RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Leander]

There isn't enough details in the various news accounts to know. Given that the fellow pled guilty, there would not be much of a court transcript to go on - if you plead guilty, the fact of your guilt tends to be assumed.

There is no reason to assume that the account of a guy who plead guilty of deception is 100% truthful as to the content of that deception. If the deception involved was really no deception at all, why did he plead guilty?

This is true, and definitely presents another wrinkle. I can only suppose that he didn't really understand what he was pleading to, otherwise why would he appeal later?

Frankly, for someone guilty of deception, "Dudu" doesn't appear to be too bright.

 

[Malthus]

There is no reason to assume that the account of a guy who plead guilty of deception is 100% truthful as to the content of that deception. If the deception involved was really no deception at all, why did he plead guilty?

I'm not sure. Try asking the Norfolk 4, who all plead guilty to the same rape murder, that a fifth person later admitted he committed alone. Oh, and the police also tried to railroad three other men for the same crime.

In this case the guy is appealing the verdict - but not on the basis he didn't lie. He's appealing on the basis that the punishment for lying is too harsh.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2010/07/23/14807736.html

He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, but his lawyer, Adnan Aladdin, said that's too much.

"According to the bargain, he should be punished, but we expect him to receive community service on appeal in about 30 days' time," Aladdin said.

...

Kashour said he feels bad about what he did, but is reeling from what he considers the unfairness of the punishment.

"If I told the woman I was a pilot and later she finds out that I was not a pilot, then she goes and says that 'He raped me'? If I told her that I was a millionaire and it turns out that I am a poor man, then she goes and says that 'He raped me'?"

Why would a guy who did *not* in fact lie claim to feel "bad about what he did", or make the argument that lying about being a pilot etc. shouldn't amount to rape? Why would he be arguing that the *punishment for what he did* was too severe?

 

[Malthus]

Here's the part I have a big problem with:
"Kashur was originally accused of violent rape and indecent assault, but later accepted the lesser charge under a plea-bargain after prosecutors received evidence suggesting the encounter was consensual."

Why was he initially charged with a violent crime? Did she misrepresent events, or were the police and prosecutors overzealous in their application of the law? Optics are pretty bad from my point of view.

People accept plea-bargains all the time. In every case, does this mean that the police were overzealous and/or alleged victims lying about the more serious charge?

 

[Malthus]

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

I for one haven't, to my knowledge, impersonated someone else to get laid; though the stuff of (creepy) romantic comedies, I seriously doubt it is as common as you claim.

The answer would appear to be that the test for whether the lie is truly material enough to qualify has a subjective and an objective component: that is, whether a hypothetical "reasonable person" would find the lie to be of such significance that 'but for' the lie, the consent would not have been obtained.

Thus, slightly exaggerating one's prowess at golf, or sexual abilities, or whatever may simply be considered too minor a matter - in the lingo of contract law, "mere puffery". OTOH, lying about one's marital status and ethnicity probably would qualify.

 

[amanset]

Good to see that idiots like you will allow any dishonesty as long as it supports your anti-Israel narrative, and then you'll get upset when called on it. Due to how very honest and honorable you are.
Of course, the OP was lying, nobody was "jailed for being Palestinian", and you know that. The OP knew that, too. But you'll defend someone lying in order to say something negative about Israel because that's just the kind of person you are. (Honorable, and honest, too!)

Mate, I haven't even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.

Just pointing out that for the umpteenth time you joined the discussion throwing around accusations of lying. At least get a fucking thesaurus and add some synonyms to the mix. And possibly a dictionary so you can look up "hyperbole".

 

[amanset]

I find it genuinely amusing that we're here, a page and a half or so later and several posts from FinnAgain, but he still won't tell me what I was lying about.

I pointed out what you were lying about. And you know it. Good bait though.

Seriously, where? Can you point me to it?

 

[ivan astikov]

Good bait though.

See, this is how deluded you are, fella. You really think that some Dopers want to hook you in, when really the vast majority are hoping and praying that you don't show up. Seriously, FA, go and write a book about your perceptions of the ME conflict and go and peddle it somewhere where people actually give a fuck what your opinion is. If you can find such a person.

Hey, Malthus and Alessan might buy a copy, or at least let you send them a freebie!

 

[Malthus]

It'd be interesting to see that come into play in a statutory rape case where a minor girl lied about her age in order to seduce an adult man. Both parties could technically be guilty of raping each other.

There is an article on exactly that topic posted above ...

 

[Villa]

Where? In this thread?

