Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Lying = Rape?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Lying = Rape?

    This one is so weird I have to post it here, let's see if some agree with the Isreali judges:
    Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with JewIsraeli man of Arab origin sentenced to 18 months in prison after telling a woman that he was also Jewish


    Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

    When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.

    Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

    Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

    The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.

    The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal.

    Segal said: "The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price."

    Gideon Levy, a liberal Israeli commentator, was quoted as saying: "I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman?

    "Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not."

    Arabs constitute about 20% of Israel's population, but relationships between Jews and Arabs are rare. There are few mixed neighbourhoods or towns, and Arabs suffer routine discrimination.

    Israeli MPs are considering a law requiring prospective Israeli citizens to declare loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish, democratic state". Many Arabs would balk at swearing allegiance to a state which they see as explicitly excluding or marginalising them.

    Dan Meridor, a deputy prime minister in Binyamin Netanyahu's government, is opposed to the proposal. "Why does every bill need the word 'Jewish' in it – to show the Arab citizens that it doesn't belong to them? Then we're all shocked when they radicalise their stance.

    "The majority doesn't need to remind the minority that it is in fact a minority all the time," he added.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ensual-sex-jew

    Just imagine proportion of the societiy would be in jail if this approach would be used for every time someone is lying to get sex.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  2. #2
    Bad decision. Is it at all based in law?

  3. #3
    "Rape by deception". Really? Key riced.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  4. #4
    I wonder if they would convict an American who lied about being Jewish to get sex. In other words, is this a racist thing?

    -also-

    I wonder if they would convict a man for lying about being wealthy to get sex. In other words, is this a religous thing?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  5. #5
    Stunningly embarrassing. I would say this judge is being oversensitive to someone who is religious, but I doubt this girl is religious if she had sex with a guy she just met.

    I imagine this will get appealed. Has this judge not spent time with Israeli guys? They'll say anything to get in a girl's pants.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Stunningly embarrassing. I would say this judge is being oversensitive to someone who is religious, but I doubt this girl is religious if she had sex with a guy she just met.
    A bit of a slut....

    I imagine this will get appealed. Has this judge not spent time with Israeli guys? They'll say anything to get in a girl's pants.
    Anything but lie about being Jewish...
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    A bit of a slut....
    Oh, that's a slut? Funny, I always thought it was screwing multiple men/women, not just choosing to instantly jump someone you just met. There is no reason to wait.

    This ruling makes a mockery out of actual rape - it reminds me of the seventeen year old kid who was convicted of statutory rape for screwing his 15 year old girlfriend.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Oh, that's a slut?
    Multiple what? Threesome / Foursome type stuff? Or two-timing while pretending to be monogamous? Or doing StrangerA Friday night and StrangerB Saturday?

    just choosing to instantly jump someone you just met. There is no reason to wait.
    There are reasons to wait, though you might not think they're very good. And I'm assuming this isn't her first jump. I'm sure there's multiple of Jewish-men-looking-for-long-term-relationships-in-the-local-pickup-joint she's jumped.


    Dictionary.Com on "slut":

    1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
    2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.

    Unless she got paid, or doesn't wash up that often, it's a pretty subjective based on personal morals.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Multiple what? Threesome / Foursome type stuff? Or two-timing while pretending to be monogamous? Or doing StrangerA Friday night and StrangerB Saturday?
    I'd say doing stranger A Friday and Stranger B Saturday is how you get into slut territory.

    There are reasons to wait, though you might not think they're very good. And I'm assuming this isn't her first jump. I'm sure there's multiple of Jewish-men-looking-for-long-term-relationships-in-the-local-pickup-joint she's jumped.
    Like what? Like not making sure a long-term relationship with someone is even a reasonable idea before you commit time to it? Then again, meeting someone who wants to wait would be an equally good sign of their inappropriateness. I hope it isn't her first jump. Just don't call her a slut unless she has a different one every night for an extended period of time.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I imagine this will get appealed.
    True but then you have to consider this:
    A legal precedent in Israel classifying sex by deception as rape was set by the Supreme Court in a 2008 conviction of a man who posed as a government official and persuaded women to have sex with him by promising them state benefits.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K2EG20100721

    Has this judge not spent time with Israeli guys? They'll say anything to get in a girl's pants.
    As it works everywhere, it is done everywhere.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  11. #11
    That this qualifies as some sort of rape strieks me as bizarre

    I wonder: are any lies prohibited by law in the western world??
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  12. #12
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    That this qualifies as some sort of rape strieks me as bizarre

    I wonder: are any lies prohibited by law in the western world??
    Well, yes. You're not allowed to impersonate the police, or con someone.

    Besides the completely crazy ruling here, why would the girl suddenly not want to have sex with him anymore if he wasn't jewish? Seems stupid to me if she obviously was attracted enough to him to have sex right away.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I wonder: are any lies prohibited by law in the western world??
    For sworn statement?

    I think there are many cases where counterfeit and fraud are prohibited. But I [n]never[/n] heard it would equal to rape.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  14. #14
    How did she "later find out" he wasn't Jewish?

    -Not sure, but I think there's some law against lying about your STD status to sex partners.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    How did she "later find out" he wasn't Jewish?

    -Not sure, but I think there's some law against lying about your STD status to sex partners.
    You're right, although it's state by state.

    Not disclosing status, too.


    not a good source, but I'm lazy
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  16. #16
    Would this have been better labelled "fraud"?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Would this have been better labelled "fraud"?
    Only if someone's religion is a serious reason not to sex them pursue a serious long-term relationship with them.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  18. #18
    Jerusalem for Israel is the equivalent of the deep south for the US: you really don't want to offend people's religious sensibilities. This is obviously a ridiculous verdict, but I doubt you'd get it in Tel Aviv.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    When I saw this news I was close to posting it in the 'WTF' thread. I think it's a complete travesty of justice. If this isn't overturned by a higher court it will have a real impact on the way I see Israeli justice.

    Eyekhan; yes, most Arabs are circumsized.
    Congratulations America

  20. #20
    I like how the Guardian fails to mention the reason for the Israeli court precedent on this. Or the existence of the precedent at all.

    Ridiculous as this is, this is being Zionutted in the international media.

    That said, I can't believe this precedent existed for two whole years without becoming a Jew vs. Arab thing.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I like how the Guardian fails to mention the reason for the Israeli court precedent on this. Or the existence of the precedent at all.

    Ridiculous as this is, this is being Zionutted in the international media.

    That said, I can't believe this precedent existed for two whole years without becoming a Jew vs. Arab thing.
    First off, which precedent? And why do you criticize The Guardian for reporting about this ruling pretty much in the same words as Haaretz?

    The ruling is ridiculous to the extent it needs a new word to ridicule it; on the basis of the reasoning of this judge all human interaction has to take place all the time on the basis of full disclosure lest one be convicted of some random 'crime'.

    What if this guy hadn't claimed to be Jewish (how do we even know that?) but simply had not told her he was Arab? I am really outraged by the fact that this man had to live under house arrest for 2 years on the basis of a claim this frivolous. I'm not fast to call for disciplinary action against judges, but this judge deserves exactly that.
    Congratulations America

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Do you guys think there is no Arab vs. Jew component to this judgement in reality?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    First off, which precedent? And why do you criticize The Guardian for reporting about this ruling pretty much in the same words as Haaretz?

    The ruling is ridiculous to the extent it needs a new word to ridicule it; on the basis of the reasoning of this judge all human interaction has to take place all the time on the basis of full disclosure lest one be convicted of some random 'crime'.

    What if this guy hadn't claimed to be Jewish (how do we even know that?) but simply had not told her he was Arab? I am really outraged by the fact that this man had to live under house arrest for 2 years on the basis of a claim this frivolous. I'm not fast to call for disciplinary action against judges, but this judge deserves exactly that.
    The issue is that this is clearly a ridiculous court precedent that could apply to any number of situations. In fact, it already has, which is why it's an established precedent. This kind of ruling is offensive and useless in all its manifestations, but the main reason we're reading about it is because it fits into an archetypal struggle between Jews and Arabs.

  23. #23
    Wasn't this a plea bargain?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The issue is that this is clearly a ridiculous court precedent that could apply to any number of situations. In fact, it already has, which is why it's an established precedent. This kind of ruling is offensive and useless in all its manifestations, but the main reason we're reading about it is because it fits into an archetypal struggle between Jews and Arabs.
    I still don't understand your use of the word precedent. Either this is a new ruling or it is the law in Israel. The fact that even Israeli newspapers write about this is an indication to me that this ruling is far from precedent but an extra-ordinary reading of the law.

    The Arab-Jewish angle can't be ignored in this case because that was the lie. It is an extremely racist ruling because of the facts. But it's wrong for more reasons than just those; it creates liability where no society could live with liability existing.
    Congratulations America

  25. #25
    But in the reuters articel I linked the precedent didn't had a arb vs isreal component. And I think this case is almost as weird, but the current one just tops that. The racist flawor of course makes it sexier for the media, but the weirdiness alone was actually the eye catcher for me.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I like how the Guardian fails to mention the reason for the Israeli court precedent on this. Or the existence of the precedent at all.

    Ridiculous as this is, this is being Zionutted in the international media.

    That said, I can't believe this precedent existed for two whole years without becoming a Jew vs. Arab thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    But in the reuters articel I linked the precedent didn't had a arb vs isreal component. And I think this case is almost as weird, but the current one just tops that. The racist flawor of course makes it sexier for the media, but the weirdiness alone was actually the eye catcher for me.
    Do you guys think there is no Arab vs. Jew component to this judgement in reality?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Do you guys think there is no Arab vs. Jew component to this judgement in reality?
    In the current one, or in the two yeard old one mentioned by Reuters?
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  28. #28
    It was a precedent because two years ago a judge ruled that misrepresenting parts of your identity when seducing someone constituted rape. That precedent itself is pretty extraordinary, so it's no surprise that it applied to this situation and could apply to so many others.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It was a precedent because two years ago a judge ruled that misrepresenting parts of your identity when seducing someone constituted rape. That precedent itself is pretty extraordinary, so it's no surprise that it applied to this situation and could apply to so many others.
    And that stood? That's pretty unpretty to say the least. Makes me seriously doubt the quality of Israeli justice.
    Congratulations America

  30. #30
    I have been having a hard time with this discussion... intuitively the sentence strikes me as ridiculous, but I'm having a hard time justifying that viewpoint. Exactly why is this a ridiculous or indefensible sentence??

    If this had been about a con-man who lied about his identity and his intentions to con a girl of $1000, then he would be punished in some way, right? Or?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •