did not even wait for the police to arrive or know if they might call in a photographer and forensics officer. Guilt, panic, destroying evidence before police could ask her any questions?

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:


Ohio authorities have 'person of interest' in unsolved death

HAMILTON — Investigators in southwest Ohio say they have a "person of interest" but are seeking the public's help in the unsolved homicide death of a young woman who disappeared from her home more than five years ago.

Butler County sheriff's Maj. Mike Craft said authorities don't yet have enough evidence to take the case to a grand jury. The sheriff's office began investigating late last year at the request of the father of Katelyn Markham, after years of investigation by the Fairfield, Ohio, police and Indiana State Police.

"The case was heavily investigated ... before we took a look at it," Craft said. "We interviewed 20 people and conducted three polygraphs."

Read More:
http://www.whio.com/news/local/ohio-authorities-have-person-interest-unsolved-death/oJCpnD5Eg7ra5NezpS5KGI/

Anonymous said...

A 15 year old girl, Kayla Berg, went missing from Antigo/Wausau WI 7 years ago. She was not reported missing for almost a week. Her divorced parents initially claimed it was common for Kayla to go from one parent's house to the other for several days at a time without notice or contact, this leading to the delay in reporting her missing. Kayla did not have a cell phone.

There are at least two suspects in her disappearance, her then 19 year old boyfriend, and a 24 year old friend of her brother, who was reported to be the last one to see Kayla alive, but In a recent article regarding the case, a comment from Kayla's mother struck me.

"Kayla did spend a lot of time with her friends too and would go between houses and may not come home for a couple days. Initially we were going, 'Oh, no, she was just floating between friends.'"

"floating" reminded me of the Ayla Reynolds case, and this story is different that the parents assuming Kayla was with the other. Could this too be leakage?

Anonymous said...

“It was definitely not there when I went to bed,” she told Global News on Tuesday, a few hours after she said she first discovered the message. “I always leave my porch light on. So somebody was pretty brazen to come up on someone’s porch, stand under a light and do this.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/3067609/swastika-racist-slur-spraypainted-jewish-ottawa-home/

-KC

John mcgowan said...

We believe what someone tells us, unless they give us cause not to.

" “I always leave my porch light on. So somebody was pretty brazen to come up on someone’s porch, stand under a light and do this.”

So it happened to "someone" else ,too?.

This is up close and personal and should reflect this in her language, But it is not her porch, but "someone else's.

Anonymous said...

President B.O. was indignant against D Trump's claim that Pres O is the worst president in history. But...did he rail against Thomas Sowell's assertion, during an interview wth Hoover Institue ,that that Pres O is the worst president in history?

Anonymous said...

Read the comments about this incident in the Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Canadian-rabbis-home-vandalized-Pegs-feelings-unleashed-by-Trump-election-472727

Anonymous said...

Sherri Papini update:

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/shasta/anonymous-source-creates-sherri-papini-website-offers-reward/168229851

Anonymous said...

Read the anonymous letter here:

http://sherripapini.com/

John mcgowan said...



Kerry Messer discussed the emotions he felt when his wife's remains were found this month.
speaks on accusations and possibility of suicide.


Full interview.

http://dailyjournalonline.com/videos/full-interview-with-kerry-messer/youtube_e7b0a20d-252f-51f8-a539-bdc241c44838.html

Anonymous said...

Re: Sherri Papini

This article contains some interesting statements as well:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/17/anonymous-donor-offers-50k-ransom-papini/94057732/

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter. I see what you mean about her revealing more. As an aside, we found out late yesterday, her's was not the first hate crime incident in Ottawa. There was another one a few days beforehand but the synagogue elected not to contact the media because they didn't want to give any attention to the perpetrator/s.

Then Anna Maranta's front door was defaced and enter the word "attention".

There was a third incident discovered yesterday and another two incidents reported this morning. One at at a synagogue and another at a mosque. Both using the bright red paint. Of (my personal) note, the swastikas on the synagogue's front doors were very well drawn. Essentially exactly the same, same height, symmetrical. I found it really interesting to look at.

Further to yesterday's reporting, I found another Maranta interview from the day reporters were at her house.:

Another Maranta video, second video in after the video associated with this 2nd graffiti story in Ottawa (south):
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072575/swastikas-slurs-scrawled-on-ottawa-synagogue/