No - a journal article on rape law. I just cut and pasted rather than retyping.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

I do not see how this differes materially from the Israeli law in issue.

Well, since the Tennessee and Alabama statutes have never been interpreted in this manner, it seems pretty obvious that they do differ materially.

As far as I can tell, the relevant Israeli law has not actually been cited here, but Israeli legal analysts all apparently consider this application of it unusual, to say the least.

 

[Malthus]

Thank you for addressing my points. IMO the change in law by the High Court, and the subsequent ruling by Judge Segal, presents a fairly obvious slippery slope.

The first instance seems a bit easier to understand - he coerced his victims into sex by not only misrepresenting himself but also offering something (which he did not have) in exchange for sex. "Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him."

But in the second instance the Judge ruled because he lied about two things, not being Jewish and not wanting a "serious romantic relationship", he was guilty of "rape by deception".

So let's leave out the Jewish angle for a moment - does this mean that any woman can claim rape if the man pretends he wants to be in a relationship but really doesn't? What about guys who lie about their job (as the "doctor" did in the earlier case)? If that's the case, there will be a whole hell of a lot of rapists out there to be arrested.

As I mentioned upthread, I can understand the case for "rape by deception" when there is coercion, but I cannot really grasp where the line is for simply lying. And frankly I think (and hope) this will be overturned on appeal, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. (I also hope for a pony, so there you go...)

I agree that the law as stated is questionable. Personally, I think "rape by deception" should be limited to some very clear-cut categories, and not be 'at large'.

You are quite correct - under the law as stated, a married man (never mind Jewish) who seeks sex based on holding out a relationship would be guilty. Ditto for the guy claiming to be a surgeon when he's not.

From the above noted article:

However, Pugach said the fact that he is married doesn't bode well for Kashour.

 

[FinnAgain]

Probably something to do with Jim Crow.

Well, duh. We know that if a woman went to the police and made a formal complaint of rape via deception that they'd first ask "Are you Jewish?" and then ask "Was he Muslim" and then, and only then, would they choose whether or not to act. The only reason they'd bring charges against any Jew is if he used fraud to trick someone who was an even bigger Jew than he was into having sex. The guy who pretended to be a neurosurgeon? They discovered that he went to temple only on the High Holy Days, and the chicks he banged were totally in at least every other Shabbat, so they threw the book at the guy. The guy who pretended to have pull with the housing authority? He never even had a bar mitzvah service and one of the women he tricked into having sex was a rabbi's daughter and she kept kosher! (The bailiffs had to pull the judges off the man's limp body after they beat him unconscious and tried to tear him limb from limb).

And, of course, if a Muslim woman were to ever go in and claim that a Jew lied to her to get her in the sack, the police would point to the "hah hah, we hate Muslims" part of the statute and indicate that they would, therefore, not investigate the matter further.
And then they'd rape her.

We know this, because Israelis are all vile racist sneaky lying nogoodniks.
And part of what makes them so horrible, we know, is that they all think something like that about Palestinians (we know). What nerve!

 

[Malthus]

Well, since the Tennessee and Alabama statutes have never been interpreted in this manner, it seems pretty obvious that they do differ materially.

If ypu mean they have never been interpreted so as to charge an Israeli Arab with lying about being a Jew for sleeping with an Israeli Jew, you are probably right ... but other than that, I haven't seen any actual proof of how they have been interpreted. No-one has cited any case law, one way or the other. So I'd hesitate to state with such positivity that it has "never" been applied "in this manner".

Point is that, as the article states, they cast the net of what constitutes "fraud" widely, and that deception vitiates consent.

As far as I can tell, the relevant Israeli law has not actually been cited here, but Israeli legal analysts all apparently consider this application of it unusual, to say the least.

The "Israeli legal analyst" quoted in the article claimed that the law was generally only applied in cases of "protracted deceit" and with a "promise of marriage". As pointed out upthread, this does not fit the description of the leading Israeli case (which involved a guy posing as a Ministry official dispensing favours), so this characterization of the law must clearly be incorrect.

 

[RedFury]

Rather obviously yes, people are giving me shit because I'm pointing out the facts (several, including yourself, have admitted in fact that you don't care at all about the facts and you're merely giving me shit because I'm pointing them out.)
If I wasn't pointing out that bigotry is bigotry or dishonesty is dishonesty, people like you wouldn't be spazzing out. That seems fairly elementary.

And no, you and a few assholes are not "everybody", despite your delusions of multiplicity. You just spazz out when certain facts are mentioned, like that many of the arguments we've seen have been based on dishonesty and bigotry. You flail about aimlessly when that's pointed out, because, well, that's your damage. God only knows why you and others can't bring themselves to condemn bigotry and dishonesty, but gets their panties in a good ol' bunch if it gets pointed out.

