Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

[dre]

You're the one who said the example of housing for sex was breaking a verbal contract. I gave a similar example. And as much as you keep claiming that it has nothing to do with rape, I repeat that legal experts do think it is a form of "rape."

WHAT LEGAL EXPERTS? This isnt even a crime in the vast majority of countries. The only opinions I could find think its an idiotic dangerous joke.

You made claims about "legal experts" on numerous occasions now, so its time for some evidence. Prove that this opinion has any legitimacy in the legal world at all beyond a few quacks.

Now it may be your opinion that such cases don't involve rape, but that's all it is: your opinion, in spite of your CAPS and bold type.

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with the definition of the word rape. Both legal, and literal.

Edited July 22, 2010 by dre

[naomiglover]

Israeli Woman's comment that "according to legal experts.." is another deceitful attempt at giving her opinions credibility. She tried, but failed in showing an example of what we have seen happen in Israel in regards to an Arab man being convicted of rape for saying he was Jewish, in North America and UK.

The best she could find was a law that never came to be in the U.S., and a case in the U.K. where the judge threw out the case since there is no "rape by deception" law.

Edited July 22, 2010 by naomiglover

[Guest American Woman]

WHAT LEGAL EXPERTS? This isnt even a crime in the vast majority of countries. The only opinions I could find think its an idiotic dangerous joke.

You made claims about "legal experts" on numerous occasions now, so its time for some evidence. Prove that this opinion has any legitimacy in the legal world at all beyond a few quacks.

I already provided a link. Perhaps you should read what I post instead of claiming that it's "time for some evidence." Since you apparently are unwilling or unable to link to what I posted, I'll c&p an excerpt for you here:

"There is a myth that rape only happens in a dark alley by a stranger -- this is not true," said Rep. Peter Koutoujian.

Without the new legislation, police and prosecutors are virtually helpless when someone reports a rape that occurred because the victim was deceived or tricked into consenting. Legislators cited a case in western Massachusetts in which a woman consented to intercourse with her boyfriend's brother because he claimed to be the woman's boyfriend.

In another case of "fraud" rape, a lab technician posed as a medical doctor and sexually assaulted a woman. Legislators said they hope changing the law will prevent future rapes and bring those guilty of any form of rape to justice.

"The intent of the crime is the same, and so the punishment should be the same," Koutoujian said. "We not only have the judicial mandate to file this legislation, we have a moral obligation."

Rape by deception is just as damaging and illegal as rape by force, said Middlesex County District Attorney Gerry Leone.

"We have always known that 'No means no,' and the current law allows us to effectively prosecute those cases," Leone said. "What this bill makes clear is that you cannot deceive or defraud a victim into saying yes."

California and Tennessee already have "rape by fraud" legislation.

Link Again

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with the definition of the word rape. Both legal, and literal.

It has everything to do with your opinion and others have a different opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

Here's a case where a man was charged with nine charges of rape when the sex was consensual:

A schoolteacher from Haverfordwest, Wales claims that Fadi Sbano, a 38-year-old airline pilot, tricked her into having sex on several occasions.

Her lawyer says, "It began to dawn on her that he had devised this treatment in order to have sex with her on his terms." Sbano claims the entire story is a fabrication. He faces nine charges of rape and eleven of obtaining money by deception.

link

Edited July 22, 2010 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

Here's a case where a man was charged with nine charges of rape when the sex was consensual:

A schoolteacher from Haverfordwest, Wales claims that Fadi Sbano, a 38-year-old airline pilot, tricked her into having sex on several occasions.

Her lawyer says, "It began to dawn on her that he had devised this treatment in order to have sex with her on his terms." Sbano claims the entire story is a fabrication. He faces nine charges of rape and eleven of obtaining money by deception.

link

You have already tried using that case by providing the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6611735.stm

Then I pointed out to you that the judge had thrown the case out:

A Syrian born airline pilot accused of raping a schoolteacher from Haverfordwest by deception has walked free from court after the judge suddenly halted the trial.

Judge Christopher Morton said Fadi Sbano, 38, should not face a retrial.

Link

You either:

1) Don't read the articles you link to

2) Lie by assuming that no one will look into your articles

From your history, any of the two above is a possibility.

[naomiglover]

You also used the other example:

Rape 'by Deception' May Become A Crime In Massachusetts

It was pointed out to you that it has not become a crime since the article was published 2.5 years ago.

You have 0 credibility.

[Guest American Woman]

You have already tried using that case by providing the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6611735.stm

Then I pointed out to you that the judge had thrown the case out:

A Syrian born airline pilot accused of raping a schoolteacher from Haverfordwest by deception has walked free from court after the judge suddenly halted the trial.

