What is the actual precedent for this case? Is there one? If a Palestinian woman had been misled by an Israeli man, would the same thing have happened? If it hasn’t happened already, does this mean that Israeli men are far more honourable than their Palestinian counterparts? Seems highly unlikely to me. Men seem to be men wherever you go with regard to their baser instincts.
The answer is obviously “yes”.
Otherwise there is no meaning to the notion that a woman, or man, has a choice to be perfectly racist in his or her choice of bed-mates.
The state should be utterly indifferent as to what basis a person chooses to have sex. It is their totally subjective choice. If that choice is removed, by coercion or (arguably) by fraud, that removal of choice is a crime.
Society has a valid interest in interfereing with freedom of choice in some matters - for example, employment. I do not believe that one has an unfettered discretion to choose not to employ qualified candidates on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
However, it is I contend utterly absurd to argue - as you and others are doing - that the same principles apply to whom you choose to sleep with.
Not at all. Not only is it not ‘extreme’ support for racism, it isn’t in and of itself racism at all.
Either a person has a right to meaningful, fraud-free consent to sex under all circumstances or they don’t. If fraud removes consent, there is no principled basis on which to carve out ethnic identity as an exception.
Put it this way: a woman does not have the right, in our society, to refuse to serve a Black (or a Jew or an Arab) at a lunch counter. Thus, there are limits and qualifications on her choice in performing wait-staff services.
You appear to be arguing that the same sorts of limits and qualifications ought to apply on her choice as to who to fuck. How does that make any sense?
Because Israel is still a democracy.
So when you say the right people you think people are being bigoted against Israelis not Jews. OK I hear you. But the thing is, my problem isn’t with israelis. its with Israel.
Same here. I don’t even know any Israelis to hate, but I do hate what they allow themselves to be represented by.
Cite?
[quote=“FinnAgain, post:320, topic:547472”]
I guess one is the result of prejudices I brought to the table, the other is because your style of argument drives the debate towards proving the other person wrong rather than towards discovering the truth.
To be fair, you seem to have undergone a minor transformation in the second half of this thread, I hope it sticks because you have a lot ot offer in thisw debate and in almost every other thread i encounter you, I tend to agree with your perspective (if not your style).
You remind me of one of my partners. Rational in most other respects, totally frothing at the mouth when it comes to Israel.
I don’t know what do YOU think this means? Is there a media bias against israel? If so then its a relatively recent bias because the bias seemed to run quite the other way until recent years.
You mean you weren’t trying to justify a morally reprehensible relationship by saying that it was politically necessary?
So Israel was the crazed knife wielding maniac in your analogy? I think the point is that some things cannot be justified. Its like trying to justify any morally reprehensible act. Just own up to its reprehensibility but say you support the reprehensible actor anyways for other reasons.
Well, if you haven’t done so before, you certainly have done so now.
Why can’t they jsut vote them out. If they become that discredited, they evaporate (with their social sevices functions integrated into the government) and become little more than an armed gang of disaffected criminals.
Noone said that. Its obvious you have a greater understanding of the facts and the complexities than I do its just that when you foam at the mouth I don’t feel I can trust your presentation of those facts and complexities.
I’ll be the first to admit that I have operated under some commonly held myths about teh situation in Israel but your response indicated that not only was I wrong, I knew I was wrong and you didn’t even need to prove I was wrong because the myth had so thuroughly been debunked. I felt like you were calling me a liar. Then someonel like would Malthus provide a link and explain where the myth came from, that tehre was SOME basis of facts underlying the myth but it was not as clear cut as I had been led to believe (malthus might present the argument that it was pretty clear the opposite was true but i would have some doubts and reservations that the answer was clearly the other way).
