RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Malthus]

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.

 

[Bryan Ekers]

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.

 

[FinnAgain]

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.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

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.

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]

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

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

[sub]Smooth tongued, silver tounged, what's the difference?[/sub]

 

[Vinyl Turnip]

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

 

[FinnAgain]

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

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.

 

[amanset]

No, you've been lying. You're just still doing it. Rather obviously, and blatantly I might add.

Seriously, please tell me what I am lying about. As it is "blatant" it should be trivial for you to point it out to me.

Nope, you're lying yet again. Go figure. And of course I haven't "been shown to do so". The pack of rabid curs that you run with simply like that lie a lot, so you repeat it. As any Big Lie works, you seem to hope that if you use it enough, you'll fool some people. Of course it's not true and you're simply a back of vile, pustular mongrels, but that goes with the territory.

The truth is that despite me going on record criticizing Israel, the assholes on the board who make up the anti-Israel brigade will lie about it, even in threads where I've just criticized something Israel does. Sometimes only a few posts right after. You guys just like lying, I suppose.

I guess been asked to do so and then you not doing so is me lying. Or something. Definitely my fault though.

As I am not a stalker, I am yet to see you critcising Israel. Maybe I missed it. Fancy pointing out an example to me?

There's that honorable and honest nature you have! While lying and saying that the OP didn't claim that the issue was "Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian" (since, ya know, they said it in the title and not the body of the post, and anti-Israel lies are only "hyperbole" and yadda yadda), you also claimed that it was somehow important that the OP didn't mention the word Israel in the body text, either.

It wasn't an anti-Israel lie.

There is nothing in the OP or linked article that says that he was jailed for being Palestinian.

The hyperbolic thread title made no reference to Israel.

Yeah, you keep lying while moaning about how you're being called out for continually lying. You're kinda retarded, eh?

Seriously. Tell me what I am lying about.

Your lie was not that you're a shill who is anti-Israel. Of course you are and of course I said you are. Your lie was that rather than your constant dishonesty and shilling for your anti Israel narrative (like justifying lies as "hyperbole" as long as they're anti-Israel lies), that it was really because you don't accept everything that Israel does. Except, I listed several people who also don't and who I not only haven't called any names, but respect because unlike you they're not dishonest and not shills.
Because, ya know, you were lying.

About what, exactly?

Seriously, this basically reads like "your lie is that I called you a liar".

Yes, you are a liar.

You know a nice clean example would be good. If there are many things I am lying about, why not number them?! Like this:

1. You said you didn't fart when everyone heard you fart.
2. You said that you never called my bum "fat and not unlike a bean bag" when I have you on tape saying that.

Come on! It'll be fun!

Unsurprisingly, I'm not taking you at your word. Go figure, eh?
Your actual views on the Middle East are shown by your behavior, not your oh-so-honest (and honorable too!) protestations of your neutrality. Your record is clear including the issue that led to you whining in ATMB about how you shouldn't be insulted in the Pit, a thread, by the way, in which you admitted to dishonestly trying to find excuses to 'get me in trouble'. Because, ya know, you're a liar.

You're fine with lies about Israel as long as you can handwave them away as hyperbole. Strangely enough, you're not fine with the truth if it doesn't paint Israel in a negative light.
Just one of those coincidences, eh? Eh?

I didn't do anything dishonest. I brought attention to the moderators actions that IU felt - and still feel - are not allowed by the rules. You regularly troll and harass people. I included a list of terms you had used to harass me in a single thread. Your accusations of lying without ever saying what I am lying about is quite simply trolling - hassling me in an attempt to get a negative reaction. That is also against Pit rules. My mistake in that ATMB thread was concentrating on the language rather than the harassment and trolling.

What "lies about Israel" have I shown to be fine with today? The one that made no mention of Israel? Any others? You used a plural so I'm guessing there are - well, unless you are using lies and/or hyperbole.

The thing you are struggling to deal with is criticism of Israel isn't anti-Israel, bigotry, or whatever terms you want to use. It is simply disagreeing with Israel and thinking their actions were wrong.