Um, I went to bed last night, as usual, and everything seemed normal and okay. Um, I remember, this light is on all the time, so, um, um, I was able to see through the foyer and the window and there was nothing there. I woke up um, around uh, 2:30 or so and coming down the hallway back towards the front door um, I saw the shadow of the graffiti on my door. Came and checked it out and from there took a picture and made a report to the Hate Crimes Unit of the uh, City of Ottawa Police, and then composed and sent a message to some of my Facebook followers including my students and congregants, and uh I’ve been pretty overwhelmed by the response today. Um, it’s pretty shocking experience to to wake up to find something uh, such as this, and, and trying to figure out how to respond. I don’t have any idea who who did this. The message was generic. There was no personalized component to it. Um, I am a rabbi, I'm well known in the community. I, my address is on social media, I post to social media regularly, I also advertise, and um so, it would be very easy for someone to find me and to know this is a, a, jewish home and also a rabbi’s home. I frequently have activities here so it's also obvious that uh, there are jewish um, residents in this, in this home. Um, so I have no idea who did it. Um, I can tell you from the graffiti that the word used is typically an Americanism it’s not a usual word used in Canada. Um, and that the person is relatively tall. They came up onto a lit porch on a, you know quiet neighbourhood street. Um, somewhere between you know, Midnight and 2:30 in the morning.

Reporter: What would you say to someone that has this kind of thinking, that would do something like that?

I would want to know why. Um, my experience in all the years that I’ve been engaged as social activist and social justice worker is that people who lash out in such a way are people who have had a lot of hurt in their lives. Um, and I'd want to try and understand what drew them to this action at this time. um,

Reporter: What would you say to them?

Why. Why, why did you do this. Why did you target me. What do you hope to gain from this? Um, an anonymous act like this doesn’t bring any personal attention. Um, I’m not somebody easily scared. Um, I belong to a number of minority groups and I am public about all of those. So there’s I, I don’t understand why um painting such imagery on my front door is a way for somebody to act out against me.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I cannot remember the last time I heard the word kike. Most young people likely are unfamiliar with it. An older person placed it on her door. Someone who understands the historical context of persecution in Europe.
November 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM

I thought the same thing and should have included it in the analysis. Thank you, Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Something else important to consider:

If you are a casualty in the psychological warfare of the past 8 years and believe MSM, huffington post, snopes, and so on, you may conclude that this analysis is wrong because:

1. The author is anti semitic
2. The author is mysoginistic
3. the author is alt-right white supremacist
4. the author is a "deplorable"
5. The author is not reaching out to the LGBT community
6. The author is full of hatred,
7. The author wants people to go hungry and unfed
8. The author gets his information from a list of "fake" news sites
9. The author has mental health issues including irrational fear
10. The author is so morally reprehensible that his opinion is tainted and should be ignored.


Or

You can view through the analysis, itself, and seek to contradict it, point by point.

Before Obama, there has always been name-calling but since 2008, any disagreement with him has been labeled and accepted throughout the main stream media and government schools, as "racist."

This may be his greatest legacy: the loss of free speech in America, subordinated through coercion. Though we may regrettably say the Iranian Nuclear deal is the worst thing of the Obama years, for now, the loss of free speech, dialog, and disagreement remains dominant.

How powerful is this?

I know of some fake hate cases where prosecutors had police NOT pursue charges of filing a false police report, out of fear of the "language police."

Peter

Michele said...

OT:
Anonymous at 5:41 posted a link to the letter related to Sherri Papini. I haven't begun working on analyzing it, but am bothered by several things. I would like to see Peter analyze it.

John mcgowan said...

"language police."

Very Orwellian.

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter.

My post from this morning went poof! I see what you mean about her revealing more. As an aside, we found out late yesterday, her's was not the first hate crime incident in Ottawa. There was another one a few days beforehand but the synagogue, aside from reporting the hate crime to police,, elected not to contact the media because they didn't want to give any attention to the perpetrator/s.

Then Anna Maranta's front door was defaced and enter the word "attention". Subsequently she classified the graffiti (below) as "Americanism". We woke up this morning to hear that two more places of worship were vandalized: A mosque and a united church.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/police-hate-crimes-team-reports-solid-leads-on-racist-attacks

There was a third incident discovered yesterday. All places used the bright red paint. Of (my personal) note, the swastikas on the synagogue's front doors (3rd incident) were very precisely drawn. Essentially exactly the same, the same height and symmetrically measured by the baton boards of the door. I found it really interesting to look at because when someone "tags", they don't take the time to set up the "drawing".

The messages on today's places of worship read, BLM, n****r, 88, kike, 14.

I have not heard the term "kike" since I was very little. I am 52.

Nic said...

Another Maranta video, second video in after the video associated with this 2nd graffiti story in Ottawa (south):
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072575/swastikas-slurs-scrawled-on-ottawa-synagogue/

Um, I went to bed last night, as usual, and everything seemed normal and okay. Um, I remember, this light is on all the time, so, um, um, I was able to see through the foyer and the window and there was nothing there. I woke up um, around uh, 2:30 or so and coming down the hallway back towards the front door um, I saw the shadow of the graffiti on my door. Came and checked it out and from there took a picture and made a report to the Hate Crimes Unit of the uh, City of Ottawa Police, and then composed and sent a message to some of my Facebook followers including my students and congregants, and uh I’ve been pretty overwhelmed by the response today. Um, it’s pretty shocking experience to to wake up to find something uh, such as this, and, and trying to figure out how to respond. I don’t have any idea who who did this. The message was generic. There was no personalized component to it. Um, I am a rabbi, I'm well known in the community. I, my address is on social media, I post to social media regularly, I also advertise, and um so, it would be very easy for someone to find me and to know this is a, a, jewish home and also a rabbi’s home. I frequently have activities here so it's also obvious that uh, there are jewish um, residents in this, in this home. Um, so I have no idea who did it. Um, I can tell you from the graffiti that the word used is typically an Americanism it’s not a usual word used in Canada. Um, and that the person is relatively tall. They came up onto a lit *porch on a, you know quiet neighbourhood street. Um, somewhere between you know, Midnight and 2:30 in the morning.

Reporter: What would you say to someone that has this kind of thinking, that would do something like that?

I would want to know why. Um, my experience in all the years that I’ve been engaged as social activist and social justice worker is that people who lash out in such a way are people who have had a lot of hurt in their lives. Um, and I'd want to try and understand what drew them to this action at this time. um,

Reporter: What would you say to them?

Why. Why, why did you do this. Why did you target me. What do you hope to gain from this? Um, an anonymous act like this doesn’t bring any personal attention. Um, I’m not somebody easily scared. Um, I belong to a number of minority groups and I am public about all of those. So there’s I, I don’t understand why um painting such imagery on my front door is a way for somebody to act out against me.
__________

*emphasis Maranta, to emphasize whomever defaced her front door was bold.

Nic said...

John mcgowan said...
We believe what someone tells us, unless they give us cause not to.

" “I always leave my porch light on. So somebody was pretty brazen to come up on someone’s porch, stand under a light and do this.”

So it happened to "someone" else ,too?.

This is up close and personal and should reflect this in her language, But it is not her porch, but "someone else's.


She rents. :0)

tania cadogan said...

my experience in all the years that I’ve been engaged as social activist and social justice worker is that people who lash out in such a way are people who have had a lot of hurt in their lives

Is this her giving us her motive?
Can we expect this as mitigation that she has been hurt by society because of who she is and what she wants and this was her way of lashing out?

Kike is a word rarely used in this day and age.
It is one that was used in the war and the decades following as insults to all nationalities were bandied about in the aftermath of a world war.

This speaks of an older person not a youth or someone in their 20's or 30's.
This speaks of the older generations who heard this language as they grew up.

This word alone points directly to her as the author

Nic said...

tania said:
Is this her giving us her motive?


I agree, it comes across as leakage. This was the question:

Reporter: What would you say to someone that has this kind of thinking,

Nic said...

As an aside, I read in one of the articles (or in the other thread,) that in addition to being a rabbi, she defines herself as a priestess.

I am theologically illiterate. Is being a priestess, Wiccan? As in coven stuff? Isn't that conflicting?

Nic said...

Foolsfeedonfolly posted on the other thread:
Ottowa Sun http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/11/15/reevely-canadian-politics-has-its-trolls-too-and-plenty-of-them



Then there’s the swastika on Anna Maranta’s door.

Her apartment on Powell Avenue is Maranta’s home, a temple, a daycare. Maranta bills herself as a “post-denominational” radical rabbi and priestess at the tiny Glebe Minyan. She’s a former midwife, a mother of grown daughters, a lesbian whose intellectual interest in Judaism focuses on gender and sexuality. Her kosher potlucks are vegetarian.

She says she woke up very early Tuesday morning and glanced at the door as she passed in the hall.By the outside light, she saw the word “kike” and a swastika spray-painted on the glass.

During our short talk in her entryway a few hours later, Maranta spoke softly, doing her best to project serenity. She keeps her door unlocked as a gesture of “radical hospitality,” she said. A sign in the window invites you to knock and then come right in."

_________

I looked it up. Priestess (a female priest) is someone who can give last rites; but, my understanding is she has not completed her studies/she is not ordained. Would she be allowed to call herself a "priestess"? Is Rabbi/Priestess interchangeable?

Bobcat said...

“post-denominational” radical rabbi
priestess at the tiny Glebe Minyan
former midwife
mother of grown daughters
lesbian
kosher
vegetarian

Wow. How were the daughters conceived? This woman sounds like she will apply almost any title if it will get her the attention she craves.

Bobcat said...

Her old blog: http://annemaranta.blogspot.com/

Nic said...

IMO, Trump equals blame sharing. "We".

Bobcat said...

Nic @ 5:09

Apparently you CAN be a Hebrew Priestess: http://www.kohenet.com/

Anna Maranta's website describes her studies: http://glebeminyan.ca/

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

First of all, to an authentically Jewish person, a swastika would be tantamount to cross-burning on a black person's lawn. I say authentically Jewish, meaning someone committed to the principles, precepts, history, and religious traditions of the Torah and Judaism...as opposed to one dabbling in an eclectic mix of Judaism, Eastern Mysticism, Liberalism, Modernism, and New Age practices.

