RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Malthus]

Except that not only is this law on the books, but the judge said

Although conceding that the sex was consensual, district court judge Tzvi Segal concluded that the law had a duty to protect women from "smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price"

The same law is on the books in many other places, including some US states.

What the judge said is that people who lie to get sex are "smooth tounged criminals". How exactly is that some sort of proof of racism in society?

Even if this particular woman is as racist as a barrel of KKK members, it is her right to choose not to sleep with someone - because she doesn't like his skin colour or his ancestry or whatever.

and a former Israeli ministry official says

"In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official.

So either the judge is racist, or he is indicating that--in his opinion as a judge--Israeli society is racist, or both.

What a "former Israeli minister official" says has no bearing on what the Judge ordered.

Nevertheless, he's merely stating a truism - that many women in Israeli society would feel unhappy about having sex with someone who is not Jewish, if they had been lied to about the matter. That would be true outside of Israel, too.

For that matter, many Christians would have a problem having sex with someone who is lying about being Christian, and many Indians would have a problem with having sex with someone who is lying about being Indian.

Is this somehow controversial? :smack:

 

[Captain Amazing]

This is Israeli law is completely unjust and makes a mockery of true rape victims. Is the man a sleaze ball? Yes. Is he a rapist? No, not according to the actual definition of rape. (YES, I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED LAW.)

The actual definition of rape is in the goddamned law, so what are you talking about if you're not talking about the goddamned law?

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

You haven't pointed out any dishonesty in this thread. You've spluttered for three pages about how dishonest... well, pretty much everyone except you is, but you haven't actually backed it up.

 

[onomatopoeia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...led-for-rape-after-claiming-to-be-Jewish.html

Basically, a very naughty Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to a girl he met in the street, and they had sex like ten minutes later.

She found out he is an Arab, and he is going to jail.

For rape.

Basically she is such a racist that it is rape for her to have dirtied herself by having sex with an Arab.

1980's South Africa is chortling.

Disgusting, and one of a piece with other exhibitions of rationalized discrimination and racism, not to mention hypocrisy, sanctioned in Israeli law. Color me unsurprised.

 

[FinnAgain]

That's the problem though, this is a classic he said she said situation.

Sometimes cases are decided based on one person's word against another's. Especially if it's a case of someone having allegedly said something in order to defraud someone into a particular set of actions.

This is Israeli law is completely unjust and makes a mockery of true rape victims.

If it'll save you from getting all in a tizzy, think of it as "the crime that is known as not obtaining accurate consent by willfully misrepresenting facts such that your potential sexual partner is not allowed to make an honest appraisal and by which you defraud them into agreeing to sex."

Is he a rapist? No, not according to the actual definition of rape. (YES, I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED LAW.)

You don't know what the you're talking about except you're prepared to be difficult. The 'actual definition of rape' is:

[quote]2 : [U]unlawful sexual activity[/U] and [I]usually[/I] sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent[/quote]

 

[Bosstone]

Whether or not the law is a just one, it's pretty clear it's not a racist one.

 

[Jackmannii]

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.

As opposed to real rabbis, who can actually "cure" people?

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.

I think you're also straining very hard (and unsuccessfully) to cast these two incidents as completely different, and failing to obscure the fact that in one case an apparently Jewish male was prosecuted in Israel for rape by fraud, and in the other a Palestinian male was prosecuted under the same law. The degree of culpability is certainly not the same, but the behavior was viewed as criminal for similar reasons.

Besides, didn't the Palestinian faker provide the same "service" as the fake rabbi? :dubious:

 

[Honesty]

Fraud is not protected speech.

I'm sort of hung up on this. How is it fraud? Let me ask you this. If a guy tells a woman that he has a 9 inch penis to get her to go to bed with him and she finds out the next morning that he has a 5 inch penis, is that fraud? Should he go to jail? What about in Disney's Aladdin? Should the motherfucker be executed or imprisoned because he lied that he was a Prince instead of a pauper so he could have sex with Jasmine? Men lie and exaggerate all of the time to get pussy - it's so common that the phenomenon is nearly a proverb. This should be a lesson to the woman that you should take anything a man says with a grain of salt.

- Honesty, who is flying on a carpet

 

[Giraffe]

Guin: you are a bovine mouthbreather whose post county doesn't disguise the fact that your brain is simply sub-standard. Your posts, reliably, can be replaced by a sustained mooing.
The fact that the lie that Giraffe (and a couple others) are using is a lie that they're hoping will gain traction if they lie enough is not of issue to you. The fact that I correctly called it what it is, why, that's just horrible.

