Non-consent by race..

[Fartsniffage]

No, but spitting on them is. And spitting on them when you have a communicable disease is aggravated assault.

I don't necessary agree that it should be.

Really? I thought that spitting on someone was battery.

[Tungookska]

I did mention it, but don't mind repeating. It is aggravated sexual assault in the case of most STIs.

This is an interesting idea.

Is sneezing in the same room as someone assault?

farting at a cop is battery
source

[Kiskaanak]

No, but spitting on them is. And spitting on them when you have a communicable disease is aggravated assault.

I don't necessary agree that it should be.

Really? I thought that spitting on someone was battery.

Don't confuse criminal and civil matters. Battery is a civil law issue. Assault in the way I'm talking about it is a criminal offence. It can be both, it's just different regimes.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Guy A should obviously go to prison here, but should Guy B be charged with rape, or with any criminal offense?

I would quite definitely say yes. He shouldn't get nearly the sentence that Guy A does, but I don't think "some stranger on the internet gave me this address and told me the woman there would scream and say no, but she'd totally be into it, so I went there and fucked her and had NO IDEA she might actually not be consenting" passes the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person should act on the assumption that "no" means "no" unless given very compelling evidence otherwise, such as the person in question explicitly saying, "When I say 'no' I don't actually mean it or want you to stop - if I want you to stop, I'll say 'banana' instead." "Some anonymous dude on Craigslist said so" does not come remotely close to meeting a reasonable person's standards for very compelling evidence. Guy B absolutely had the option of saying, "Hey, let me meet this woman beforehand, or if she's really into it being a complete stranger, let me have a friend of mine meet her beforehand, because any reasonable person recognizes that you can't just wander into an apartment and assume that the person there wants you to forcibly fuck them because some guy on the internet said there would be a chick there who's into that." He chose not to. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him at the very least an accessory to rape.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what happened in the case. Guy B didn't think he was talking to some random dude on the internet. Guy A represented himself as the woman, so Guy B thought that he was talking to the woman herself, and that everything had been arranged with her. He thought that the woman herself had told him beforehand that she consented. I agree that it would have been wise to insist on a non-sexual meeting, at least at first, but I'm not convinced he should have been charged with a crime, since he thought he had spoken to the woman beforehand and gained consent, and the person he spoke to beforehand represented themselves as the woman.

Oops, I did misread/misremember the case. The fact that he believed he was talking to the woman in question does definitely at least bring him closer to meeting that "what would a reasonable person do" standard. Speaking as an admitted non-lawyer, I still don't think he quite meets it, though. Were I the DA in charge of the case, I would still prosecute him, and it would be up to him to convince a jury that a reasonable person in his position would have believed the woman was consenting. Whether or not he'd win would likely depend on the jury - if I were on the jury, I doubt I'd be able to be convinced, because fundamentally, I feel that the common-sense position is that before engaging in any sort of rape roleplay, the onus is on you to make damn fucking SURE your partner consents.

Also, back on the main topic, I just want to thank Kiskaanak for taking over trying to explain that fraud voids consent and that "but her reason for not wanting to fuck him is not one I personally agree with" is completely irrelevant, and for doing a better job of explaining those things than my sleepy non-lawyer self was managing.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

*headdesk*

[Risottia]

Your personal information is under your control up until the point where it become immediately relevant to the exercise of personal autonomy of another human being. This is why medical privacy does not protect you from informing your potential partners if you have a communicable disease.

Uhm. I'd say that my personal information us under my control up until the point where it becomes immediately relevant for the physical integrity of another human being. This is why medical privacy does not protect you from informing your potential partners if you have a communicable disease.
But my ethnicity isn't going to endanger anyone else's physical integrity. That's where your analogy would fall, I think.

Your expectation of privacy does not extend to pretending to be someone's spouse in order to engage in sex with them. Why? Because the right of your sexual partner to make a fully informed decision outweighs your right not to give them the crucial information they need to MAKE that fully informed decision.

Impersonating a specific individual is much different from saying "I am ethnically X". Also because, as I think it's implied in the articles I posted, "ethnicity" (aka "race") cannot be a cause for discrimination between human beings; and discrimination coming from any source, not just the government (as with the US Constitution).

The whole point of the prosecution relies on the fact that "ethnicity" or "race" can be a legally valid discrimination between people (such as, let's say, age, or status regarding marriage, or nationality). But the international treatises point out that it cannot be, and that's why I think the allegation of "rape through deception" should be rejected altogether.

By the way, Arabs and Jews are both ethnically Semites...

[Risottia]

Mischaracterisation?
You said "Saying you're a Jew when you know you aren't is a crime just like saying you don't have STDs when you know you have them."
The essential difference, you see, is that STDs harm people. Being Arab doesn't.

Please refer back to this post.

A comparison is not being drawn between one's ethnicity and having an STI. The comparison is in terms of elements of fraud.

