Double standards

Remove all ads!

In that regard, you are probably doing better than I am. I'm really a bit bemused by this thread. But I'm having a hard time believing that it's racism, as much as some overly religious, judge, who is imposing his own moral, religious, standard on some poor guy who just trying to get some action. If it really is more, it's like the old South, "protecting" the white women from the "devil" blacks, much like the situation in Harper's To Kill A Mockingbird. I'm really having a hard time accepting that though.

 

Chandos,
it wasn't just the judge, but the lady that was screwed (pun!) and went to the police in outrage to file charges against the guy after she learned he was an Arab.

Even though - q.e.d. - he was attractive and charming enough for a nooner, it was quite obviously his ethnicity that in her mind made him unacceptable. Her problem was not having had that nooner (a commendable attitude imo). She was outraged precisely because he was an Arab and not a Jew. One can speculate why that made such a difference all of a sudden - ethnic bias against Arabs sure sounds like an overwhelmingly plausible explanation.

Arguably "protecting" the white women from the "devil" blacks was also about that. Well, about that, and about keeping the race pure.

 

Wow! That's quite the statement. We should give the savage Islamic governments a pass because they are "too stupid" to know any better? I don't buy that for a second. They may have wildly different belief systems than we do, but they are still human and can be held accountable for their actions.

In addition, I'd rather be robbed by a hypocrite than murdered by a barbarian. Regardless of my judgements of the character of the perpetrators, robbery is still a lesser crime than murder.

 

Who says that hypocrites don't murder? They're perfectly capable of that.

That said, I was metaphorically speaking.

 

They have a very orthodox, conservative, religious view of the world. But they consider themselves people of the "same Book" as the Hebrews and Christians and keep many of the same prophets. Authoritarian, religious states tend to behave in this manner, but they probably consider infidels to be "the barbarians." I'm not saying the oppressive, authoritarian states are specifically "religious," since there are similar examples of non-religious states, only that these happen to be so.

 

Yes, I had figured that. It was a joke.

I came across this today, with a few more details. It looks like this whole thing may have been badly reported from the beginning. The new article claims quite a few things different:
1.) The man never actually claimed to be a Jew. Instead, he just said his nickname was Dudu. Apparently, that's a Jewish nickname for David. Also, it's his actual nickname. No lies there.
2.) What he actually lied about was being married. He is, and a father, and said he was single. I'm sure there are a few women here that would like to see married men who lie about it jailed. It's a somewhat more relevant fact to sex than racial identity, at least.
3.) The woman originally claimed she was forcibly rape. Authorities investigated, found out it was a lie, found out he had actually decieved her, and charged him with the appropriate crime.
4.) Obtaining sex by deciet is illegal in Israel, and this isn't the first time the law has been applied. It has previously been used to convict a man named Zvi Sliman to 10 years in prison. I couldn't find any official details on that case, but several comments refered to it as a case where a Jewish man tricked several women (no nationality given) into having sex with him by claiming to be an official at the housing authority who could get them houses.

So, raise your hand if you still think this case was driven by racism. Anyone?

Oh, and he's appealing his sentence. Not the ruling, just the sentence.

 

Here! My hand! See?

The Israeli precedent was about a man promising women apartments and benefits in exchange for sex. Not only wasn't he from the housing authority, he also didn't deliver. Previously he would have been convicted of fraud, but the supreme court found that in this case rape was more adequate (guess: probably because of the higher sentence).

This case carries the precedent to absurd extremes.

Our case was a consensual no return nookie. He promised her nothing. All he did was to say that he's called Dudu. His fault that she thought he was Jewish? Again: Caveat emptor. That he was married also was no factor, since her complaint was that he deceived her about him being an Arab - that's what the name was about - not about being married. That you say she originally claimed it was forcible rape in effect only supports the impression that she was motivated by vengefulness, since she made his seemingly Jewish name a factor, vengefulness over his ethnicity. So vengeful in fact that she lied about what was consensual sex and called it rape.

Your points only confirm that it was about ethnicity.

 

How funny is that? And I thought people were only joking about Jewish guys having a hard time getting any...that explains a lot.

Yes, they did. Great post, Regusa. I would rep you for that one, but the system would not let me. Next time.

 

So far it has been established that this case is mostly about what, exactly, can be seen as big enough of a lie to be called deception?

Is it deception to say you like heavy metal music to nook a Goth, who then subsequently throws you out after you blurt out a name of a band that is not strictly heavy metal music? (As far as fanaticism goes, being a Goth with 'street cred' ranks pretty high. Been there, done that.)

Is it deception to say you have some obscure form of cancer, even if you actully don't, to score enough pity points for sex?

Concealing the fact that you have AIDS should be a no-brainer as it's specifically mentioned in the law that it's your obligation to announce it. At least here in Sweden. But it also carries a real threat to the deceived's life, whereas the two other examples don't.

IMHO, ethnicity shouldn't be reason enough (not even under warlike conditions) and neither should one's marital status. Being a lousy cheat already has its ramifications, but shouldn't be a basis for a RAPE charge.

 

Sorry, NOG, but my hand is up with Ragusa's.

The so called "Barbarian" regimes (some of which are also spinning merrily around an Evil Axis) always have some form of excuse or other for their savagery and / or racism. Be they Muslims, Communists, Fascists, or cut-throat Capitalists, it's all the same to me -- if you commit serious crimes against humanity, you should be held accountable, and that should happen before the judges go after far more minor issues.

 

No, you don't have the camera turned on.

And he was conviced of rape based on his deception, not failure to deliver on a promise (which he only suggested, not made, as I read it).

Extremes which several US states have gone to. That's right, in several states, the same is illegal.

No, his fault she thought he was single. Again, the only place I've seen race as the driving factor is the liberal attacks on this. Everywhere else, it's the marital status. Of course, sex between two unmarried individuals carries with it at least the strong possibility of a continued relationship with the potential for growth. Having sex with a married man is a very different proposition.

I actually haven't heard anywhere that she made his nickname any part of the issue, just that it was a matter of confusion in the case. And yes, I certainly believe that it was about vengence, and I hope she's charged with filing a false police report (I assume it's similarly illegal in Israel).

•An instance of actions and/or schemes fabricated to mislead and/or delude someone into errantly believing a lie or inaccuracy

I'm sorry, but those are all deceptions. Worth being jailed over? As I've said before, that's up to the society in question to decide.

 

Riiight ...

#1 Re: Only liberals focus on ethnicity

This one is really hilarious. Yes! It's those vile liberals picking at poor little Israel again! Fortunately they have you coming to their defence! I got news for you: This is not about liberals or conservatives. It is about you reading things into and out of the case because, well, apparently because you perceive a need to defend Israel by building an alternate case that suits your narrative.

#2 Re: Adultery vs. Ethnicity

'You shall not commit adultery'? Are you perhaps biased against Dudu? The fact that Dudu was married isn't referred to in the verdict in respect to the deception except that the judge said he appeared to the woman to be a 'Jewish bachelor'. That is it. And you make out of that that his marital status was a big deal, but being an Arab wasn't? Needed to make a handstand to get to that?

For the importance of his marital status consider this: The lady had a nookie with this guy when she knew him for two hours, in some 'nearby building' - obviously purely as to create a basis for a future long term relationship. If you believe that, well, there's that awesome piece of real estate in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you ...

Israelis see it the same way I do:

The 'the context of Israeli society' would also handily account for her initially claiming forcible rape - because of feeling very strongly that she was violated by someone who she thought was Jewish. Why she would think that? Because Dudu is the short form for David in Hebrew, and as such understood to be a Jewish name. The name was a very big part of the issue which can be summed up in one sentence: Yikes! I had sex with an Arab!

And then, consider the severity of the verdict: Dudu has been under house arrest, wearing an electronic cuff, for two years. On top of that he now gets some 18 months in jail.

But don't let that get in the way of pretending it was just about him being married. It must be about Dudu being married, because you don't like the implication of what this former senior justice ministry official said could loosely be described as discrimination by Israeli courts - that cannot be because it must not be.

#3 Re: Other countries have such laws as well.

Having a quickie with a stranger, and later realizing he’s not who you thought he was, is not the same as being raped. It makes a mockery of rape, a vicious crime. The Israeli application of the law as in this case is a bad joke, and so are the other laws to the same effect.

#4 Re: It is up to the society in question to decide.

Aha. You have iirc in the past not hesitated to make judgements about laws when societies had decided to regulate things in a way you didn't like. Why so defensive?

 

Don't confuse this thread with any of the real facts, Ragusa.

 

Ragusa, again, the one mentioned criticizing the decision is a self-identifying liberal. That's the second time this has been pointed out in this thread. Yes, it is a liberal attacking this decision.

If you've found a copy of the full ruling, by all means link to it. If not, debating the wording of it when neither of us know what it actually was is fruitless.

Oh, I never said it was the case here, just that there's reason to defend the distinction.

Being hit in the nose once, and getting a bloody nose because of it, is not the same thing as being assaulted*. It makes a mockery of assault, a vicious crime. The US application of the law (concerning assault and battery) is a bad joke, and so are the other laws to the same effect.
*Here, referring to a severe beating that leaves one hospitalized for a prolonged period of time.