Chew your cud.

Anyways, honestly Giraffe, you never used to be this stupid. I mean, you're going Full Retard here, and while it's impressive to watch you fling your own feces around, it's a bit embarrassing too.



Honestly, what's it going to take for you to stop lying? Seriously, have you just decided that the Big Lie demands that you lie constantly, or what? Don't you have at least enough personal integrity to cringe when you lie and call your lie "the fact"? Doesn't some part of you rebel against your level of dishonesty?

I know that the anti-Israel Brigade likes this lie and they repeat it a lot, but it's laughably false. The fact that many of them are bigots and do lie (of course, you've ignored the instances of bigotry and lying in this thread to spew your idiocy at me, naturally) doesn't make the fact that I point out their behavior somehow wrong.



You never were such a craven coward as to lie about something and then retreat, like a whipped dog, to claims that your lies are merely an "opinion" and that pointing out that you're lying is a sign of mental illness when you're provably lying. If you're going to make shit up about someone, then at least man up and admit it. Whether or not something is factual is not an "opinion". You lied about me and claimed I did something I do not. That's not an "opinion", that's a lie.

It's fucking retarded of you to lie about me and then get your panties in an (even bigger) twist because, gorsh, you were just making shit up about me, but you were only making up an opinion. That's even lamer than the "hyperbole" crowd.




Honest question. Are you trolling, or have you suddenly become mind-numblingly stupid? Your claim was fictional, made up, invented, bullshit. It was a lie. What, you think you're allowed to lie about how someone posts and not just their views, and then that's not a lie because... why, exactly?
Help me follow the trail-of-stupid that you're laying out here.

Of course, you always post screaming rage at anybody who doesn't support torturing kittens. Not that it's a lie, that's just my opinion. Right?
Honestly, why are you being so fucking retarded today?



Again, why this level of stupid?
Rather obviously you have decided, for whatever reason, to lie about how I post in order to make a personal attack on me. This isn't rocket science here. Are you, perhaps, running a high fever?

Well, I stand corrected. I can't believe I had the nerve to say you "go off on someone for disagreeing with you over anything related to Israel with wildly disproportionate rhetoric and accusations". Boy, is my face red!

 

[Malthus]

According to Haaretz, he was charged with rape and indecent assault. I am unclear on the details of the definition of indecent assault, but to call it "violent rape" smacks of a certain editorializing. This is indeed how many articles are characterizing it.

If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?

According to the article:

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

Rubinstein said the question was also whether an ordinary person would expect such a woman to have sex with a man without the false identity he created.

In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.

One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud

The only precedent appears to deal with coercion more than deception:

In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.

I hate to inject some actual content into this train-wreck ...

But in answer to your question: it would appear to be a recent change in the law, set by the 2008 High Court decision. Prior to that there was no such animal as "rape by deception".

In short, based on the exact same facts, in 2007 this fellow would have been charged with "fraud" and in 2010 with "rape by deception".

 

[FinnAgain]

I notice that you totally dodged the substance of my point, which is that the people who try to take me to task can't ever seem to spare a word for any of the dishonesty or blatant prejudice that gets tossed around all the time. It's telling that you don't care about that at all. Anyways:

You haven't pointed out any dishonesty in this thread.

Who do you think you're fooling (other than the crowd who condone bigotry and dishonesty but get a case of the vapors when someone else doesn't?)
Let's start with a real blatant example: was anybody actually jailed for being a Palestinian? No? then the OP was lying. Gee, that's one bit of dishonesty I pointed out.

So, of course, that then raises the question, why it is that you don't understand that is dishonest, or why you do and you'd claim it's not in order to make spurious claims about me. Care to answer?

After that, we can look at any of the other lies that I've pointed out in this thread, like Damuri's lie that I've ever called him an anti-Semite, or while we're at it his lie that I've called many people, at all, anti-Semites. Maybe Damuri's lie that I do thus and such against anybody who criticizes Israel at the same time as he admits that I'm peachy with quite a few people who criticize Israel, but they don't count since they don't criticize Israel enough (even though his original lie was that I do thus and such every single time anybody criticizes Israel) Then maybe Amnawhatever's lie about some "rockets" nonsense or other, i wasn't really able to track it as apparently he just made it up out of wholecloth and wasn't even distorting one of my positions.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

 

[Babale]

Well then the "popular meaning" covers only a small percentage of rapes, then.

Yes. Also, the popular meaning of UFO (Alien Spacecraft ZOMG!!!!) is not the actual meaning (Of anything in the sky you can't identify). There are more examples, but you get the point.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

Swearing up and down that you're a famous surgeon is, in most jurisdictions, a crime in and of itself. Pretending to be somebody for material gain is fraud.

I'm reminded of Brian Jackson, who was fined $300 for pretending to be various Pittsburgh Steelers players. Guess what he was never charged with? Rape.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's the application that that's racist.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

You can't find one single post where I called you an anti-Semite. And you know it.

Of course you call me an anti-Semite. You call half the people who criticize Israel anti-Semite. You may not use the word anti-Semite all the time (or even any of the time) but you are still calling them anti-Semites.

In other words, you're a liar. You can't cite me calling anybody an anti-Semite because you simply made it up.

OR it is possible to call someone an anti-semite without using the word anti-semite. I'm not going to dig for examples but you have said things sorta liek this:

"You criticize Israel for doing crappy shit but you don't criticize Hamas when they do even worse things, why is that? Is it because Israel is full of Jews?"

You may never use the word anti-semite but the implication is clear. You are calling me an anti-semite.

You can obviously add to the conversation. I think you were one of the first people to point out that the commando raid on the maru (while stupid for all sorts of reasons) wasn't actually illegal. This changed the direction of the conversation. Every time someone called it illegal someone just reposted your link. If instead of doing that, you had simply ranted about bigotry, noone would have listened to a thing you said.

Dial it down a little bit. Don't assume that everyone who criticizes Israel had some sort of agenda. Perhaps we have been misinformed. I learned something about teh formation of israel during that first "conversation" that we had. if you hadn't started out with calling me ignorant, "disingenuous" or "bigoted" it might have even been a pleasant learning experience. As it turned out, it was like finding out that fetuses can feel pain from a foaming at the mouth pro-lifer. Its something to think about but its hard to think while you're wiping off flecks of spit from your face.

 

[onomatopoeia]

The same law is on the books in many other places, including some US states.

I didn't know that but, okay, when was it last enforced?

What the judge said is that people who lie to get sex are "smooth tounged criminals". How exactly is that some sort of proof of racism in society?

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.

Even if this particular woman is as racist as a barrel of KKK members, it is her right to choose not to sleep with someone - because she doesn't like his skin colour or his ancestry or whatever.

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.

What a "former Israeli minister official" says has no bearing on what the Judge ordered.

Nevertheless, he's merely stating a truism - that many women in Israeli society would feel unhappy about having sex with someone who is not Jewish, if they had been lied to about the matter. That would be true outside of Israel, too.

For that matter, many Christians would have a problem having sex with someone who is lying about being Christian, and many Indians would have a problem with having sex with someone who is lying about being Indian.

None of which should send someone to jail, especially when we know damned well the penalty would not be the same if the roles were reversed.

From the linked article...

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.

Is this somehow controversial? :smack:

No, sadly, but it should be.

 

[Babale]

So is it fraud if someone lies about being married or says "I love you" if they don't.

Yes and yes.

If a man would not have slept with a woman if he had known she was married and he decides to sue, then yes, it is fraud.

The only reason the "I love you" part doesn't count as fraud is because you can't prove that someone DOESN'T love someone else.

you know damn good and well there would be no prosecution if the races were reversed.

No. No, I don't. But I guess you are an Israel expert and know every tiny detail of its legal system with relation to rape by fraud, just like Marmite Lover is an expert on Israel's plans to attack Turkey with a full-scale nuclear assault.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

Besides, didn't the Palestinian faker provide the same "service" as the fake rabbi? :dubious:

Yes, but he didn't purport to offer any other service, did he?

 

[Alessan]

Which is why there's a judicial process.

 

[Jackmannii]

This is an evasion of the question and the issue. "Yeah, but Muslims are eeeeevil, does not get Israel off the hook for its own Jim Crow practices.

Except that of course I did not say that, and was responding to Damuri's "Why not compare what is happening to this guy to what would happen to a Jew that conned a muslim girl into having sex by claiming he was muslim".

Do you even bother to read the posts you pretend to refute, or do you just do a quick scan for excuses to spout your biases?