Here's a thought for you: maybe I'm not criticising Palestine much as they haven't actually been doing much of late? In 2009 566 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, in comparison to 2,048 in 2008. Out of these, 406 were fired during the Gaza War, which ended on 18 January, and 160 were fired during the rest of the year..

Ignoring the ones fired when Israel was flattening large portions of Gaza (and lying about their use of certain weapons in arguably illegal manners), 160 were fired. In a year. Usually causing no casualties and often no damage. In 2010 the story has been very similar.

This was shit of them. I don't like it. I wish they wouldn't do it. But in my opinion it is different to blocking much needed aid into Palestine, causing deaths, and doing stuff like boarding aid ships and killing people on them. Especially when those aid ships carry people from the country I am sitting in. It is more relevant to me hence I am more likely to discuss it. This doesn't mean that those Palestinians firing rockets aren't shits. It just means that in the grand scheme of things, those glorified fireworks that struggle to damage anything are not as "bad" as the blocking of medical aid, food and necessary materials for rebuilding homes and making drinking water safe from entering Palestine after the Israeli army caused widespread destruction.

Do you see? When the Palestinians do something really shit I'll discuss it. And I'll call them out on it. But frankly, they've been a lot quieter than the Israelis of late.

 

[Villa]

The problem with your view is that it leads to arguments, as we're seeing here, on what sorts of conduct constitute 'rape.'

Many years ago, I posted in response to a GQ thread titled Can I legally refuse to feed Rachel Leigh Cook unless she sleeps with me? that may be of interest to the present discussion.

Either we agree that "rape" refers to a specific crime with specific elements, with the further understanding that "rape under New Jersey law," "rape under Virginia law," and "rape under Israeli law," may not be identical crimes, or we accept this generic idea that rape means whatever the speaker wishes it to mean, which leads us to absurdities like "all married sex is rape," a paraphrase of Andrea Dworkin's articulated position in "Right Wing Women."

Well, that's the reason I find a lot appealing about Schulhoffer's arguments regarding rape law. He maintains that the law should find "force" where the aggressor seeks to withhold something to which the victim otherwise has a right. So if a person has earned a promotion, or a high school diploma, for example, and they are told that absent the sex, they will be denied it, then that is rape. Rachel Leigh Cook, on the other hand, has no entitlement to your food. If you say to her that you will give her a sandwich in exchange for sex, then that wouldn't be rape, though it could be soliciting prostitution.

As to the elements, if we are to keep both force and lack of consent, I support the New Jersey approach, which holds that the act of penetration absent consent itself contains sufficient force to satisfy that element. I'm also in favor of a (soft) affirmative consent standard rather than the current negative consent position, especially for sexual encounters that take place outside of a relationship dynamic.

 

[FinnAgain]

Disingenuous

Yep.
If you require more verbiage: a disingenuous gloss of my post in order to toss out your flippant inanity while acting as if you'd responded to my point.
The same people who take me to task for correctly stating facts (or, like you, because you have a personal grudge and you're an asshole, so you don't like me), never can seem to spare a word for blatant dishonesty, racism and bigotry. Your response was to ask just how often they had to bother to condemn vile behavior (when my point was that they never, ever do). Maybe four times? Lol, har-d-har-har. Yuck yuck.

When, of course, people don't care at all to challenge blatant bigotry and dishonesty, but they do care enough to challenge calling it out....
Which was the whole point.

"Finn's an asshole."
"Well, why?"
"He calls people bigots and liars a lot."
"Well... are they saying bigoted things or being dishonest?"
"How am I supposed to know? But I am am totally prepared to start spazzing the fuck out about it!"

[People are more inclined to argue with you than call out shit beneath the radar because quite frankly, you piss people off. Even people on your side.

