July 21, 2010 on Al-Jazeera English
From The Guardian:
A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.See also: Israeli Arab who 'raped' a woman says verdict 'racist'
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.
When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.
Read more
He promised to marry me... but after 1 year he dumped me. I would like to file a complaint for multiple rape.
ReplyDeleteI'm am agog at how asinine this is. This could be something from The Onion and it would be hard to tell the diffrence.
ReplyDeletelol i shat myself
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely insane.
ReplyDeleteIf consentually screwing someone of a particular race is as traumatic to you as actually being raped, then maybe you should find out what that person's race is before deciding to screw them.
I was almost raped once, i took a girl home because she had really big boobs and when we came home and she took of her cloths, they where not really that big, it was just a push-up! I was so closed to beeing raped!
ReplyDeleteAh jeez, this is as ridiculous as saying......."I had sex with a sexy blonde man, but after having sex I saw his roots and that he was naturally burnette. I was raped!!"
ReplyDeleteI'm no longer shocked, saddened, or amused by any of this stuff anymore... You'd think that over three thousand years would be enough to work out the wrinkles of this god's-law crap... right?
ReplyDeleteI'd laugh, but things like this happen too often and hurt honest people. God forbid people live their own lives... Ah. Oops.
RACISM! this is why this conflict is not a religious one but one because of discrimination...religion just shits on it even more...
ReplyDeleteIts not even a leap to the ad absurdum ... i.e. when everyone you've ever lied to ... about anything (hey, we don't judge) ... and later had consensual sex with ... can have you successfully prosecuted for rape. Surely the end of civilization is nigh.
ReplyDeleteSigh.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of consent is permission to do something. She clearly gave the man permission to have sex with her. Presumably he didn't hold a gun to her head, or threaten her.
Furthermore, informed means having a clear understanding of the facts, implications, and conequences of the action being consented to, not your partner's religion, nationality or shoe size. If it did then all one night stands would be rape. The fact that he misinformed her is a dickish thing to do, but neither being a dick nor lying to someone is illegal per se.
<span>Sigh.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of consent is permission to do something. She clearly gave the man permission to have sex with her. Presumably he didn't hold a gun to her head, or threaten her.
Furthermore, informed consent means having a clear understanding of the facts, implications, and conequences of the action being consented to, not your partner's religion, nationality or shoe size. If it did then all one night stands would be rape. The fact that he misinformed her is a dickish thing to do, but neither being a dick nor lying to someone is illegal per se.</span>
This verdict came from a 3 judges court, one of whom an already infamous judge for being religiously (and when it comes from Judaism, racially as well) biased:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3751225,00.html
The irony is that Arabs and Jews (at least the Sephardic) are racially as close as you can get...
ReplyDeleteexactly they are both bloody semites! lol and they hate each other- fucking idiots...
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is this just belittles people who have actually been raped. Even if you side with them the most this should be called would be "sexual misdirection". Things like this only backfire on the state of Israel - it's yet another bad PR mistake for their case.
ReplyDeleteGo on then, I'll say it. If this had been Nazi Germany and the nazis had convicted a jew of rape when he had claimed to be a german, would this be anti-semitism?
ReplyDeleteStupid woman, stupid country.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is a racist state - until that problem is solved there will be no resolving the conflict in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteWhile we find it acceptable for Israel to call itself a jewish state and to insist that arab Israeli's must recognise Israel as a 'Jewish state' we are saying that race is a sufficent ground on which a state can base its identity.
That is a very dangerous idea, one that would certainly have pleased the Afrikannas.
If my ex gets wind of this, my alimony payments will quadruple.
ReplyDeleteRight, but on the other hand, being sold snake oil is done consensually, legally, and yet we do not blame the victim in that case.
ReplyDeleteThe difference of course is that a sale happens, for the most part, in the public sphere, and can therefore be policed. Policing the sexual interactions of the planet is not going to be possible...
If you read the end of the Guardian article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew
you'll see that not everyone, not even in the (right-wing) government thinks this "Jewish state" business if a good idea or even necessary.
<span>
<p>Dan Meridor, a deputy prime minister in Binyamin Netanyahu's government, is opposed to the proposal. "Why does every bill need the word 'Jewish' in it – to show the Arab citizens that it doesn't belong to them? Then we're all shocked when they radicalise their stance.
</p><p>"The majority doesn't need to remind the minority that it is in fact a minority all the time," he added.
</p></span>
"Jewish state" is a misunderstanding due to the hijacking of the state by the ultra orthodox.
ReplyDeleteIsrael was labeled a Jewish state to differentiate from an Arab state that should've been founded along side of it. In context within the declaration of independence, 'Jewish state' means a state for Jews, not a Judaistic theocracy.
It turned out to be a Judaistic theocracy (by democratic proxy) because the same misunderstanding is prevalent inside israel as much as outside, and that's what gives the ultra orthodox the political power to legislate their insanity.
Difficult to believe that she speaks for the ruling..
ReplyDeleteTrue, but when someone is sold snake oil, either they haven't read the small print, or they've been misinformed about the product, in which case they don't have informed consent.
ReplyDeleteIn the case above, the woman presumably wasn't misinformed about the sex they were having. He didn't say he was going to wear protection and then not, for example. If the lies he was telling her were about the sex in a relevent way, then she wouldn't have had informed consent, and there would be a case for saying she was raped. But this situation is more like buying a car from someone on the basis that they claimed to be a Mormon, but turned out to be a Catholic. That certainly wouldn't amount to fraud.
hehe, nice analogy.
ReplyDeleteNot only that, but our culture fetishizes deception during courtship. Many romantic movies are about lying in order to overcome some other evil: such as class.
I actually find this more intresting an contraversal than you all seem to think. Ill present a hypothetical PLEASE tell me if it is rape. Also tell me on what grounds it is rape. A man has a wife and an identical twin. While he is off on a buisness trip his identicle twin assumes his identity and has sex with his wife. The deception is unknown to his wife.
ReplyDeleteI think not.
ReplyDeleteAll you did here was change the nature of the deception, from social/financial/marital status, to behaviour and physical appearance.
I suspect that even physically identical twins would have different sexual styles and if the wife doesn't withdraw concent when she notices the difference (or fail to notice), it's not rape because she's a willing participant. The same as when the vegas showgirl thinks she's bagging a high roller, or the hopefull thinking she's ensuring her future with the one who presents himself as "Mr. Right".
The monogamous couple may feel cheated when they find out afterwards but one can't withdraw concent after the fact.
They can sue for damages for being deceived but declaring rape retroactively is stupid.
Somehow what is happening in the State of Israel seems to be Out Of This World!
ReplyDeleteHAHA your answere is NO because she should have detected his "new" sexual style! Yes i did change the scenaio, so what? The point is the deception this guy perpetuated on this woman is tantamount to rape. Oh and the brother has AIDS. Whops!
ReplyDelete<span>"The monogamous couple may feel cheated when they find out afterwards but one can't withdraw concent after the fact." </span>
ReplyDelete<span>The point is HE never had concent.
</span>
I'm glad I could entertain you, Sean, but by the scenario you purposed the brother did have concent. He got it by deception but it was concent none the less and therefor no different than other deceptions I brought as an example, which I assume you have no objections to. (as you did not point at any difference)
ReplyDeleteIf the brother had AIDS the couple can complain about any damage done, but not rape.
Rape is a temporal event that once done can not be changed and if the woman did not withdraw concent during the act, it was not rape. Saying after finding out the deception that she wouldn't have consented, is claiming to be cheated (into consenting to sex), not to being raped.
The couple may consider the act rape and in time the wife may even come remember it as such, but that is no ground for concluding that was the nature of the event.
I'm sure you know that the days of legal punishments based on personal opinion alone are behind us. At least in the parts we refer to as "the civilized world". (where Israel's place appears tenuous)