Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

[Tobin]

Given the false charge she already tried it looks more and more like a case of someone who was subsequently embarassed by their actions and so tried to shift the "blame" onto the other party. Originally by making a false rape allegation.

Kinda what I'm thinking.

Though I ask this:

Who is more at fault? You lying or me beliving you?

[jurble]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186

"Every time a man tells a woman he loves her, based on which she sleeps with him, he could be convicted of rape."

ahahaha

[shadowbinding shoe]

Well I had the feeling that the Israeli court system is going overboard with the sexual offense option since the Ramon case. (foud guilty of Kissing... )

[turinturambar]

People have been lying to each other to hook up for thousands of years. Whether it's lying about appearance, social status, career, money, etc.

Which makes me wonder if this would be considered deceit. If I slept with a woman who I thought was hot, or REALLY attractive, but the next morning after she takes out her hair extentions, washes off her make up, and I find the thickly padded bra on the floor as evidence.....suddenly she's not so hot at all. Suddenly I'm regretting having slept with her and my shallow ass is slightly embarrassed. Could that be rape?

Obviously "deceit" when in the context of consent, needs to be more clearly defined and parameters need to be set. Pretending to be somebody's spouse = terrible(though I'm confused how somebody wouldn't know it was their spouse...), using a position of authority(such as the cop)to deceive people into giving sexual favors = terrible. I'm having trouble though finding any other situations where I'd possibly feel sorry for the deceived party.

[Samalander]

I'm mostly amused by the entir situation. It's the first time I've been accused of being biased in favour of israelis. :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah...I can vouch for that.

That case was screwed up beyond all recognition of justice. The guy climbed into the woman's bed - which she shared with her live-in boyfriend - and proceeded to have sex with her under the pretense that he was her boyfriend. The state law specifically requires force in order for crimes to be persecuted under the rape laws, a loophole which many people and legislators are working to correct.

So...were they twins or something?

Look, of course the dude's lawyers are going to go for the racial card, they really haven't got anything else to go on. The law (or rather the prevalent interpertation of it) and precedents are not on their side. Now, it may very well be that the current application of the law is more counter-productive than beneficial to the general public it is supposed to protect, but it is applied evenly to all citizens of this country regardless of race, religion, etc. Would the case still hold water if he was an unmarried Arab? I don't know. But as it happens, he is married. Guess the lesson to all the Don Drapers of the world is that their time is done.

[Shryke]

Gee, I thought the racism came from her problem with the "rape" being that he told her he was Jewish and it turned out he was an Arab instead.

[Samalander]

Gee, I thought the racism came from her problem with the "rape" being that he told her he was Jewish and it turned out he was an Arab instead.

There may be a lot of things in this ruling, but racism is not in it.

The guy was convicted, because, he misrepresented himself as someone this woman could have had a long term relationship and a future with. This was not, in fact, the case, because:

1) He was married

2) He is an Arab

Ok, so no.1 is pretty obvious to everyone.

I'll try to explain how no.2 applies, without, in fact, being racist:

a. All marriages in Israel, must be religious. Israel recognizes secular marriages from other countries, but does not allow them in the state of Israel. So, a mixed faith couple would have a tricky time finding some religious authority to marry them.

b. Given the nature of the ongoing conflict between Jews and Arabs in the region, makes this, in fact, almost a "sleeping with the enemy" kind of scenario. While some mixed couples do exist, their lives are not easy (understatement). Not everyone can be expected to have the emotional fortitude or the desire to go through something like this.

c. Even if racist bias existed on the part of the woman, it does not equate to racist bias on the part of the court. People, in fact, have absolute discretion about who they have sex with, and what factors are involved. The only thing the court is concerned with, is was a deceit commited in order to obtain sex.

If the woman says "Yuck, I hate Arabs, I would never ever have sex with one" and it is established she was lied to in order to obtain sex, than yes, under the current laws and precedents it is a crime.

[Stego]

There may be a lot of things in this ruling, but racism is not in it.

The guy was convicted, because, he misrepresented himself as someone this woman could have had a long term relationship and a future with. This was not, in fact, the case, because:

1) He was married

2) He is an Arab

Ok, so no.1 is pretty obvious to everyone.

I'll try to explain how no.2 applies, without, in fact, being racist:

a. All marriages in Israel, must be religious. Israel recognizes secular marriages from other countries, but does not allow them in the state of Israel. So, a mixed faith couple would have a tricky time finding some religious authority to marry them.

b. Given the nature of the ongoing conflict between Jews and Arabs in the region, makes this, in fact, almost a "sleeping with the enemy" kind of scenario. While some mixed couples do exist, their lives are not easy (understatement). Not everyone can be expected to have the emotional fortitude or the desire to go through something like this.

c. Even if racist bias existed on the part of the woman, it does not equate to racist bias on the part of the court. People, in fact, have absolute discretion about who they have sex with, and what factors are involved. The only thing the court is concerned with, is was a deceit commited in order to obtain sex.

If the woman says "Yuck, I hate Arabs, I would never ever have sex with one" and it is established she was lied to in order to obtain sex, than yes, under the current laws and precedents it is a crime.

Seriously -- I am a proponent of Israel. I loved it thee and I love the people. I believe David founded Jerusalem, and that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

That said, your exception-free defense of Israel sickens me. This case is nothing but racism. It had nothing to do with rape and it had nothing to do with adultery and quite honestly it had nothing to do with anything other than a woman having regret the day after consensual sex.

And getting the court of a racist nation to back her.

Saying that one is not allowed to use deceit in the hunt for getting laid is fucking ridiculous.

ETA: Lock up everyone on every dating site on the internet. Buncha rapists.

[Shryke]

There may be a lot of things in this ruling, but racism is not in it.

The guy was convicted, because, he misrepresented himself as someone this woman could have had a long term relationship and a future with. This was not, in fact, the case, because:

1) He was married

2) He is an Arab

Ok, so no.1 is pretty obvious to everyone.

I'll try to explain how no.2 applies, without, in fact, being racist:

a. All marriages in Israel, must be religious. Israel recognizes secular marriages from other countries, but does not allow them in the state of Israel. So, a mixed faith couple would have a tricky time finding some religious authority to marry them.

b. Given the nature of the ongoing conflict between Jews and Arabs in the region, makes this, in fact, almost a "sleeping with the enemy" kind of scenario. While some mixed couples do exist, their lives are not easy (understatement). Not everyone can be expected to have the emotional fortitude or the desire to go through something like this.

c. Even if racist bias existed on the part of the woman, it does not equate to racist bias on the part of the court. People, in fact, have absolute discretion about who they have sex with, and what factors are involved. The only thing the court is concerned with, is was a deceit commited in order to obtain sex.

If the woman says "Yuck, I hate Arabs, I would never ever have sex with one" and it is established she was lied to in order to obtain sex, than yes, under the current laws and precedents it is a crime.

Yes, a crime. And still racist. So very very very racist.

None of what you said contradicts this because, apparently, her problem with this was that he was an Arab and not a Jew. When the sex you had goes from "Fun" to "Rape" because of the race of the other person, that's racism. Hardcore, fucked up, no getting around it racism.

Come on, explain to me how this isn't racist?

Beyond that, the fact that he court used her racism to convict a guy of rape and put him in prison is pretty fucking racist too.

[Samalander]

1) That said, your exception-free defense of Israel sickens me.

2) This case is nothing but racism. It had nothing to do with rape and it had nothing to do with adultery and quite honestly it had nothing to do with anything other than a crazy woman having regret the day after consensual sex.

3) Saying that one is not allowed to use deceit in the hunt for getting laid is fucking ridiculous.

1) I seem to be sickening quite a few people around here.

2) Past precedents seem to contradict this statement. If a muslim woman lodged a complaint against a Jew who said he was an Arab to get her to have sex with him, I bet he would be convicted as well.

3) Maybe so, but apparantly it is the law of the land. You want me to start going over all the crazy laws of your country?

[Samalander]

1) Come on, explain to me how this isn't racist?

2) Beyond that, the fact that he court used her racism to convict a guy of rape and put him in prison is pretty fucking racist too.

1) Since people have already been convicted of this very same crime, for misrepresenting themselves, are we sure we want to start making exceptions? This kind of defeats the whole purpose of the law, and makes for a very slippery slope, doesn't it? Sure, you are not allowed to lie about yourself to get sex (in any fundemental manner. Small lies are apparently fine. Who decides? The judge, of course). It's the law. However, if you want to lie about your race (and religion and political affilation, etc. because they all flow from ethnicity) then that's a-ok. Once exceptions start, where do they stop?

2) Like I said, the marital status of the guy makes the thing murkier. If he were single, we'd have a more clear cut case of what goes on in her mind.

[Shryke]

1) Since people have already been convicted of this very same crime, for misrepresenting themselves, are we sure we want to start making exceptions? This kind of defeats the whole purpose of the law, and makes for a very slippery slope, doesn't it? Sure, you are not allowed to lie about yourself to get sex (in any fundemental manner. Small lies are apparently fine. Who decides? The judge, of course). It's the law. However, if you want to lie about your race (and religion and political affilation, etc. because they all flow from ethnicity) then that's a-ok. Once exceptions start, where do they stop?

No, that's exactly what you SHOULDN'T do. It's not a slippery slope, it's fucking rational thought, which is part of the judicial process.

If I say I'm 5'8'' and I'm actually 5'9'', is the sex that followed then rape? How about if I said I liked peanuts, but actually didn't?

There's obviously a line between what kind of misrepresentation counts and what kind doesn't. That line puts "Racism" firmly on the side of not counting. The law should not be supporting racism.

2) Like I said, the marital status of the guy makes the thing murkier. If he were single, we'd have a more clear cut case of what goes on in her mind.

So it's rape cause he's married now? That's just as stupid, although at least racist.

[Datepalm]

So it's rape cause he's married now? That's just as stupid, although at least racist.

It would also be rape if he told her he was a doctor and wasn't, as has been covered up thread.

your complete inability to imagine any circustances other than ones you are comfortable with is at least consistent. Boring, but consistent.

חזירים, בוץ.

[TrueMetis]

It would also be rape if he told her he was a doctor and wasn't, as has been covered up thread.

There are a lot more rapists out there than I thought then.

[Stubby]

If I say I'm 5'8'' and I'm actually 5'9'', is the sex that followed then rape? How about if I said I liked peanuts, but actually didn't?

There's obviously a line between what kind of misrepresentation counts and what kind doesn't. That line puts "Racism" firmly on the side of not counting. The law should not be supporting racism.

As I posted upthread, we have the same law here. The test is subjective, and focusses on the extent of the deceit of the accused. There is no hard and fast rule, as each case is different.

As we have the same legal system (in general) as Israel, I imagine its the same there, with the added flavour of its local peculiarities.

Having said that, I doubt that lying about an inch difference in your height would get you convicted. Lying about something like marital status, on the other hand, might get you sent down.

[Samalander]

1) If I say I'm 5'8'' and I'm actually 5'9'', is the sex that followed then rape? How about if I said I liked peanuts, but actually didn't?

2) There's obviously a line between what kind of misrepresentation counts and what kind doesn't. That line puts "Racism" firmly on the side of not counting. The law should not be supporting racism.

1) Probably not. This would, under most normal circumstances be considered non-fundamental. However! If the girl you were trying to have sex with was some kind of Heightist or a rabid pro-peanuterian you might be convicted!

2) All misrepresentation that gets you laid when otherwise you would have gotten a "no" counts. Bottom line, a judge decides. Intersting to see how the Supreme Court will handle this on appeal.

[Shryke]

As I posted upthread, we have the same law here. The test is subjective, and focusses on the extent of the deceit of the accused. There is no hard and fast rule, as each case is different.

Exactly, the key word is "subjective". It's there for a reason. The justice system involves people this reason, because it's almost never as simple as the letter of the law.

Having said that, I doubt that lying about an inch difference in your height would get you convicted. Lying about something like marital status, on the other hand, might get you sent down.

And this is the crux. What it comes down to is what is what is considered a meaningful or relevant misrepresentation.

I don't see how racism counts as a either meaningful or relevant. Why is the law (subjective as it is) supporting what seems to be a blatantly racist complaint?

All misrepresentation that gets you laid when otherwise you would have gotten a "no" counts.

Nope. Subjectivity. See above.

Bottom line, a judge decides. Intersting to see how the Supreme Court will handle this on appeal.

Yes, hopefully someone further up the food chain has some actual sense.

It would also be rape if he told her he was a doctor and wasn't, as has been covered up thread.

your complete inability to imagine any circustances other than ones you are comfortable with is at least consistent. Boring, but consistent.

חזירים, בוץ.

I'm sorry I can't imagine (or rather, refuse to support) circumstances of blatant bigotry and/or stupidity on the part of the law.

Now why don't you say something meaningful instead of this pithy passive-aggressive bullshit.

[Samalander]

1) And this is the crux. What it comes down to is what is what is considered a meaningful or relevant misrepresentation.

2) I don't see how racism counts as a either meaningful or relevant. Why is the law (subjective as it is) supporting what seems to be a blatantly racist complaint?

3) Now why don't you say something meaningful instead of this pithy passive-aggressive bullshit.

1) That's why we have judges.

2) Maybe because people, on a personal level, still have a right to be race prejeudiced? Maybe because a country doesn't have the right to police poeple's thoughts? Maybe because the whole Jew-Arab thing is complicated in ways that are far beyond race?

3) I rather like her pithy comments...

[Stubby]

I don't see how racism counts as a either meaningful or relevant. Why is the law (subjective as it is) supporting what seems to be a blatantly racist complaint?

Because its not about the nature of the lie told, its about the lack of consent in the victim. After all, thats what sexual assault laws are there to address.

[Shryke]

Maybe because people, on a personal level, still have a right to be race prejeudiced? Maybe because a country doesn't have the right to police poeple's thoughts? Maybe because the whole Jew-Arab thing is complicated in ways that are far beyond race?

You have a right to be racist. The government should in no way whatsoever support your horrible bigotry.

And stop pulling this "more complicated" bullshit out and trying to make this kind of bigotry more acceptable.

Because its not about the nature of the lie told, its about the lack of consent in the victim. After all, thats what sexual assault laws are there to address.

Of course it's about the lie told. By admitting that certain lies wouldn't be an issue, you've already said that. Because the lie told is entirely relevant to the question of consent.

Because the big question is "What kind of lies make the consent given not valid?".