I'm glad to see that you're willing to speak for people and tell me who "on my side" (we have sides now, idiot?) feels what. I'm sure that they aren't posting that because, well, just because. But you, Kreskin, you know what they really think even though they haven't said it. Mind reading is awesome.
And of course "bigotry" and "lying to demonize a nation" are "below the radar", but calling them out is goddamnawful! Says a lot about you. Just like most of the folks who've objected to calling bigotry bigotry and dishonesty dishonesty admitted that they don't care about the facts, at all.

Think about the stupidity inherent in your argument a little bit.
"There are a bunch of people who admit they don't care about the facts but don't like heaving the truth about things if it's too harsh and/or if it's repeated too often because it keeps happening. These people who admit they don't care about the facts? You totally need to win them over."

So, yeah, you're disingenuous.
You understand full well why it's important that the folks who'll ignore bigotry and dishonesty as long as it's coming from someone who's also anti-Israel, or why they'll decide that bigotry, racism and lying are "totally below the radar" but noticing them is horrible. Someone who can't or won't challenge vile behavior but spazzes out when someone actually does is not the kind of person who matters in any intellectual sense.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

The problem with your view is that it leads to arguments, as we're seeing here, on what sorts of conduct constitute 'rape.'

Many years ago, I posted in response to a GQ thread titled Can I legally refuse to feed Rachel Leigh Cook unless she sleeps with me? that may be of interest to the present discussion.

Well, now we're better able to answer that GQ. You are perfectly within your rights to feed Rachel Leigh Cook in exchange for sex. You just can't lie about whether you're going to feed her.

 

[PrettyVacant]

"friendly" is a bit weird for me. The USA is buying something with Israel, as it's buying something with Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, etc. All - and others - are complaint states to one degree or another and in return for cash or trade concessions or both.

In terms of regional presence and/or influence, Israel ain't special. FOr example, how many bases does the USA have there compared to those other countries I mention? And what for - all the staging posts are in Germany. The USA has two carrier fleets of Iran that get supplied from a variety or directions and by a range of means.

What is it you think Israel does that's so important for the USA it outweighs just so much outrage?

 

[newcomer]

Perhaps there is more to this story but I would still like to hear about the particulars of the other cases where Jewish men went to jail under this law.
- - - - - -
You are correct that the Israeli judicial system is respectable in most instances but as you point out in the post below, the judicial system is not immune from the societal racism against Palestinians.

On a 1st point...

Before providing name of the Jewish man who was prosecuted based on this law let me just state that most legal experts agree that the purpose of the law was not meant to be used for these cases of minor lies in which there is no indication or a hint of coercion or other type of authoritarian pressure. And this is where a case of a Jewish man Zvi Sliman is perfect for illustration of a true purpose of this law. In 2008 Zvi was convicted for impersonating an official in the housing ministry and promising women help and benefits in exchange for sex. So, one can find this law useful and applicable when deception is used as a vehicle of psychological pressure in a given context.

When one examines the facts of this case and the key lie that this Palestinian man claimed to be Jewish, one cannot construe any reasonable basis for coercion or any other type of pressure that would

 

[Guinastasia]

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?

They make him a sleaze -- they do not make him a rapist.

Turn the tables -- how would you feel about a woman who did the same?

 

[jsgoddess]

The idea that if lying to gain sex were rape all men would be rapists is a disgusting, untrue, sexist smear.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

This example was dismissed by another poster as being completely different from the case in the OP, as it pertained to a Jewish male who falsely assumed a religious identity as opposed to the case in the OP, which involved a Muslim male who falsely assumed a religious identity, and...oops.

The former impersonated an authority and claimed to be able to provide a service. That is fraud.

The latter implied that he was a member of an ethnic sect, and made no claims of service.

You are casting his crime in as false a light as the OP.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

No, it really isn't. Well, except for monks.

 

[Bryan Ekers]

"My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

 

[Captain Amazing]

The term, by the way, is "fraud in the inducement"(lying to someone to get them to consent to sex), which, under US law, isn't enough to convict someone of rape, unlike "fraud in the factum" (lying to someone about the sex. . . Someone pretending to be a woman's husband, or a doctor having sex with a woman when she thinks he's giving her a gynecological exam.)