RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

**Malthus** · 07-10-2010, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Also, does this "rape by deception" thing apply to Jewish boys who tell girls they have Lamborginis or that they're in the Mossad? How about if a Jewish girl lies about not having a boyfriend? Is she a rapist?

To the first, the answer is apparently "yes", since the leading case involved a guy lying about being in the gov't. Dunno about the second.

The 'lying about yourself = rape by deception' thing has, apparently, been around a few years, and this is the first case where the lie involves 'not being Jewish'. The law is not in itself indended to be a racial matter, but in this particular instance it happens to be.

The problem is the law, which is open to obvious abuse. Hopefully, the appellate court will deal with it.

07-10-2010, 07:24 AM

If you know of someone in the middle east who is friendlier to U.S. interests, feel free to name them.

Turkey, maybe, though it's on the edge of the region.

Or just go ahead and chortle, whatever.

07-10-2010, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Babale

HEY! If he was anti-semetic he'd hate anyone who speaks a Semetic languge, not just Jews! So there!

Called it in one. What're the odds?
Of course, here are some of Ivan's greatest racist hits.
I'm pretty sure that Damuri would feel that "in context" they were okay as long as Ivan says that [del]the devil[/del] FinnAgain made him do it.

07-10-2010, 09:08 AM

Oh dear.

There are two separate issues involved here that we would probably do well to keep separate. The first is whether what this guy did can or cannot constitute rape. The second is whether he was convicted of it because of racism or ethnocentrism. I'm not touching the latter. I will leave that to... others.

As to the first question, though, a lot of people seem to be saying that the idea that lying to accomplish sex could ever be rape is absurd, and I think it's a lot more complicated than that. As has been mentioned a couple of times, there are laws of similar construction in place in plenty of jurisdictions, including most American ones. I also think that there are quite a few posters who aren't considering fully the ramifications of their responses to this particular case.

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

That quote is not proof of racism, no. I don't see, however, how lying to get sex makes one a criminal. If that were the case, just about every man on the planet would be a criminal. So it's not "people" who lie to get sex that's the problem, it's the type of people who are lying that determines the criminality, which is discriminatory.

Obviously she liked what she saw, and obviously she liked what he said, so much so that she opened her legs to him within minutes of meeting, which exposes her as no paragon of virtue in the first place. I agree that it is her right to choose who she sleeps with, and she chose.

This is a good example. First, the nonsense about how she opened her legs is disgusting, and casts the rest of the argument in a terrible light. She can have sex with whoever she wants, and 'virtue' has no place in the discussion. It's very tiresome that a discussion of a sexual assault has to follow this blueprint. Can we cut that out?

Second, are you comfortable with the position that there is no lie a person can tell to another person which can result in a consent problem? Is that the approach you take with respect to, for instance, financial fraud? If I tell you I'm an authorized dealer of Rolexes, or whatever, and you consent to give me money for my Rolex, haven't you "chosen" your course of action in precisely the same way this woman "chose" to have sex with this cat?

I certainly understand that not all lies are created equal. I'm not trying to argue with anybody that there should be a hard line drawn, and everybody who says something that isn't true during a courtship should be thrown in jail. But rape is sex without consent. Consent is something that lives in each person's mind individually. If telling her that he's Jewish is a reasonable deciding factor for her in continuing the interactions then it is necessarily true that he accomplished her consent by fraud (and whether or not you think it makes for a good society, I think we all agree that reasonable people sometimes decide who to have sex with based on less significant things than culture or religion). And accomplishing consent by fraud is a crime, same as it's a crime to accomplish possession of somebody's property by lying to them. There are going to be gray areas, obviously, and it's a complicated and difficult thing to sort out. I'm just not sure if people are really comfortable with the idea that this never rises to the level of rape.

Those of you who think this is stupid, how do you feel about a guy who says he's a famous person? A guy who pretends to be a woman's boyfriend? A guy who lies about his connections in a particular industry and promises some kind of reward for sex that he can't make good on? Are any of those sufficient to invalidate consent?

And again, I know this is a heated discussion, and I'm not taking any position on whether the actual prosecution was appropriate or not. I'm only responding to the argument about the letter of the law as written.

**Duke** · 07-10-2010, 09:48 AM

"smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price"

So, what he's saying is, the defendant is an EVIL CONNECTOR???

_{Smooth tongued, silver tounged, what's the difference?}

07-10-2010, 10:15 AM

See, this is why one side or the other should stop circumcising.

07-10-2010, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Pedro

Just a disinterested opinion but I can set my watch by how long it takes you to cry "liar" in any thread critical of anything Israeli. That doesn't lead me to believe you are entirely rational on the subject. I'm sure you'll disagree.

Of course, since you don't look at whether or not people actually are lying and only on whether or not I say that someone is, you obviously don't care if I'm right or not but are only objecting to the claim itself, and pretending that in the absence of any verification that the mere claim itself, even if totally correct, is evidence of "not being entirely rational." The fact is that there is a small (just over half a dozen) number of posters who reliably post anti-Israel positions, and reliably use dishonesty to do it.

The reason I point out so often that they're lying is that they lie that often.

Originally Posted by Pedro

Also, since were on this page, I find your habit of characterizing every one of your opponents as drooling morons off-putting.

Also not true. But, again, the fact that a small coterie who make up the dedicated anti-Israel brigade tend to use dishonesty, ignorance and malice as their weapons of choice doesn't mean it's somehow wrong for me to point it out.

07-10-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Yes. However, since the "fraudulent" conduct at issue here is that the accused rapist called himself Daniel, I think we can safely ignore it.

OK, you disagree with the conclusion, which is presumably based on more facts than the above.

But that's suddenly a different conversation than the one about whether a "higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule" a woman's decision about a man's level of Jewishness being relevant to a sexual relationship.

07-10-2010, 11:27 AM