Good use of the bandwagon fallacy though, add flavor.

Then why is it being criticized so heavily inside Israel? Is there actually more recognition of the problems in Israeli society by Israelis than there are by Zionists in Texas?

Oh FFS... it's getting a lot of controversy in Israel because there are lots of divergent opinions. Of course you're assuming that, gee, maybe that's proof that Israel is bad and racist and blah blah. You're still not getting it. Malthus is treating you with kid gloves and that evidently has no effect either. You've admitted that you have a natural anti-Israel bias that you habitually stick new facts into and have to work against. He pointed out to you that you're merely assuming the worst about Israel and then constructing hypotheticals to justify that. Now you're doing the same thing, again.

And one of the reasons it's receiving opposition is because the law itself is pretty damn silly and this is probably an unintended consequence of how it's written. And yet again a valid debate on the actual issues is obscured because so much time has to be spent simply fact checking. if we could've done away with the "ZOMG, Jim Crow Apartheid!!!" and "Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian and the woman thought that merely sleeping with an Arab made her dirty!" nonsense, folks could've actually raised sane objections to the law.

:::::Yaaawn::::

Congrats Frothy, first person on my ignore list.

Fuckin' nutbar.

Get help.

 

[amanset]

No - a journal article on rape law. I just cut and pasted rather than retyping.

So when you wrote "I'm glad that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine." you actually realise that what you really meant was "I don't know if that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine."

You see, because all I had to go on is "Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them". *That* I do not see as rape. Add in things like trying to forcibly get his penis inside of them, then it is a different matter.

Don't get arsey if you don't provide all the evidence.

 

[FinnAgain]

I do have to admit, it is gratifying to be called insane by one of the board's few actual anti-Semites.
Kinda like having a Klanner tell you that you've just gone too far in the whole "equality" thing.
I'm obviously doing something right.

Found any more people in the US government whose names sound Jewish to you, who you'd like to accuse of potential treason? (Greek Orthodox folks can be included if you confuse them with Jews and slander them by accident)
Ah well.
Thanks, you can go back to drinking, assuming you'd taken a break.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

I can't keep up with all the shit in all the pages, but one aspect I think hasn't been addressed is the extent to which Kashur went to 'convince' the woman he was Jewish.

The accounts differ depending on who you ask. He makes it sound like it was confusion on the woman's part, she makes it sound like he explicitly said that he was an eligible Jewish bachelor (judging from the picture I saw of him, it wasn't because he was so good looking) in an attempt to have sex with her.

...But of course people won't mind, because it's the 'proper' target. ...
Just like you've all been going bonkers over correct accusations of misbehavior (rather than the misbehavior itself, which you couldn't care less about), as long as that misbehavior directed at the 'right' target. ...

OR it is possible to call someone an anti-semite without using the word anti-semite.

You invented it and can't back it up. Not only have I never said you're an anti-Semite, but I've never said anything equivalent to it. Ever. Not once. You'd quote it if I had rather than inventing a quote that has nothing to do with anything I've ever said, anywhere, at all.

So in the first sentence, I would say you are accusing "people" of antisemitism.

In the second sentence, I would say that you accuse Ionizer of anti-semitism.

If you are not accusing "people" and Ionizer of anti-semitism then what are you doing when you imply that some things seem to be acceptable as long as the targets are the "right people"?

Now this doesn't prove that you ever leveled these sort of veiled accusations at me but...

I'm not going to dig for examples

Because this idiocy already takes up too much of my time. I made that mistake in my first "debate" with you. I ended up spending hours looking up old posts to prove my point to you until I realized how futile it was.

No, it didn't really change the direction of the conversation, as people were continually claiming that it was illegal, that it wasn't allowed in international waters, that it was piracy, etc, etc, etc.

I remember having to correct people maybe 3 or 4 times after which people stopped bringing it up. Maybe that's the problem. You don't realize that sometimes repetition is necessary on these message boards because it is really easy to gloss over a post unless you are paying a LOT of attention to what everyone else says. I know that I miss stuff sometimes and when I do people remind me of the facts again. Perhaps you might remember that when you reply with posts saying "I already proved that some time ago so there is no need to mention it again" on page 8 of some thread. Would it kill you to actually state the facts again?

Then why is it being criticized so heavily inside Israel? Is there actually more recognition of the problems in Israeli society by Israelis than there are by Zionists in Texas?