Ok, fine, but you'd have to admint that it's two very different kinds of lies, both in objectivity (one has or has not an STD and that's a clear-cut fact, but how do you legally define ethnicity within a non-discriminatory legal framework) and in potential threat to life and limb.

[Kiskaanak]

Impersonating a specific individual is much different from saying "I am ethnically X". Also because, as I think it's implied in the articles I posted, "ethnicity" (aka "race") cannot be a cause for discrimination between human beings; and discrimination coming from any source, not just the government (as with the US Constitution).

You do not understand the way international law works. Apparently you also do not understand how domestic law works. You can discriminate against anyone you want when it comes to sex, based on their ethnicity, their eye colour, their use of the word 'slacks'. Nothing, not a single instrument, domestic or international, can prevent you from doing that.

Only when you discriminate against someone in specific contexts can these laws apply. The most obvious would be when you wield the power of the state. You can also be prevented from acting out your discrimination in the criminal or civil context. As a private citizen, you may be constrained in your commercial interests. That is not even remotely similar to refusing to have sex with non-Jews, or frankly, anyone at all that you do not wish to have sex with.

There is no protection based on ethnicity or any other factor which would absolve you of the crime of rape by fraud. None. Show me a single case, anywhere in the world, where this has been upheld by any court at all. Just one.

The whole point of the prosecution relies on the fact that "ethnicity" or "race" can be a legally valid discrimination between people (such as, let's say, age, or status regarding marriage, or nationality). But the international treatises point out that it cannot be, and that's why I think the allegation of "rape through deception" should be rejected altogether.

By the way, Arabs and Jews are both ethnically Semites...

This is the most ass backwards bit of psuedo legal reasoning I've seen today. A woman can refuse absolutely anyone for absolutely any reason. There is no such thing as a legally INVALID discrimination when it comes to who a woman chooses to fuck.

Christ, you didn't even try to come at this through fraud, you just went off into the Twilight Zone.

[Tokos]

You do not understand the way international law works.

Clearly neither do you, why bring the UN into this?

[Risottia]

Impersonating a specific individual is much different from saying "I am ethnically X". Also because, as I think it's implied in the articles I posted, "ethnicity" (aka "race") cannot be a cause for discrimination between human beings; and discrimination coming from any source, not just the government (as with the US Constitution).

You can discriminate against anyone you want when it comes to sex

But it looks like she liked him enough. She declared she began disliking him after the sex, once she learned of his ethnicity, and so she revoked her consent ex-post.
Mmh...

That is not even remotely similar to refusing to have sex with non-Jews, or frankly, anyone at all that you do not wish to have sex with.

Point is, you don't have sex with a WHOLE RACE. You have sex with individuals.
Then again, where is the legal standard for a legally valid definition of ethnicity?

crime of rape by fraud

It's "rape by deception". Fraud is a totally different crime.

A woman can refuse absolutely anyone for absolutely any reason. There is no such thing as a legally INVALID discrimination when it comes to who a woman chooses to fuck.

Though this isn't a case of a woman choosing whom to fuck. This is a case of a woman wishing she hadn't fucked someone she agreed to fuck and fucked happily therewith.

[Kiskaanak]

You do not understand the way international law works.

Clearly neither do you, why bring the UN into this?

I didn't, though I ask the same question.

The UN was brought in here.

[Kiskaanak]

But it looks like she liked him enough. She declared she began disliking him after the sex, once she learned of his ethnicity, and so she revoked her consent ex-post.

No, actually her consent was vitiated ab initio, because it was not given to an arab, it was given to a jew.

Look if you're going to tackle the legal issues, at least understand how consent works, and what fraud does to it.

Point is, you don't have sex with a WHOLE RACE. You have sex with individuals.
Then again, where is the legal standard for a legally valid definition of ethnicity?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. He isn't a Jew. He pretended he was. He did so in order to get her to have sex with him. Fraud. Vitiates. Consent.

It's "rape by deception". Fraud is a totally different crime.

Depends on the jurisdiction. The fraud is what makes it a sexual assault.

Though this isn't a case of a woman choosing whom to fuck. This is a case of a woman wishing she hadn't fucked someone she agreed to fuck and fucked happily therewith.

Repackage it how you like. Fraud vitiates consent.

[Tokos]

still ignoring the bottle blondes I see.

[Kiskaanak]

still ignoring the bottle blondes I see.

Actually I dealt with fake blondes back here. After the second quote.

You should also see this.

[Tokos]

That did not really deal with it since you are now saying that it is the "fraud" itself which is the important factor.

As for the religious convictions, they simply cannot be strong enough to consider as she has not shown any compunction about breaking them.

[Kiskaanak]

That did not really deal with it since you are now saying that it is the "fraud" itself which is the important factor.

As for the religious convictions, they simply cannot be strong enough to consider as she has not shown any compunction about breaking them.

I have always been saying the issue was the fraud.

And again, you are in no position to judge her religious convictions. It is a ridiculous standard you are holding her to, "if you violate any of your beliefs (despite the fact that everyone does in some way or another) then you cannot choose who you want to have sex with".

She absolutely can, even if her objections are not religious, but rather, she's just a big fat racist who hates non-Jews.

No matter how disgusting her motivations are, she is entitled to them absolutely, and someone who deceives her deliberately to have sex with her is committing a crime.

[Galloism]

An interesting case to be sure, with interesting implications.

It would infer that every man and woman in the western world, nearly without exemption, has been raped. No doubt, the numbers would be high in the eastern world as well.

Fascinating turn of events this is.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Where is Neo-Art or The Cat Tribes when you need them... talking to Kiskaanak is like attempting to break a brick wall with your forehead.

[Kiskaanak]

An interesting case to be sure, with interesting implications.

It would infer that every man and woman in the western world, nearly without exemption, has been raped. No doubt, the numbers would be high in the eastern world as well.

Fascinating turn of events this is.

*sigh*

Go on, spill it. On what basis?

[Kiskaanak]

Where is Neo-Art or The Cat Tribes when you need them... talking to Kiskaanak is like attempting to break a brick wall with your forehead.

Lol.

The Cat Tribes will destroy with the WALL OF TEXT.

Neo Art will make your genitals wither.

I simply do not have the patience today to bother schooling you any more than I already have.

Or perhaps you think they'll take your side?

[Galloism]

An interesting case to be sure, with interesting implications.

It would infer that every man and woman in the western world, nearly without exemption, has been raped. No doubt, the numbers would be high in the eastern world as well.

Fascinating turn of events this is.

*sigh*

Go on, spill it. On what basis?

We were all teenagers once?

"I could never be with a girl that doesn't love football."
"I do love football!"

"If we do this, will you still love me in the morning?"
"Honey, I will love you forever."

[The Norwegian Blue]

Where is Neo-Art or The Cat Tribes when you need them... talking to Kiskaanak is like attempting to break a brick wall with your forehead.

This does appear to be true - unless, of course, you're suggesting that she's the brick wall, rather than the forehead. I'm not entirely sure how adding NA or TCT's foreheads to the wall-banging will help the situation.

[Barringtonia]

I see a Hollywood movie before me...

...where a Jewish woman and Arab male have a secret, passionate affair set against the backdrop of the ME conflict, where minarets and crosses flutter in dusty sunsets,

Yet, gasp, discovered by a family member - probably her favorite nephew or something for real heart-tugging - and the female, to save face for her family, must accuse her lover of rape by deception and he, loving her and knowing the deep issues, accepts that judgement and goes to jail..

*writes script*

Hands off, it's MY story!

Again, the marker here seems to be that it's always sexual assault where deception occurs but likely only actionable where it's severe enough to warrant someone going to court.

[DogDoo 7]

From what I gather to be the Israeli penal code:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/data/e ... aw_eng.pdf

paragraph 346 (article V, offences against morality):
"Rape by deception": a person who has unlawful sexual intercourse with a female whom he knows to be insane or imbecile or whose consent has been obtained by threats or deception as to the nature of the act or as to the person committing it is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
So, very likely the judges operated under this article of law (btw, I suggest you to read more of article V, it's really full of bigotry and sexism...) .

I'd argue, though, that in Israel a person cannot be legally defined, identified and qualified by his own religion or ethnical heritage, hence, by lying about one's own religion or ethnicity, he isn't unlawfully decepting anyone "as to the person committing it".
That because Israel is a signatory country to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. ...
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Also, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Israel signed and ratified that, too: see the wiki):
Part 2 ... requires the rights be recognised "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, ...
and it enforces
Part 3 ... Non-discrimination and equality before the law (Articles 26 and 27). ...

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law: ... ty_(Israel)

Section 7:
(a) All persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy.
...
(d) There shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation, or of the writings or records of a person.
One could argue that the conversation between two adults about eventually agreeing to have consensual sex (aka, seduction) falls within the confidentiality of conversation, and hence cannot be used in a public hearing such as a trial.


What do you think? I also call on the NSGU Department of Law...

Not a lawyer, but as to the law itself, it says "the nature of the act or as to the person committing it." The fact it says "nature of the act"and NOT the nature of the person but merely "person" means that it is deception as to the IDENTITY of the person, i.e. no turning the lights off and letting another dude fuck her.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I see a Hollywood movie before me...

...where a Jewish woman and Arab male have a secret, passionate affair set against the backdrop of the ME conflict, where minarets and crosses flutter in dusty sunsets,

Yet, gasp, discovered by a family member - probably her favorite nephew or something for real hut-tugging - and the female, to save face for her family, must accuse her lover of rape by deception and he, loving her and knowing the deep issues, accepts that judgement and goes to jail..

*writes script*

Hands off, it's MY story!

Again, the marker here seems to be that it's always sexual assault where deception occurs but likely only actionable where it's severe enough to warrant someone going to court.

Or when he's the wrong ethnicity and your parents don't approve...