OK well let me present an anology. You have some land and you have apple trees. There is a law against trespassing. You are not selfish but you also a racist, so you “real Americans” enter your land and eat as many apples as they want. A Jew (not a “real American”) comes along and wants an apple, he says he is a “Real American” in the KKK sense of the word so you let him eat your apples. A few days later you notice the same fellow walking around town with a yamulka on his head. Should you be able to have the cops arrest him at that point? Putting aside the length of the incarceration, would you be troubled if the cops had never enforced the law in this manner before, would it make a difference if the town was notorious for its nazi parades and general anti-semitism?
You have every right to decide who to let on your land and eat your apples and the state protect the racist’s right to keep the Jew from entering his land and eating his apples but can the state enforce your racism DAYS after the fact? This is a much a case of fraud as any other.
I think its something to think about at least. In the US, there is were the cases of the state rescinding liquor licenses from private clubs for refusing to serve alcohol to blacks. I think there are some analogies there.
I don’t think that is his argument. We are not giving Palestinian men the right to sue the woman for refusing to sleep with them purely because they are Palestinian. I think his argument is that the woman CHOSE to sleep with the Palestinian. No coercion or force was used. Days after the fact, she discovers he is a Palestinian and the state wants to put him in jail for two years. Does anyone have cites to examples of the details of the situations of when this law has been used in the past ebcause every detailed example i have seen indicates a lot more than a one night stand.
Where have I argued that?
I can fully support the freedom of choice to do something without requiring that the law be involved. To be more precise, it is possible to argue that, a person should be permitted to racially discriminate in their sexual preferences, but that if that person is to make a mistake as to the race of the partner they select, even if that mistake is caused by a lie told by the selected partner, this is not a matter for the criminal law. Kind of a sexual caveat emptor if you will.
I’m honestly not sure where I land on this in the end. But I was merely pointing out an inconsistency in your argument.
I support an individual’s freedom to choose his or her sexual partners for whatever reason. If a person decides, for example, they only want to sleep with people with men with 12" penises, for example, and a person claims to meet that requirement, but the next morning it is discovered the person is only 11 3/4", I don’t think it a valuable use of the criminal system to prosecute the poor under-endowed man. However, there are situations where deception reaches a level that should involve the law. The problem is that one cannot write a law to include one and not the other. What I’d look for is prosecutorial discretion. It’s perfectly possible to argue that societal interests would be better served by not prosecuting a case where a person lies about his or her religion to get laid.
Sighs.
I didn’t actually say it was racist. I was merely quoting language back.
And I hope you aren’t naive enough to assume that a law that is “totally neutral and objective” on its face cannot have racist intentions and effects. A law, for example, requiring a literacy test to vote, with exemptions for those whose grandfathers held the franchise is, on its face, “totally neutral and objective” but, in past times in America had both racist intent and effects. Moreover, a law has to be applied. A neutral law can be applied in racist fashion.
We don’t know if this law is, and therefore I have made pains not to state it has been applied racistly. But the examples of Jewish men being prosecuted under it are not evidence it isn’t applied in a racist way. What would be evidence is examples of Jewish men prosecuted under it for claiming to be Muslim or Arab.
Please show me where I have argued anything like that. Not all cases of fraud, however, are equal (as I mentioned in my last response). Not all should necessarily be prosecuted. If I tell a girl I will still respect her in the morning, knowing full well I won’t, I am a heel and a cur. I don’t think it is a good use of the criminal system to put me in jail if the next day I wake up, tell her she was a lousy lay, give her $5 for a cab, and tell her I never want to see her again.
You can measure a penis before intercourse to verify the 12" claim. If you only discover that the organ doesn’t measure up after you’ve already ridden it a few times, perhaps the responsibility is yours. Likewise, I wonder to what extent it is the responsibility of the individual to verify any factual claim made by a prospective sex partner. By choosing to have sex immediately instead of going through a courtship process, you trade off some of this verification time for instant gratification.