Oh FFS... it's getting a lot of controversy in Israel because there are lots of divergent opinions. Of course you're assuming that, gee, maybe that's proof that Israel is bad and racist and blah blah.

I think the opposite. As much as I dislike the teabaggers I think the teabaggers are a pretty good indicator that we live in a democracy. Why is it that almost everyone (including the Israel apologists) will admit that there is at least some problems with Israel but you cannot seem to bring yourself to admit even that much.

Then why is it being criticized so heavily inside Israel? Is there actually more recognition of the problems in Israeli society by Israelis than there are by Zionists in Texas?

For exactly the same reason. Plenty of folks *in* Israel are heavily critical of Israeli society (that is, in fact, one of the attractive points of that country). Those who are already critical, are going to be predisposed to viewing this matter in that light.

It is IMHO a big mistake to view lots of internal criticism of a society as proof that the society is, in fact, objectively more worthy of criticism. The most ominous societies lack internal criticism.

As a critic of Israel, I wouldn't want to hang my hat on this incidence as the smoking gun. In light of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law it is difficult for me to approach this case without a jaundiced eye.

In this case the guy is appealing the verdict - but not on the basis he didn't lie. He's appealing on the basis that the punishment for lying is too harsh.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2010/07/23/14807736.html

He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, but his lawyer, Adnan Aladdin, said that's too much.
...

Kashour said he feels bad about what he did, but is reeling from what he considers the unfairness of the punishment.

Well, that sounds like an admission of actual guilt to me rather than one of those "I'll plead guilty to get a lighter sentence because I know this kangaroo court is going to convict me whether or not I did it" sort of guilty pleas. I will note two things:

Some people still seem to think the law is being applied with prejudice (but I think its iffy either way).

His lawyer's name is Aladdin? I don't think I've ever seen that name IRL before.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This article on the ramifications of rape by fraud mentions a 1993 case in Israel, where a man named Raine Marcus who posed as a rabbi, was found guilty in nine cases of sexual assault and fraud (supposedly he made claims about "curing" the women).*

Probably something to do with Jim Crow. :dubious:

This does not involve deception about race, but about religious authority.

NONE of this shit should be illegal, but this doesn't even involve the kind coercive manipulation that law was designed to prosecute

Dio, shut your face and go try to be less of an idiot, please. I get it, you're a raging anti-Israel bigot and you're willing to lie and imagine whatever the fuck you want as long as it reinforces your bigotry. The law would "never be" enforced if it was a Jew being charged, and we know this because, well, because you're a bigot who hates Israel so you made it up. And it's disingenous to pretend that your bigoted fantasy isn't factual because, well, your bigotry is the really cool kind.
You really are a disgusting bigoted freak though, just because you hate a nationality and not an ethnicity doesn't make it "okay"

Saying he "lied about his identity" because he gave a fake name to a bar hook up is disingenuous on your part, and you know damn good and well there would be no prosecution if the races were reversed.

hell, they originally wanted to harge this kid with forcible rape -- FORCIBLE, just because he was an Arab kid banging a Jewish girl. Don't tell me that's not Jim Crow.

 

[DSeid]

It'd be interesting to see that come into play in a statutory rape case where a minor girl lied about her age in order to seduce an adult man. Both parties could technically be guilty of raping each other.

That's the pdf link about rape by fraud that I linked to and quoted from. It was specifically focused on that concept. Warning: it is a bit long.

Damuri examples of the other cases of rape by fraud prosecuted in Israel have been provided in this thread. Have you forgotten already?

As far as your understanding of the facts of the case ... where exactly do you get those? All I can find is that the man has plea bargained to an admission that he lied about his religious identity in order to get sex. As a result of that plea bargain he is getting 18 months. If you have sources for more details pleas share them.

And from your pot point I take it that you are trying to say that the statistical analysis of one case being brought against a Palestinian male for rape by fraud regarding religious identity against a Jewish female vs none against a Jewish male for the same crime against a Palestinian female (albeit Jewish males have been prosecuted for lies about their jobs, which I would think is less important than religious identity to many) is evidence of racist application of a law? You sure that's not you smoking the pot?

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

Damuri:
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. This is the nitpicky sort of shit that makes people at you.

He didn't call you an anti-semite for two reasons: If he did, you (or someone else) would start a self-righteous rant about how "semite" includes Arabs, therefore he can't possibly be anti-semetic.

The other reason is that you don't seem to hate all Jews, just the Jews who want their own country.

I wouldn't nitpick like that. If someone called me an anti-semite, I would know what they meant.