Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:54 pmUnited Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Non-consent by race..
Page 27 of 32
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:54 pmPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:57 pmPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:09 pmThe whole concept of rape by deception is interesting, but honestly not something I'm a supporter of. In my view this case should not fall under the definition of rape (and wouldn't do so in my jurisdiction), and I actually feel the court is going too far - the unethical behaviour here should not be a matter for the criminal courts.
That is not to say that all cases of sexual misconduct through fraud should go unpunished, only that I don't think this case warrants it.
That is not to say that all cases of sexual misconduct through fraud should go unpunished, only that I don't think this case warrants it.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:11 pmGravlen wrote:The whole concept of rape by deception is interesting, but honestly not something I'm a supporter of. In my view this case should not fall under the definition of rape (and wouldn't do so in my jurisdiction), and I actually feel the court is going too far - the unethical behaviour here should not be a matter for the criminal courts.
this is the least of the silly things israel is doing
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:21 pmWell somebody linked an article to his side of the story where he said he wasn't. I was hoping somebody could link something else.
edit-found the earlier link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... ion-charge
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:23 pmTungookska wrote:Gravlen wrote:The whole concept of rape by deception is interesting, but honestly not something I'm a supporter of. In my view this case should not fall under the definition of rape (and wouldn't do so in my jurisdiction), and I actually feel the court is going too far - the unethical behaviour here should not be a matter for the criminal courts.
this is the least of the silly things israel is doing
Rape by deception laws exists in other places as well, like in some states in the US.
Another example is Ana Margarita Martinez who sued the Cuban government for rape after the man she married and lived with for 11 months turned out to be a cuban spy.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:29 pmDempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
Do brush up on your reading comprehension. I never said anything of the sort.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:59 pmDempublicents1 wrote:But you cannot be informed while being deceived, which is the point here.
Yes but the uninformed part is not the relevant part when deciding if he is a criminal, it's the deception that is relevant. If he simply omitted what ethnicity he was, and she just assumed that he was Jewish, would he still be a criminal? Obviously not.
No, it wasn't consented to. The appearance of consent was obtained, but actual consent was not.
She consented to have sex, and with a man who is exactly the same as him in EVERYTHING other than that he was not Jewish - which is to say - EXACTLY THE SAME.
Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.
No, it's not akin to that at all, and the fact that you would even draw a comparison is pretty insane.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:23 pmHydesland wrote:Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.
No, it's not akin to that at all, and the fact that you would even draw a comparison is pretty insane.
Actually, it's like if you only will sleep with natural blonds, and a woman dyes her hair blond so you will sleep with her, then she raped you.
Of course, she also has to KNOW that you will only sleep with blonds, and does so in order to obtain your consent when you would not freely give to her: a brunette.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:56 pmTungookska wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
she needs to make up her mind what kind of partner she wants before she gets in bed with them, not after
Apparently, she did. Unfortunately, this guy decided to lie to her in order to make her think he was the kind of partner she wants, when he isn't.
United Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
The court apparently found that he intentionally deceived her. Whether or not that actually happened is really something only the two of them can know with 100% certainty.
Tokos wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
Do brush up on your reading comprehension. I never said anything of the sort.
No? You point-blank stated that a woman who is promiscuous is being dishonest if she claims to have been violated when someone intentionally deceives her in order to have sex with her even though he doesn't meet her criteria. In other words, you have claimed that any criteria posited by a promiscuous woman don't count.
Hydesland wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:But you cannot be informed while being deceived, which is the point here.
Yes but the uninformed part is not the relevant part when deciding if he is a criminal, it's the deception that is relevant. If he simply omitted what ethnicity he was, and she just assumed that he was Jewish, would he still be a criminal? Obviously not.
With ethnicity? That may be true. It certainly should be true, but it would likely depend on the society in question.
Omission can be criminal. It depends on exactly what information is being omitted. Someone who fails to mention that he is HIV positive, for instance, is intentionally omitting information that he knows would factor into most potential partner's decision on whether or not to have sex. In that case, the omission can be seen as a criminal one.
On the other extreme, failure to mention your favorite color isn't going to be a criminal action. I suppose there might be someone out there who absolutely will not have sex with anyone whose favorite color is orange, but they would be in such a small minority that there would be no reason for anyone to believe that such information would be pertinent.
I think it would be possible to argue that, in a society like Israel, where there is a great deal of strain between people of different ethnicities and religions, a reasonable person would know that his ethnicity or religion might factor into someone's decision on whether or not to have sex. It would, however, be a weaker case than that of clear deception.
No, it wasn't consented to. The appearance of consent was obtained, but actual consent was not.
She consented to have sex, and with a man who is exactly the same as him in EVERYTHING other than that he was not Jewish - which is to say - EXACTLY THE SAME.
To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.
No, it's not akin to that at all, and the fact that you would even draw a comparison is pretty insane.
Yes, it really is. You have claimed that because she clearly wanted sex and consented to have sex with a Jewish man, she must have been willing to have sex with someone of any ethnicity or religion. In other words, you've made a similar argument to those who claim that, if a woman goes out to a bar looking for sex, she must be willing to sleep with every man there. You have basically stated that her criteria for acceptable sex partners are irrelevant. She wanted sex, therefore he must have been an acceptable partner.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:02 pmDempublicents1 wrote:I think it would be possible to argue that, in a society like Israel, where there is a great deal of strain between people of different ethnicities and religions, a reasonable person would know that his ethnicity or religion might factor into someone's decision on whether or not to have sex. It would, however, be a weaker case than that of clear deception.
Much weaker.
To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
No, you're missing the point. I'm telling you this because it demonstrates that it's an extremely, massively, hugely significant difference from the examples you were giving.
Yes, it really is. You have claimed that because she clearly wanted sex and consented to have sex with a Jewish man, she must have been willing to have sex with someone of any ethnicity or religion.
No, I didn't claim that.
In other words, you've made a similar argument to those who claim that, if a woman goes out to a bar looking for sex, she must be willing to sleep with every man there. You have basically stated that her criteria for acceptable sex partners are irrelevant. She wanted sex, therefore he must have been an acceptable partner.
No, I'm not. In fact, not even your strawman of my claim is similar to that. Wanting to have sex with different people is very different to wanting to have sex with EXACTLY THE SAME MAN AND ONLY THAT MAN, but allowing his ethnicity (i.e. nothing really significant other than for religious/cultural reasons) to change.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:22 pmI believe that this is the point of contention in this thread. I think many of us(at least I would) would agree that him actively claiming to be a jewish bachelor would most likely be criminal/fraud/whatever.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:27 pmHydesland wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote: In other words, you've made a similar argument to those who claim that, if a woman goes out to a bar looking for sex, she must be willing to sleep with every man there. You have basically stated that her criteria for acceptable sex partners are irrelevant. She wanted sex, therefore he must have been an acceptable partner.
No, I'm not. In fact, not even your strawman of my claim is similar to that. Wanting to have sex with different people is very different to wanting to have sex with EXACTLY THE SAME MAN AND ONLY THAT MAN, but allowing his ethnicity (i.e. nothing really significant other than for religious/cultural reasons) to change.
Not if that is an important factor to her in choosing her partners. You are trying to impose your personal views about ethnicity and religion on her. I would agree with you that it shouldn't matter, but that isn't really relevant. It did matter to her.
United Dependencies wrote:
I believe that this is the point of contention in this thread. I think many of us(at least I would) would agree that him actively claiming to be a jewish bachelor would most likely be criminal/fraud/whatever.
I'd like to believe that, but most of what I've seen is "He lied to get sex? Who cares? Everyone does that!" Either that or, "She's a racist bitch, so it doesn't matter that he lied."
Very little of the discussion has focused on whether or not he actually lied.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:40 pmUnited Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
Tungookska wrote:was he actively asked if he was a jewish bachelor?
According to his and his lawyer's statements, he was neither was asked about nor claimed he was Jewish, but this was simply assumed from his nickname (which could be Jewish), his fluent unaccented Hebrew, and his apparel.
Some time in the next six weeks, she figures out he wasn't Jewish, flips out, and calls the cops on him. They haul him in, give him what-for. He's been under house arrest for about two years. The initial charges claimed forcible rape and ended up falling flat, but he ended up making a plea bargain of rape by deception (why is not clear). He ended up getting handed a much stiffer sentence than he expected, bringing us to the present, where we have a load of public controversy and him/his lawyer deciding to make an appeal.
He admitted to explicitly lying about being single, which matter we really haven't talked that much in this thread (it's not so sensational a topic as ethnic identity and bigotry), which was probably his reason for pleading guilty in the first place.
Dempublicents1 wrote:Very little of the discussion has focused on whether or not he actually lied.
I've talked about it a bit. The big problem is that really, his side is the only one that's gone public AFAIK; all the really detailed public accounts are from him and his lawyer, so there's not too much for us to talk about regarding what's been viewed as the "core" of the deception - his concealing being Palestinian.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:00 pmPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:06 pmfeels bad man
freud is dissapoint
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:59 pmDyakovo wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:Dyakovo wrote:
Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.
What he said.
As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.
I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
This can't be right... You agreed with me... One of us is going to have to change our position or risk starting the apocalypse.
*nods*
"Was there ever a man more misunderstood." -- James Bond, Thunderball.
Seriously, it's worse than that. Not only are we both on the same side, we're both on the same side as Kiskaanak. Surely another milestone on the way to 2012.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:32 pmDempublicents1 wrote:To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
What if she asks him what book he's reading and he says "Great Expectations" when it's really "Madame Bovary," but she only finds that out later and "to her, it matters"? Is this enough to nullify consent? If so, is it rape only if he knows that it matters to her enough to be the difference between yes and no? If it's rape regardless of his state of knowledge, does this not mean that there is a technical possibility that any case of consensual sex could be retroactively considered rape? If the taste in literature is not enough to retroactively render consent null and void, then I ask you where the lines are drawn. Race is enough. What about natural hair color? Blood type? The capacity to taste PTC?
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:28 amI haven't been persuaded to change my views on this; although I do find myself agreeing with the basis of much written by Kiskaanak and Dempublicents1, I don't agree with the conclusions they draw. However, the sense that I might be unthinkingly acquiescing to an acceptance of rape is profoundly disturbing, so I thought I'd consult some friends before I responded. All are female, one is a barrister and another a solicitor.
One strident though not particularly helpful (!) response was:
The barrister referenced the UK legal implications though did not really touch on the moral aspects:
Still waiting on the solicitor and not drawing any further conclusions of my own at present. I thought it would be interesting to hear a (UK) legal take on the matter given some of the to-ing and fro-ing concerning understanding of legal systems.
Also, from this article:
One strident though not particularly helpful (!) response was:
deception, not rape.
It's ridiculous.
The barrister referenced the UK legal implications though did not really touch on the moral aspects:
Saw this case last week.
The issue is purely ethnicity/religion in this instance. There was no deception on the facts as he alleges in any event so it is even more unfair.
Under our law the Crown would have to argue that the defendant asserted something that goes to the nature and purpose of the offence itself. A case concerning the offence of causing a person to engage in sexual activity where deception has held up is where the complainant masturbated for a webcam when he alleged he was induced into doing so by what he believed to be a 20yr old female, who turned out to be the father of his ex-girlfriend seeking revenge. Juries have not accepted the argument when inducement was by a bogus marriage ceremony or offer of payment.
The decision of this court would not be followed here, and probably won’t be on appeal.
Still waiting on the solicitor and not drawing any further conclusions of my own at present. I thought it would be interesting to hear a (UK) legal take on the matter given some of the to-ing and fro-ing concerning understanding of legal systems.
Also, from this article:
Dana Pugach, head of the Noga Legal Center for crime victims, suggests the law sometimes takes things too far.
"I think that women still need protection," she said. "But I do think criminal law shouldn't interfere in every case. I think white lies should be permitted in a way. Lying, unfortunately, is a natural part of human relationships and not every lie can be indicted. But defining the limits would be difficult. Logic should be applied to every case."
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:58 amty, ty.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:59 amIn response specifically to the question "Would you feel that you had been raped?", the solicitor responded:
Which is a purely personal response, of course.
No. Just taken for an idiot.
Which is a purely personal response, of course.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:01 amNeu Mitanni wrote:Dyakovo wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:Dyakovo wrote:
Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.
What he said.
As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.
I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
This can't be right... You agreed with me... One of us is going to have to change our position or risk starting the apocalypse.
*nods*
"Was there ever a man more misunderstood." -- James Bond, Thunderball.
Seriously, it's worse than that. Not only are we both on the same side, we're both on the same side as Kiskaanak. Surely another milestone on the way to 2012.
I think I have to jump out of a window, now...
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:05 amUnhealthy2 wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
What if she asks him what book he's reading and he says "Great Expectations" when it's really "Madame Bovary," but she only finds that out later and "to her, it matters"? Is this enough to nullify consent? If so, is it rape only if he knows that it matters to her enough to be the difference between yes and no? If it's rape regardless of his state of knowledge, does this not mean that there is a technical possibility that any case of consensual sex could be retroactively considered rape? If the taste in literature is not enough to retroactively render consent null and void, then I ask you where the lines are drawn. Race is enough. What about natural hair color? Blood type? The capacity to taste PTC?
The question you really need to ask yourself is this:
Are you aware of something that she would absolutely not be okay with?
Like...do you know that she would never, ever choose to sleep with a married man?
A lot of women don't WANT to sleep with married men...but carried away in the heat of passion might boink them anyway. In our society, it's not so uncommon for married people to fuck non-married people, right? So our society presumably does not create a 'ought to have known' standard when it comes to this issue. In societies where sleeping with a married man would carry some horrible punishment, some awful social stigma...it's less likely that anyone would engage in it knowingly. In that case, you might have to prove that the person in question does in fact like sleeping with married men.
(as a quick interlude...sexual history is indeed relevant and admissible in certain situations...eg someone who routinely engages in flogging during sex, in a case where that act is being labeled as an assault. Which it may be. But not necessarily. Tricky shit, this law thing.)
If you are aware that there is something she absolutely would not do...and you lie to her in order to get her to do it...that's fraud. It's different than just not being fully honest. It's different than saying your penis is 8 inches when it's really 5. Or claiming to be a real blonde when the carpet doesn't match the drapes.
Rape by fraud is VERY HARD TO PROVE.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:10 amKiskaanak wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
In my view, what is going on here is a whole lot of rape apologism.
I like it how you are agreeing with the statement of a man who would be absolutely condemning this woman if the man she had had sex with wasn't an Evil Arab Muslim.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:26 amNorth Suran wrote:Kiskaanak wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
In my view, what is going on here is a whole lot of rape apologism.
I like it how you are agreeing with the statement of a man who would be absolutely condemning this woman if the man she had had sex with wasn't an Evil Arab Muslim.
My statement is hardly an agreement. It is my opinion on the undercurrents, offered in counterpoint to his opinion on the undercurrents.
Though who he is does not determine the veracity of his statements.
Sorry you got confused.