Judge Christopher Morton said Fadi Sbano, 38, should not face a retrial.

Link

You either:

1) Don't read the articles you link to

2) Lie by assuming that no one will look into your articles

From your history, any of the two above is a possibility.

He was CHARGED with nine counts of rape. Just as I said. It went to TRIAL. Obviously if he were charged with it, and it went to trial, the legal system thought the case had merit. Yes, the trial was halted, which it clearly said in the link *I* provided; and it was halted because there had been "concerns" about the conduct of the case but they did not reflect on either the prosecution or defence barristers or solicitors, NOT because there is no such law, as you keep claiming.

So would you kindly *fuck off* with your constant false accusations that I'm lying? Thank you.

And for the record, trying to insult me by calling me "Israeli Woman" instead of "American Woman," thinking accusing me of being Israeli is condescending, says a lot about you, and none of it's good.

So go ahead and call me Israeli Woman if you must, but know that I would be proud to be Israeli.

[naomiglover]

He was CHARGED with nine counts of rape. Just as I said. It went to TRIAL. Obviously if he were charged with it, and it went to trial, the legal system thought the case had merit. Yes, the trial was halted, which it clearly said in the link *I* provided; and it was halted because there had been "concerns" about the conduct of the case but they did not reflect on either the prosecution or defence barristers or solicitors, NOT because there is no such law, as you keep claiming.

So would you kindly *fuck off* with your constant false accusations that I'm lying? Thank you.

And for the record, trying to insult me by calling me "Israeli Woman" instead of "American Woman," thinking accusing me of being Israeli is condescending, says a lot about you, and none of it's good.

So go ahead and call me Israeli Woman if you must, but know that I would be proud to be Israeli.

I'm sure you're proud to be an Israeli.

Please share a link to this law in the UK and any actual convictions under this law. So far you have not been able to provide any examples.

[dre]

He was CHARGED with nine counts of rape. Just as I said. It went to TRIAL. Obviously if he were charged with it, and it went to trial, the legal system thought the case had merit. Yes, the trial was halted, which it clearly said in the link *I* provided; and it was halted because there had been "concerns" about the conduct of the case but they did not reflect on either the prosecution or defence barristers or solicitors, NOT because there is no such law, as you keep claiming.

So would you kindly *fuck off* with your constant false accusations that I'm lying? Thank you.

And for the record, trying to insult me by calling me "Israeli Woman" instead of "American Woman," thinking accusing me of being Israeli is condescending, says a lot about you, and none of it's good.

So go ahead and call me Israeli Woman if you must, but know that I would be proud to be Israeli.

The point is youre making broad statements like "According to legal experts", but all you can back them up with is a couple of obscure scenarios or cases where someone has suggested laws like these. You havent shown me a single case where a person has been convicted under similar circumstances in the entire history of the human race.

And both your examples fall flat on their face. In the case of the Doctor hes abusing a position of authority to obtain sex which is illegal pretty much anywhere. In the case of the women that fucks for cars shes commiting a criminal act.

This case is an excellent example of why "rape by fraud" law is ludicrous and should have an extremely strict definition or not be on the books at all.

About the only thing you got right was that this case doesnt necessarily demonstrate racism in the Israeli judicial system. What we have here is a lying racist slut that made false allegations of physical rape, and a nasty case of prosecutorial misconduct where a prosecutor wouldnt give up after his investigation found his primary charge of physical rape was not substantiated by evidence.

"Legal experts" dont support your position here at all.

[Guest American Woman]

The point is youre making broad statements like "According to legal experts", but all you can back them up with is a couple of obscure scenarios or cases where someone has suggested laws like these. You havent shown me a single case where a person has been convicted under similar circumstances in the entire history of the human race.

If you think I'm going to waste my time searching the "entire history of the human race," think again.

I gave examples of legal experts who think such a law has merit, which is what you asked for.

I linked to a site that states that California and Tennessee already have "rape fraud" legislation.

I linked to a case in the UK where a man was charged with nine charges of rape by deception.

Yet that's not good enough to back up my claims; they are only "obscure," to your way of thinking. As if this one conviction is Israel isn't obscure.

And both your examples fall flat on their face. In the case of the Doctor hes abusing a position of authority to obtain sex which is illegal pretty much anywhere. In the case of the women that fucks for cars shes commiting a criminal act.

I cited real life examples of real life charges and real life situations where legal minds thought they should have been able to press charges.

This case is an excellent example of why "rape by fraud" law is ludicrous and should have an extremely strict definition or not be on the books at all.

That's your opinion. You don't seem to get that. You seem to think that whatever you believe is fact. And it's not.

About the only thing you got right was that this case doesnt necessarily demonstrate racism in the Israeli judicial system.

I got plenty "right." I linked to sources that supported my statements, just as you asked for. That you dismiss them doesn't mean I got it wrong.

What we have here is a lying racist slut that made false allegations of physical rape, and a nasty case of prosecutorial misconduct where a prosecutor wouldnt give up after his investigation found his primary charge of physical rape was not substantiated by evidence.

"Legal experts" dont support your position here at all.

And what position is that?? Have I not clearly stated, in plain English, that I'm not defending the verdict??

Have a great day. I'm done discussing this with you.

[bud]

If you think I'm going to waste my time searching the "entire history of the human race," think again.

lol. you can't even find 1. NOT 1! you're so funny!

I gave examples of legal experts who think such a law has merit, which is what you asked for.

there are a lot of stupid things that are supported by so-called legal experts. this doesn't mean that it's law. here is the law in america, american woman. the following is from Criminal law: Examples & Explanations"

:

Fraud

"Someone who obtained sexual intercourse by fraud was not a rapist under the common law, as long as the complainant understood that she was having sexual intercourse. Flattery, promises, or other attempts to manipulate or persuade the female, even if deliberate and untrue, did not establish the crime of rape. These types of cases were considered "fraud in the inducement." This rule could be pressed to the extreme. Someone who shows up at a woman's house in the dark and passes himself off as her lover does not commit rape (even though she was mistaken as to this true identity) because the woman understood that she was having sexual intercourse. though somewhat controversial, the majority rule today is still that fraud in the inducement does not constitute rape.11

If, however, the definition deceived the woman about the nature of the act, he could be convicted of rape. This was considered "fraud in the factum." If a gynecologist told a female patient be needed to insert a medical instrument into her vagina as part of a medical exam, but inserted his penis instead, he could be convicted of rape because the woman was deliberately misled about the nature of the act. 12 If, however, a man falsely pretended to be a doctor and told a woman she had disease that could best be cured by having intercourse with an anonymous donor who had been injected with a special serum, he could not be convicted of rape because the woman understood that she was having sexual intercourse. 13

this should put to rest what the law is in america and how it's different than israel.

[Bonam]

"Someone who obtained sexual intercourse by fraud was not a rapist under the common law, as long as the complainant understood that she was having sexual intercourse. Flattery, promises, or other attempts to manipulate or persuade the female, even if deliberate and untrue, did not establish the crime of rape. These types of cases were considered "fraud in the inducement." This rule could be pressed to the extreme. Someone who shows up at a woman's house in the dark and passes himself off as her lover does not commit rape (even though she was mistaken as to this true identity) because the woman understood that she was having sexual intercourse. though somewhat controversial, the majority rule today is still that fraud in the inducement does not constitute rape.11

If, however, the definition deceived the woman about the nature of the act, he could be convicted of rape. This was considered "fraud in the factum." If a gynecologist told a female patient be needed to insert a medical instrument into her vagina as part of a medical exam, but inserted his penis instead, he could be convicted of rape because the woman was deliberately misled about the nature of the act. 12 If, however, a man falsely pretended to be a doctor and told a woman she had disease that could best be cured by having intercourse with an anonymous donor who had been injected with a special serum, he could not be convicted of rape because the woman understood that she was having sexual intercourse. 13[/i]

That distinction certainly makes sense. However, civilized nations can certainly have these kinds of differences when it comes to their laws. In some states you can get a death penalty, in some you cannot. In some states possessing drugs in a crime, in some it is not. In some, apparently, "rape by deception" might be a crime, and in others, it is not. These are all potentially legitimate positions, whether we agree with them or not. Whatever the rules, the states in question are still civilized and adhere to the rule of law.

Now, there are certain extremes when it comes to laws. For example, death by stoning as a punishment for adultery. I would argue that this is beyond some line that should not be crossed, that it is not a "reasonable" law, according to my sensibilities.

Where should this line be drawn? How can we judge which laws are just, and which are not? A complex question, inherently value laden, and the answer will differ from person to person. While I personally disagree with the existence of this type of "rape by deception" law, I don't think having such a law is barbaric or inhuman, it is just another law among the masses of laws that a society may choose to have.

[Guest American Woman]

What I find odd is that apparently no one was outraged over the law when the first person, an Israeli impersonating a government official, was convicted of the crime.

"Rape" isn't always a matter of someone saying no, or force being involved. Statutory rape involves an underage, but willing, partner. So the idea that rape by fraud/deception can't be rape because no force was involved isn't a valid reason as to why it can't be rape.

But it's true that just because one nation is the only nation to have such a law, which isn't true in this instance anyway since two states have 'rape by fraud' legislation and at least one man has been charged with 'rape by fraud/deception' in the UK, doesn't mean there's something wrong with the law. That's a rather juvenile mentality, really.

But again, apparently people were ok with the law as long as it was an Israeli who was convicted, because I don't recall any fuss being made about it then.

As a side note, I find it interesting that a desperate person who would have sex with someone promising them housing is a whore, while a desperate person who would commit a suicide bombing was 'driven to it.'

[dre]

"Rape" isn't always a matter of someone saying no, or force being involved. Statutory rape involves an underage, but willing, partner. So the idea that rape by fraud/deception can't be rape because no force was involved isn't a valid reason as to why it can't be rape.

Rape isnt just about force its about consent.

Statutory rape is considered rape because the minor cannot give legal consent. So its considered inconsentual sex which is rape.

[dre]

But it's true that just because one nation is the only nation to have such a law, which isn't true in this instance anyway since two states have 'rape by fraud' legislation and at least one man has been charged with 'rape by fraud/deception' in the UK, doesn't mean there's something wrong with the law. That's a rather juvenile mentality, really.

That isnt why theres "something wrong with the law". Theres something wrong with the law because its a terrible law and unless its very strictly defined you can wind up with situations like this current one. Its just idiotic legislation.

[dre]

Now, there are certain extremes when it comes to laws. For example, death by stoning as a punishment for adultery. I would argue that this is beyond some line that should not be crossed, that it is not a "reasonable" law, according to my sensibilities.

Throwing a person in prison for years for lying about his religion crosses that line as well. No reasonable person would support such an outcome.

[Bonam]

Throwing a person in prison for years for lying about his religion crosses that line as well. No reasonable person would support such an outcome.

Perhaps. Has the man in question been sentenced yet? How many years did he get?

By the way, portraying it simply a case of "lying about his religion" is disingenuous at best. He lied specifically to be able to f*ck a woman who he otherwise knew would not be willing.

[JB Globe]

Israel is indeed getting straight talk from the US and its other allies. Repeatedly, they have been criticized on issues such as settlements, the blockade, etc. Do you believe otherwise?

First, the language has been pretty consistent with past administration's language - reserved and tempered. Which considering Israel is embarking on a path that could threaten either it's Jewish or democratic status, would seem to be too soft. The US needs to be more firm in what it wants from Israel, and when it expects delivery - and if Israel continues to go down this path it's own, the US needs to start to suggest that it's going to reconsider things like automatically vetoing UN resolutions against Israel, economic aid, and other benefits - because this is what the US would do with ANY OTHER COUNTRY that was behaving this way.

And even though the language has been pretty soft, that still hasn't stopped the vast majority of Israelis from thinking that Obama is against Israel, and is actually Muslim. The expectations from many Israelis are so lop-sided, that anything less than a blank cheque is considered anti-Israeli.

[JB Globe]

It is a beacon of liberty in the Middle East. Much more than any Muslim country. It might be flawed, but it's less flawed than any Muslim country.

Israel and it's blind supporters like to compare Israel's bad behaviour to that of other Arab states, because it's bad behaviour isn't as bad as that of Syria or other states.

At the same time, when Israel wants to congratulate itself, Israel constantly presents itself as a Liberal Western Democracy, but when you compare Israel's conduct to other nations in that category, it's clear that Israel is rather terrible.

Many of the things that happen in Israel on a daily basis would be national disgraces and scandals in most European countries, the US, and Canada.

Personally, I don't care if Israel is better than Arab states when it comes to human rights - if Israel wants to have Canada as a close ally, it needs to be held to a higher standard, otherwise we should put Israel in the same category as a state like Turkey - an strategic ally, but not one that we'd go out on a limb for.

Also - things are getting worse in Israel in terms of human rights the more orthodox Israelis and religious zealots gain influence. ie - some areas that were fine a few years ago are now no-go areas for women who don't wear clothes to orthodox standard, lest they get verbally and physically harassed by groups of young Hasidic thugs.

[JB Globe]

And anyone doing any more reading on this case knows that this verdict has had just as much negative feedback in Israel as it has elsewhere.

I haven't seen any polls yet, but it would make sense that if over 50% of Israelis thought that a marriage between a Jew and and Arab was national treason than a large chunk of the population would feel that this verdict is just. And judging from the columns and opinions on the more populist Israeli papers, it seems that this issue has split the population along familiar lines (liberal Israelis in one camp, religious and neo-con Israelis in the other).