It seems more deceptive to me to foil the verification process than it does to lie up front about being single. But if it’s deceptive to create a fake Facebook profile or some other false identity to entice people into having sex with you, then it’s also deceptive to lie up front when you first meet them. The only difference is whether you do it spontaneously to get a particular person to have sex with you or whether it represents some sort of deceptive pattern.
I think I find this ruling so troubling because it’s not racist but because it is a clearly undesirable result of a reasonable principle.
Oh yes, I think it has. There’s no doubt about it.
Unfortunately that treatment is utterly inhumane. I personally don’t accept the idea that it is morally OK for a country to kill 100 people from another country just because one of their own has been killed. The basic concept of humanity and how we treat each other transcends national borders. Both Palestinians and Israelis are human beings and deserve to be treated that way.
Rape is sex procured without meaningful choice on the part of one of the partners. That choice may not be meaningful because it is coerced. Another way that that choice may not be meaningful is that it is based on fraud.
If you accept that, what limits or qualifications are you willing to put on it? The arguments here by your “side” are all by folks apparently willing to say ‘that’s all very well, but when the fraud is about one’s ethnicity, the principle should not apply - and in fact it is racist to apply it’. Which in turn means that lying about one’s ethnicity ought to be somehow privileged - and renders meaningless the notion that a person’s choice of sex partner, a choice made free of fraud, ought not to be restrained.
That, to my mind, is nonsense. The reason that the law is bad lies with the principle as stated - it is, to my mind, over-inclusive - and not with any alleged “racism”.
What “inconsistency”?
You asked a question - “whether the power of the state should be utilized to assist someone being as racist as a whole barrel of KKK members regarding who she will sleep with”.
To my mind, the answer is an obvious “yes”. Assuming that a person’s right to sexual choice ought to be enforced at all by criminal sanctions, it is utterly immaterial whether that choice is informed by shallow materiality (wanting a surgeon), cultural factors (“I’m a Sikh and will only marry a Sikh”), or outright racism (“I’d never let a Black man touch me”).
The caveat is that, like you, I have my doubts as to whether this is an area the state should be involved in at all - that is, whether fraudsters who claim to be neurosurgeons or rock stars, or for that matter unmarried Jews, ought to be prosecuted.
But if there is - I really do not understand why someone lying about their very identity ought to be, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, less subject to the law than someone who is lying about their occupation. Other than that it evidenly gives rise to quite unjustified fears of racism on the part of the authorities.
Lying about your very identity has more of the objectively provable - and thus objectively fraudulent - about it than lying about whether you are really in love.
Similarly, lying that you have a 12" penis when really it is only 11" (your other example) is a clear cas of de minimis.
The issue with a lie that ought to be actionable is (a) is it a lie about something objectively verifiable that is (b) material and (c) that the liar knew “but for” the lie, the victim would never have consented and that (d) it is reasonable under the circumstances to expect the victim would be relying on that thing.
If this case was occurring in America, in which people have pointed out some states have the same law, could the man now sue the woman for one or more of the following?:
-
Entrapment. By not attempting to check any of the facts presented to her, despite the potential for her own personal ‘injury’ ( she REALLY doesnt want to shag a married man and will prosecute if she ends up doing so ), the woman failed to inform him that there was more at stake than just some casual sex.
-
Slander. If the prosecution can prove that the woman HAS slept with a married man before, then she just has a problem with THIS man / this particular shag. What is it?
IANA Lawyer so have probably used all the wrong words, but you see what i am getting at hopefully.
Well then, why isn’t she going to jail? I’m sure she said and obviously did many things consistent with being an easy lay. Nowhere did she include the disclaimer that she was such a bigot that she would press rape charges against someone simply because he was a Palestinian (don’t mention the marriage part, easy lays don’t give a shit about the marriage status). 
I just realized I said something similar to sinical brit.
Being a “bigot” and an “easy lay” a defence against rape?
I don’t think those arguments would fly in most courts these days. Once upon a time, certainly, a woman who was “easy” in effect couldn’t be raped.