Secondly, if this was actually a hate crime, there's no way Anna Maranta would have just called the Hate Crime Unit hotline to report it and gone on about her business (the assumption being that after she called them, she went on back to bed and got up the next morning and called LE). Hate crimes are personal by nature, threatening one's personal safety and sense of security.

Finally, any potential threat of violence leaves one hyper alert...not waiting until morning to secure help. Recently, a lady in our traditionally "safe" neighborhood just a few doors down was the target of a home invasion. One of the suspects, out on bail, was allowed to stay in the home next to ours (much to our shock). Knowing what kind of thug was next door and the type of crowd he ran with, made for a tense few days with little sleep. Selfish I know, but we were somewhat relieved when LE came to arrest him, that at least he wouldn't be next door and we could rest easier. I'm not hearing any trauma or personal angst in her language, for having had this experience.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's quite a stretch to tie a Swastika painted on a Jewish person's door in another country to an American President-Elect and American Election results. Grasping. Attempting to advance a Social Justice Agenda.

It's akin to blaming Trump for Cartel hits in Mexico or Sunni Muslims killing Shiite Muslims in the Middle East and Africa.

Nothing about the swastika or the dated term "kike", directly or remotely references Donald Trump. Yet, Anna Maranta herself associates them together mentally first. She verbalizes that to the Hate Crimes Unit first(attempting to establish credibility as well as force media attention), followed by Facebook followers/"my students and congregants" (free media dissemination, guaranteeing large scale audience), and lastly LE. Order speaks to priority. Her priority is to draw attention to her causes...not to secure her personal safety, nor that of neighbors, nor even of her fellow Jews in Ottowa. Unbelievable. Literally.

Nic said...

Great posts, Foolsfeedonfolly. We have a lot of Americans living in Ottawa because of the high tech sector (Silicon Valley North). That and this election was highly reported especially because we are so closely linked to the US via trade.
_________


In our news today. It sounds like this kid was a copycat.

[...]

Bordeleau said the suspect was caught after a Jewish community centre in west Ottawa was defaced overnight — the sixth incident of racist graffiti in less than a week.

"We recognize the impact that this type of crime has on the broader community and hopefully (the arrest) will help bring it to a conclusion," he said, adding that the "community can demonstrate that unity will overshadow these individual acts of hate."

Staff-Sgt. Jamie Harper said the teen was charged in relation to incidents across the city but could not confirm which specific cases. The teen's age was not released.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/arrest-racist-graffiti-ottawa-1.3858947

Peter Hyatt said...

Police arrest young man:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2016/11/19/police-arrest-young-man-in-connection-to-racist-graffiti-in-ottawa.html


Peter

Anonymous said...

so this young man his jewish centers and synagogues....ha ha anna the copycat?

Peter is this a copy cat case?

he would not have even known she was a stay=at=home rabbi!

CJ said...

Ottowa graffiti incidents, compiled news articles with links.

1. Kehillat Beth Israel synagogue. CONTENT: Racially offensive graffiti. WHEN: Nov. 13

“Meanwhile, Stuart McCarthy, co-president of Kehillat Beth Israel congregation confirmed Thursday that their synagogue had suffered a similar spray-paint attack last weekend, but officials elected not to publicize the incident, although police were called.

“We decided not to publicize the attack because we felt that publicity was likely the sort of thing these vandals want,” McCarthy said.

“These are vandals and their validation comes with publicity.”

The congregation leader said few members were around at the time of the incident and the damage was cleared up in an hour.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/another-swastika-spray-painted-on-an-ottawa-jewish-place-of-worship-the-third-time-in-less-than-week

2. Anna Maranta’s front door; CONTENT: Swastika, “k-ke” WHEN: Nov 15

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rabbi-ottawa-racist-graffiti-1.3851350

3. Machzikei Hadas Synagogue. CONTENT: up to 4 swastikas (front doors and sign); message encouraging murder to “save the white race.” WHEN: Nov. 17

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/racist-anti-black-graffiti-parkdale-united-church-1.3855295

4. Ottawa Muslim Association: CONTENT: Swastika, “F—K ALLAH GO HOME 666” WHEN: Nov. 18

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/racist-anti-black-graffiti-parkdale-united-church-1.3855295

5. Parkdale United Church (black pastor): CONTENT: 2 swastikas, “1488” “n---gers” WHEN: Nov. 18

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/officials-in-toronto-and-ottawa-investigate-multiple-racist-incidents-1.3166857?autoPlay=true

Suspect in police custody:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/young-man-arrested-in-early-morning-racist-graffiti-attack