I hope the appeal succeeds - because extenting rape by fraud to such a tangental misrepresentation is absurd.
That’s my whole point!
It’s clearly ridiculous. “Ewww, he had Palestinian cooties” is no more justification for a rape charge than, “Well, I thought she was just an easy lay. I’m suing her for being a bigot.” Actually, he has more of a case to sue her because she actually did something serious to him.
And you keep saying you’re against the general rape by fraud. There may actually be legitimate cases of rape by fraud. However, many of us suspect that there is rare precedent for this and this case is the state supporting a woman’s bigotry. By doing that, you’re downplaying the bigger picture. Otherwise, this case would be nothing but RO.
But you clearly don’t want to see that or you see it and don’t want to admit it, so I’m tired of wasting my time.
In short, you think this is state bigotry and no amount of logic or facts will persuade you otherwise.
You quoted the inconsistency yourself. My problem was that you were accusing people of saying that a woman wasn’t entitled to be racist in her choices sexually. She absolutely is. But the question isn’t whether she has that right. The question is whether the criminal law should be used to sanction those who seek to mask their ethnicity.
That’s an open question. We don’t always enforce things through the criminal law. Sometimes we leave it up to the ‘victim’ to sue under civil law if they feel wronged.
Because the irradication of racism is a societal objective, whereas the irradication of employment based discrimination has not been given the same priority. That doesn’t mean individuals don’t have a right to be racist, but we place limits on the degree to which the state will use its power to enforce one’s right. As I said, I don’t know how you can write the law to exclude some types of fraud, but that is when to look to the prosecutor. I’d hope they looked very hard before prosecuting any allegations of race based lies.
It isn’t an “inconsistency”. The notion that certain types of lies are not actionable through criminal law (if others are) in effect states that the right to choose freely is limited by that degree - it is not absolute, since the right will, in those cases, not be enforced.
Exactly - this is a case in which you are calling on the state to limit the degree to which the state will enforce one’s rights. That’s my point.
Such limits make perfect sense in some fields - like employment, or service. They do not make any sense in others - like the choice of sexual or romantic partner.
The notion that such “race based lies” in the field of romance ought, for policy reasons, to be beyond the pale doesn’t make logical sense to me, precisely because in so many cultures who you are is an important consideration - and there are no policy reasons to disapprove of that. If Sikhs wish to marry other Sikhs, that desire does not offend against public policy. Contrast with Sikhs wishing only to employ other Sikhs, or wishing only to serve other Sikhs in a reastaurant.
I thought it was common knowledge. Politics of Israel - Wikipedia
Its not simply that Israel is a democracy. Its that Israel is a democracy that has elected a hawkish reactionary government because of terrorism. You can justify all sorts of things if you are scared and you feel like the victim. There still seems to be a lot of psychological baggage that relates back to the war of independence and Khartoum.
Sometimes it seems like they don’t realize that they are a dominant military power in the region, I don’t think any of their immediate neighbors could take them in a war.
Well I agree the law is silly in any case and I am probably influenced by the state of the law in America. I would cite the case of the country club that had its liquor license revoked when the club forbade the sale of alcohol to blacks. I’m not saying that this is an analogous case but the court recognized that in some cases, the government is violating the constitutional prescription against discrimination based on race by exercising their authority to allow that private discrimination.
However, this is Israel, not America. In Israel it may be permissible for the government to use their authority to support the racism of others. The question is whether what may be racist in America may be racist in Israel as well.
[quote=“Maeglin, post:332, topic:547472”]
The question is whether there is racism here (not counting the racism of the woman). Is a facially neutral law that (prohibits deception to acquire sex) gives the force of the law to a woman’s prejudice in a case like this where the man lied about his race, racist in its application generally (it would be racist if a Jewish man lied about being a Muslim to have a one night stand with a Muslim woman) and therefore cannot be applied to distinctions that the law would not permit the government to make.
If you say, maybe but he also lied about his marital status, then you ask the second question. Is there any evidence of racism in a case of first impression being brought up in a situation that has to be an everyday occurrence in every neighborhood in the world (maybe that’s too broad but not by a whole lot).
Are you saying that there is a duty of care? Do you think that the rule should only apply where you care enough to check and if that verification is foiled by deception? How much verification is required, how much of that must be foiled? So if I say I’m single, you don’t see a ring on my finger, the friends that I am with all swear that I am single and I take you back to my bachelor pad (that my wife knows nothing about), is that enough deception to trigger the law? Where do we draw that line? Was taking off my wedding band foiling verification, how about my friends vouching for my bachelorhood? How about the bachelor pad I keep for just such an occasion?
I think that is Malthus’s position as well but if this is in fact the law (no matter how stupid), then shouldn’t it be applied in this case?
Does Israel deserve any more criticism than America did for invading Iraq. But for the invasion of Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis may still be alive today. It was one of the reasons that America eventually kicked out the Republicans (for a couple of years at least).
I posted above about giving the force of law to personal racism. I can be racist about who picks apples from my tree but should the law really punish a person who pretended to be white to get an apple?
Someone brought up the question of whether the victim was reasonably relying on that claim? If the Jewishness of her lovers is so important to her, why didn’t she do more than take his word for it?
I don’t know how it is in Israel but ignorance of the law is generally no excuse (even when the law is irrational and stupid).
Maybe its personal racism. A woman is undeniably free to choose who she sleeps with, using whatever criteria she desires. If she will only sleep with Jews because she thinks is more Kosher or something then that is her choice.
IANA Lawyer so have probably used all the wrong words, but you see what i am getting at hopefully.
[/QUOTE]
WTF HAPPENED TO ALADDIN?!?!?!?!
Well we are calling it rape but when I think of rape, I think of forcible rape, I don’;t think anyone would say that you can forcibly rape someone because they are a bigot or “easy” but I do think that it is more difficult for someone who is “easy” to claim that they have been fouled by having sex with someone who wasn’t who they said they were.
I think that country club case, though as you say not analogious, illuminates the precise point in dispute.
Refusing to serve a Black person in a club is the sort of thing that governments have a legitimate reason to restrain, because the choice of service, though free, is not untrammeled by public policy considerations - namely, to avoid racism.
That’s exactly the difference between service and choice of sexual partners. The government, and society as a whole, has no legitimate interest in avoiding racism in such choices.
As stated above - if a Sikh wishes to only date or marry other Sikhs, society has no interest in stepping in and (say) refusing a marriage license until that person has tried some Blacks or Jews first. 
America does not differ from Israel in this …
Reasonable reliance is certainly an issue. But generally, it doesn’t lie in a liar’s mouth to complain that the victim of the lie should have been more careful. After all, if your money was so important to you, why did you play a game of three-card monty with some disreputable guy in a bar? Etc. 
If a lawyer rubs his magic lamp and produces for his client the longest sentence in history, he tends to get replaced as counsel of record.
It’s the same principle whether forced or fooled - that we need not take the victim’s outrage over having their freedom of choice interfered with, if they are so damn casual about bestowing that choice in the first place.
Selling me a car that’s over-priced or that you know has an issue with it is unethical… and caveat Emptor to myself and the israeli woman. Let the fucking buyer beware. Methinks she should have put a little more time into it prior to knocking boots. What changes the stakes in all of this is a criminal charge… simply because something is ugly…or unethical shouldn’t include the option of jailing the offender. And its a straw horse to imply that the suspect’s ethnic identity doesn’t play a role in this… Finn and the rest can fly that trojan horse anyone with a brain can read the implications.
I think this link explains the difference between tastelessness and criminality… perhaps the Israeli high courts need more training?
http://www.jewishjournal.com/keepingthefaith/item/rape_or_hate_in_israel_20100728/
What the translation failed to note is that the new lawyer’s name begins with a “Dr”. Seems as though some big gun wants to make some constitutional law.