See? I can do the same thing with other words. The fact is that different societies have different definitions for terms, and often the legal definition may be much broader or more constrained than the vernacular definition of the same thing. Date-rape with GHB is very different from a violent, memory-searing attack, too, but both are legally rape. There are different sentences for different types of rape for exactly this reason. I doubt the maximum sentence for rape-by-force is one year, for example.

Really? I haven't? I'll disagree with a society's application of laws, but I'm not about to say it's a great offense to human rights or the like, so long as the law is clear and not excessively intrusive.

 

NOG,
the critique was not limited to that 'liberal' Haaretz columnist, whose liberalism led him to the same conclusion the former senior justice ministry official I quoted in my last post came to - that it was about ethnicity. You knew that had you actually bothered checking any of the links I provided to the quoted articles, or thinkingly read my posts. This last post of yours is as full of wilful ignorance as the previous ones - and I mean both wilful and ignorant - so I'll be brief: If you want, read the following articles. Or don't. I don't care.

Here's a more complete account from the Daily Beast: Israel's Outrageous Rape Case
From the Guardian: Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew
From the Daily Telegraph: Palestinian jailed for rape after claiming to be Jewish
And from Haaretz: Jurists say Arab's rape conviction sets dangerous precedent

If you don't read them, fine, just don't expect me to be patient with you. I only bother posting these links because it is little work since I have posted them before and can thus copy-paste. Otherwise, I am rather tired of this silliness.

 

Your comparison fails because I don't think there are many known cases of consentual "hit me on the nose" cases around. Repeating that doesn't change much, except for the size of the hospital bill and (hopefully) the length of the sentence given for it.

I can understand if the woman feels slighted by guessing the guy's stats wrong, being that there's a lot of more or less aggressive propaganda about these two national groups alone posted on both sides of the fence. But to turn consentual sex into a rape charge on the basis of that? She needs her head examined, or at the very least, the judge should've laughed her out of the courthouse. But then again, I'm no Arab nor Jew so what do I know.

And seriously - WTF are you guys on getting liberals/conservatives into this discussion? Or is it a USA thing to think that only that definition is the sole basis of any opinion spouted by anyone?

 

Sir Rechet
as for the conservative-liberal thing, I couldn't help but but notice NOG's line

All it took NOG to write such nonsense was that I quoted from an article that quoted a journalist from the liberal newspaper Haaretz, Gideon Levy, who commented that this of course was about ethnicity and that the reverse case of a Jewish man with an Arab woman would not have been prosecuted. Since he was introduced as a 'liberal', this view in NOG mind apparently became 'the liberal attacks on this' - i.e. that it was about ethnicity probably became yet another example of vile liberal bias. There you are.

Preposterous, of course, but nothing extraordinary since it is probably the n-th time we got to see this happening. And that's what always happens when NOG feels he has to defend poor, persecuted pious people, or lately nutty Israelis, from liberal attack ...
... he puts on the face paint and goes on the warpath
He chooses to interpret an article on such a topic in the narrowest manner that fits his personal beliefs, and calls for more evidence, like a copy of the court ruling, since this is all obviously a sinister smear campaign, and he does so with considerable endurance. We can count ourselves lucky this is still a single digit paged threat. All the while everyone else simply reads an article on such a topic and interprets it correctly. There always is enough evidence and we always had the correct story. But never mind.

 

Actually, there have been more than one self-identified liberal saying similar things, and you've linked to them.

Ragusa, the reason I don't give too much credence to your links to things like the Daily Beast and Haaretz is because I don't know who they are. I know nothing about them. Are they Israel's equivalent of FOX, or MSNBC, or CNN, or are they an affiliate of Al Jazeera or the like? Unfortunately, these days, one can't trust a news source to deliver unbiassed news. Add to that that most of them quote the judge saying:

And that's usually the only way I see the judges talking about the man's ethnicity: in combination with his marital status and desire for a serious romantic relationship.

Now, again, if you have more on the judge's ruling, or a better quote that more clearly displays how his decision was based on the man's ethnicity, please provide it.

And, Ragusa, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this topic (and others) is not a refferendum on my posting style. If you have a problem with that, PM me, but don't go so off-topic.

 

Well, I'm as conservative as they come, and I think that the case is about race, and double standards. My RW friends who are also conservatives feel the same. It is morally repugnant for a woman to have consensual sex and then later claim rape. As Ragusa mentioned, such nonsense diminishes the serious nature of real rapes. She got conned, it was horrible, maybe the makings of some sort of civil case against the guy (in the vein of the old 'breach of promise to marry' sort of legal issues) but not criminal and certainly not rape.