Also keep in mind that same poll about intermarriage found 75% of Israelis were opposed to living in the same apartment building as an Arab, which of course is significant when you consider Israel's policy of property rights when it comes to non-Jews, and you look at the ghettos that most Arabs live in.

There clearly are significant problems within Israel of rampant discrimination, it might be better than in Syria, but I'm not one for setting standards low, especially when it comes to a nation that loves to flout it's "democratic values" and "liberalism" and which is Canada's closest ally next to the US. Israel needs to be held to a higher standard.

This isn't something that 'Israelis condone,' nor is it an example of 'what goes on in Israel' the way it's being presented.

I don't think this issue is any proof/indication/legitimate grounds for that observation.

Actually, the rise of religious fundamentalists in Israel is well-documented by many sources, including a large number of the top Israeli political analysts and journalists of Jewish background. This is not about some sort of smear campaign, it's about many people who care deeply about Israel who see a trend which threatens to destroy the democratic values of the state.

Even my 90 year old Zaida sees this when he reads his daily mashup of Israeli papers - every time I see him he has a new story about those "zealots"

This is pretty much old news for anyone who closely follows Israel - it started years ago when fundamentalists started taking over municipal seats, and now has gone up the chain and they've become a key part of Bibi's government.

[JB Globe]

And anyone doing any more reading on this case knows that this verdict has had just as much negative feedback in Israel as it has elsewhere.

I haven't seen any polls yet, but it would make sense that if over 50% of Israelis thought that a marriage between a Jew and and Arab was national treason than a large chunk of the population would feel that this verdict is just. And judging from the columns and opinions on the more populist Israeli papers, it seems that this issue has split the population along familiar lines (liberal Israelis in one camp, religious and neo-con Israelis in the other).

Also keep in mind that same poll about intermarriage found 75% of Israelis were opposed to living in the same apartment building as an Arab, which of course is significant when you consider Israel's policy of property rights when it comes to non-Jews, and you look at the ghettos that most Arabs live in.

There clearly are significant problems within Israel of rampant discrimination, it might be better than in Syria, but I'm not one for setting standards low, especially when it comes to a nation that loves to flout it's "democratic values" and "liberalism" and which is Canada's closest ally next to the US. Israel needs to be held to a higher standard.

I don't think this issue is any proof/indication/legitimate grounds for that observation.

Actually, the rise of religious fundamentalists in Israel is well-documented by many sources, including a large number of the top Israeli political analysts and journalists of Jewish background. This is not about some sort of smear campaign, it's about many people who care deeply about Israel who see a trend which threatens to destroy the democratic values of the state.

Even my 90 year old Zaida sees this when he reads his daily mashup of Israeli papers - every time I see him he has a new story about those "zealots"

This is pretty much old news for anyone who closely follows Israel - it started years ago when fundamentalists started taking over municipal seats, and now has gone up the chain and they've become a key part of Bibi's government.

Edited July 23, 2010 by JB Globe

[dre]

Perhaps. Has the man in question been sentenced yet? How many years did he get?

By the way, portraying it simply a case of "lying about his religion" is disingenuous at best. He lied specifically to be able to f*ck a woman who he otherwise knew would not be willing.

I think he was given 1.5 years but still has an appeal. My guess is that hell end up with community service and not prison time, which is still idiotic but not quite as bad.

who he otherwise knew would not be willing

How would he have known she had a "no arabs" litmus test for who she fucks?

Also theres more to this story than meets the eye. At first the women alledged he violently raped her. An investigation found this allegation was false. Next came this idiotic rape by deception claim.

Then you have her saying stuff about finding a "serious relationship" but having intercourse with this guy right after they met LOL

I think what we have here is a lying racist slut wasting the courts time.

[Bonam]

I think what we have here is a lying racist slut wasting the courts time.

Quite possible, and definitely not unique to Israel.

[dre]

Quite possible, and definitely not unique to Israel.

Its impossible to say so far. I definately havent been able to find many other examples of a guy doing prison time for lying about his religion for sex, and I WOULD be rather suprised to see a verdict like that in most western countries.

Its also unclear if theres racism behind these laws in Israel or not, without researching the history of the legislation. It could be that this case is an unintended consequence of a poorly written law... or it could be that the law was made for exactly this type of case.

It made the front page of CNN though, and it does make Israel look pretty bad, so Im almost positive it will be reversed on appeal.

[naomiglover]

I haven't seen any polls yet, but it would make sense that if over 50% of Israelis thought that a marriage between a Jew and and Arab was national treason

This is a another example of Israel's racist mindset.

I'll be waiting for another post by the usual like Bonam, jbg or American Woman with their: "but they stone women to death". As if anyone here supports that or somehow a more despicable behaviour excuses a lesser one.