Good God. The State, as in district court judge Tzvi Segal, who concluded that,
These are the chilling remarks I and many others in this thread are talking about. Clearly the prosecution also has issues since it decided to pursue this nonsense. These are representatives of the State. What are these people if not representatives of the State? In fact, retired senior justice ministry official says this,
The bigger picture, which is why this thread is not a simple RO is described later in the article,
Ok, I didn’t read all 8 pages so forgive me if someone has made this point. I don’t really have a problem with the fraud=rape laws. IMHO this are based on relative worth:
Being a doctor is better than being a bum
Being single is better than being married (in terms of one night stands)
Curing a disease is better than no curing a disease
etc. etc.
Thus if someone consents on the basis of one of those lies, they are harmed because they receive less than was advertised, so to speak. My problem with this is that by convicting this gentlemen, the court finds that this woman was cheated, so to speak. To continue my analogy, the only way she is cheated is if she receives less than advertised. Thus the ruling implies that being Jewish>Palestinian, which if that’s your preference, whatever, but to put the force of government behind that is troubling.
We are not trying to get the Sikh to try out some blacks and jews. We are telling the Sikh that if they have sex with a Jew who says they Sikh, we will not send the Jew to jail.
But I hear you. We are not concerned about preventing racism in this case so why does it matter if the government enforces the law that recognizes the right to discriminate on the basis of race in cases where there is no direct public interest in preventing racism. I might point to sort of atmosphere it creates but I don’t think my argument is near as compelling as I once thought it was.
I am not sure its the same principle. I see a gap between forcible rape and what happened here. I think you do too. That may be a problem with the law itself but since the law is what it is, and if we are comparing the relevance of how “easy” someone is, I think it is irrelevant in the case of forcible rape (BTW prostitutes are pretty difficult to rape in many jurisdictions (because their occupation is admissible at trial and the defense attorneys have a field day with it)). I think it is somewhat relevant in the case of “I wouldn’t have fucked him if I knew he wasn’t Jewish”
Oh so this is probably some law school professor or something.
Well, I think we have established WITHOUT this case that Israel is a racist society. But at this point we only have the one case and between the internal outrage and the a lack of any other proof, all we really have is the suspicion that if the roles were reversed, police might not have arrested, prosecutors might not have prosecuted and the judge may not have convicted and sentenced to 2 years.
I would still like to know ore about the other cases where this law was enforced. If it was in fact enforced to send a Jewish guy who had a one night stand with a woman by claiming to be a neurosurgeon then I think that the argument gets very weak.
I think the answer to your question is that people have personal preferences in who they have sex with. For a Palestinian woman whose parents were killed by IDF, a Palestinian man might be a far superior bedmate than a Jew. In fact having sex with a Jew might be significantly more offensive to her than having sex with a Palestinian was to this woman. Of course I presume that this woman would probably have done more than take some guy’s word for it knowing that there are quite a few Jews floating around town.
A preference does not necessarily mean some sort of objective, hierarchical superiority. Many (in fact, most) religious and ethnic groups prefer to date and marry within the minority. Thus, a Sikh may wish to only date Sikhs and a Greek may wish to only date Greeks, and supporting the right to this choice does not mean that Sikhs are better than Greeks, or vice versa.
So lying about one’s ethnicity is sufficiently fraudulent that the law needs to shield women from making bad decisions about who they have sex with. Seems like that infantilizes women, but okay.
Question: If a woman says, “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill,” and a man, relying on that assurance, has sex with her, but he later finds out she was not on the pill, did she rape him? Assume that he would not have had sex with her but for her promise.
This sort of question (and no doubt many more examples that can be asked) is an illustration of why such a law is, in general, a bad idea.
See the article upthread that argues such a law could be used to charge underaged people who lie about their ages.
To my mind, such a law should really be seriously restricted (as it is in some jurisdictions). I would go further and restrict the applicable fraud to frauds about the specific identity of a particular person, like pretending to be someone’s husband or wife.
The original charge was forcible rape. The “rape by deception” was a negotiated plea to spare the victim the trauma of testifying: