I thought the thread was a necessary rebuttal to the claim that many Muslims live as equals in Israel, which has been argued a few times on this board, most specific in my mind is a post by Mr. Paycheck.
That's a big stretch of anything I said in the thread you're referencing, having just re-read it. I have no interest in rehashing it out, but I'd rather you link to something I actually said if you're going to just drop my name in something like this.
here's something you wrote, then:
Apartheid wasn???t shit compared to what???s going on in gaza
I do not agree that Palestinians live as equals in Israel and never have, but your brand of hyperbole serves nobody but you. I don't appreciate my name being put in your initial post as I haven't wrote anything regarding this incident, or the conflict in general at all within the last year and change.
This troll thread is probably more interesting than the other one already.
So let me get this straight.
Fuck Arizona! = fine
Fucking Israeli C*nts = crossed line
Is it purely the use of the C word that sets the precedent? Or is it cause it's about Israel? Could we have a thread titled "Fucking Nazi C*nts", about some nonspecific nationality Nazis?
Unless you're saying all this with no undertones and you're genuinely confused, I'm sure if you were to read over your own questioning and genuinely consider what you're asking in your mentioning of a triangle of topics btwn the Nazi party, the recent piece of legislature in Arizona, and Israel's past politics, and are wondering why deeming one of these three as "fucking cunts", considering their past histories, as offensive, then I believe you should be able to solve this on your own.
I wasn't confused at all, although your response is perplexing. Maybe if I reiterate what I already said, we'll come to some clarity. (although I'll try not to sink to the levels of addressing you like a child.)
Please try and put any nationalistic allegiances aside, this is a question of when it's acceptable to use strong language to describe a group of people in an SS thread title. And, in general, what is considered acceptable posting behavior on SS.
For the purposes of setting a benchmark for an acceptable use of the thread title, Fucking _____ Cunts. Can it be agreed that Nazis are fucking cunts? So would it then be acceptable to use as a thread title, "Fucking Nazi Cunts"?
Moving on.
Arizona law makers act in a racist way = Fuck Arizona = Acceptable thread title.
Israeli law makers act in a racist way = Fucking Israeli Cunts = Non-acceptable thread title.
Because the use of the C word is too much? Or is it because people here are personally offended because it's Israel.
To clarify, this is not about supporting any of the statements content, or defending the title of the locked troll thread. I could give a fusk. I'm purely trying to ascertain what people consider acceptable posting behavior on this internet msg board and why.
Like Paul said, LoLing over a video of a man beating a woman, is acceptable, yet trolling about Israel gets the thread lock.
If you are sincerely demanding a hard and fast rule, as far as I'm concerned, put "cunts" in your title and that's asking for moderation. Simple as that.
In any case, I wrote to Duderonamy to work out a basic compromise but now I've realized that threads that have been locked cannot be unlocked without, I'm assuming, Raj's magic touch.
Further, in NY at least, one can annul a marriage based on deceit, and one of the grounds is that one's spouse lied about his/her religion or even the strenght of his/her beliefs (i.e. orthodoxy). So the concept is not new..
But the person in this case wasn't sued for "deceit". He was convicted of rape, which, under these circumstances, seems way above and beyond what the situation calls for.
This isn't a perfect analogy but I imagine how this case would look if someone went to bed with someone they thought was white only to later discover they were half-black and then tried to apply the same logic as this case. I can't see a credible justification for accusing someone of rape in that situation.
Religion, however, is more complicated but I still think the same rationale holds, especially if there's no abuse of power (i.e. a minister pressuring a worshipper to have sex under the guise of "God wants this.")
Two states provide for global treatment of fraud in relation to rape or other sexual offenses-Tennessee and Alabama. The distinguishing characteristic of both states' statutes is that they do not specifically set forth the exact types of fraud at issue. In contrast to the statutes in the next part which explicitly articulate the precise types of fraud needed to commit the offense, the following statutes can encompass a variety of deceptive behavior on the part of perpetrators.
a. Tennessee: Rape and Sexual Battery by Fraud
Under Tennessee's rather sophisticated grading structure, four categories of sexual offenses exist: aggravated rape, rape, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual battery. [FN330] Aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery statutes punish defendants' use of force or coercion when they are armed with a weapon, cause bodily injury, or have accomplices. [FN331] On the other hand, Tennessee's rape statute covers cases in which "The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud." [FN332] Its sexual battery statute covers instances in which the *110 defendant achieves sexual contact, rather than penetration, and also includes a provision on fraud. [FN333] Such fraud is defined as "used in normal parlance and includes, but is not limited to, deceit, trickery, misrepresentation and subterfuge, and shall be broadly construed to accomplish the purposes of this title; . . . ." [FN334] Finally, Tennessee provides that consent is not effective when it is induced by deception. [FN335]
b. Alabama: Sexual Misconduct
Unlike Tennessee's incorporation of fraud into its rape and sexual battery provisions, Alabama criminally punishes certain lesser forms of sexual misconduct as misdemeanors. One section of Alabama's statute punishes sexual misconduct if: "Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female . . . with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; . . . ." [FN336] The commentary to this statute provides:
Section 13A-6-65 is not concerned with aggravated cases of rape, . . . rather it is directed toward the more unusual situations where a person has acquiesced to sexual intercourse . . . as a result of some fraud, artifice or stratagem.
Section 13A-6-65(a) offers an offense in instances where the line between criminal and noncriminal sexual conduct has been transgressed to an extent which requires punishment of the actor and vindication of the victim. It comprehends specific instances presently criminal (see below), but it is broad enough to include other situations where the naivete of the victim or guile of the actor is sufficient to allow the actor to gain sexual access to the person of another through some artifice or fraud, e.g., "necessary medical treatment." . . . Section 13A-6-65(a)(1) also includes the offense of seduction . . . . [FN337] Alabama's sexual misconduct statute operates when the victim has consented, thus the defendant cannot claim consent as a defense. [FN338]
Some states have generic consent provisions applying to all types of criminal offenses not just sexual crimes. These provisions track Model Penal Code ("MPC") ?? 2.11 which describes when consent is ineffective in relieving a criminal actor of liability for conduct. [FN349] One enumerated circumstance, for example, is when consent is induced by force, duress, or deception. Ten states' provisions incorporate the MPC language with respect to deception. [FN350] These generic consent statutes commonly take two slightly different forms. One form specifies that assent does not constitute consent if: "It is induced by force, duress or deception." [FN351] Two states further qualify *115 this language by retaining the MPClanguage "of a kind sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense." [FN352] The other form provides that consent does not constitute a defense under the same circumstances. [FN353] Therefore, in rape cases where consent is procured by deception, such consent could be vitiated in states with global consent provisions fashioned after the MPC. [FN354]
Finally, in addition to rape or sexual assault statutes, several states retain criminal seduction statutes which implicate deception. Criminal seduction statutes are one of the oldest types of statutory law prohibiting the commission of sexual intercourse based upon some form of fraud.
Its not apples and oranges. The concept of consent is not practice area specific. The doctor in my example would be guilty of rape. If a stranger entered a woman's room at night and led her to believe that he was her husband and had intercourse, she may "consent," but that would also be rape.
burglar dressing up as husband is rape. she didn't consent. guy claiming he is a jew - not the same thing. the concept of "consent" most likely appears in every area of the law, but definitions will vary across civil and criminal. i also am not claiming to be giving a primer on rape law, just stating my disagreement with the decision in this case.
I think this is the distinction you make above, taken from the same article, and the most common approach today. So, I think that you are right that the palestinian posing as a jew would not be rape, but that is not to say that there is no crime of rape by deception or fraud.
The traditional formula for distinguishing legally valid from invalid consent in fraud cases is the dichotomy between fraud in
the factum and fraud in the inducement. [FN566] Perkins and Boyce *158 describe such concepts as follows:
The general rule is that if deception causes a misunderstanding as to the fact itself (fraud in the factum) there is no
legally-recognized consent because what happened is not that for which consent was given; whereas consent induced by
fraud is as effective as any other consent, so far as direct and immediate legal consequences are concerned, if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter (fraud in the inducement). [FN567]
The authors maintain that the most striking illustration of this dichotomy occurs in rape law, [FN568] supporting their thesis
with the following example. If a doctor falsely tells a woman that sexual intercourse is necessary for her treatment and she
agrees, no rape occurred because the doctor's misrepresentation constitutes fraud in the inducement and the resulting consent is effective. On the other hand, if the doctor pretends to perform a routine pelvic exam and instead has sexual intercourse with the woman, then it is rape because this is fraud in the factum which vitiates her consent. The woman never consented to sexual intercourse because she was deceived about the act itself. [FN569] In fact, the court in Boro v. Superior [FN570]
relied on this classic distinction. As discussed supra in Part I.A.1, Boro involved a feigned doctor who told his victims that
sexual intercourse was a necessary treatment to cure their fatal blood disorder. The Boro court held that the defendant's lies
constituted fraud in the inducement, the victims' consent was effective, and, therefore, defendant was not found guilty of
rape. [FN571]
Further, in NY at least, one can annul a marriage based on deceit, and one of the grounds is that one's spouse lied about his/her religion or even the strenght of his/her beliefs (i.e. orthodoxy). So the concept is not new..
Funny,
And I'm not sure if this still stands. But the only way for a Palestinian to gain citizenship through marriage in Israel is through deceit and get himself a fake life I suppose.
And I have no problem with the concept of rape by fraud or deception. I mean, if he was a doctor and said that sex would cure the woman's illness it would be basically the same the thing or if he was married and said he was single. I don't know if he should have gotten jail time, but I'm not all pulling my hair out and rending my garments over the legal issue.
The issue of saying you are rich or a marine biologist aren't big enough deceptions to qualify.
What's different about the deception at issue here?
Firstly, having seen the thread locked, I also asked myself why, and came to the conclusion that the thread title is inflamatory, and I crossed the line.
There are plenty of Israelis that wouldn't condone the bizarre rape charge. I apologise to them, and anyone else who felt offended by the title of the thread.
Not that they'll be reading this, but I don't apologise to the judge, the prosecution team or the woman involved. They're the c*nts.
The case seems so extreme to me as to be funny.
I don't know if victims of real rape would find the judgement, or the thread so funny though, and it got me wondering if that case opens the way for men to accuse women of rape by deception - "I thought she was a natural blonde. Only in the morning did I realise my terrible mistake"
Thanks to the use of self censorship in the thread title I had no idea that the missing letter was "u" until now. I was racking my brain and was leaning towards a missing Y as in Cynts as in
Well, so long as we can all accept that there's no chance of a deceptive Jew who boned a Palestinian ever even getting his wrist slapped let alone jail time for rape we're all cool here.
Well, so long as we can all accept that there's no chance of a deceptive Jew who boned a Palestinian ever even getting his wrist slapped let alone jail time for rape we're all cool here.
why should anyone accept that assumption? because the so-called "intellectual" in that totally slanted guardian piece says so? because it fits a narrative that you somehow find comforting or reassuring?
In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.
High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a ???person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him.??? http://abovethelaw.com/2010/07/bar-exam-question-of-the-day-sex-by-trick/
if that summary is accurate then the trial judge was merely applying the law as it now exists in israel. as a bunch of people have pointed out, in a number of jurisdictions rape and sexual assault by fraud is an offence; here is a sad case from the uk that talks about "informed consent": http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/706.html
the problem with the Israeli high court ruling seems to be that it is entirely overboard and vague. it criminalizes all sorts of everyday behaviour that probably shouldn't be and if enforced to the letter means the criminal justice system would be overrun. the law clearly needs to be modified and clarified and perhaps this case will allow that to happen.
the guy is appealing and if he gets leave the high court will have an opportunity to reconsider their previous ruling on the matter. sometimes even the highest courts with the smartest and best people get it wrong and that's not just in israel.
in the meantime, to use this interesting but obscure legal issue about the scope of "true or informed consent" in israel as a means to portray jews or israelis or simply the israeli criminal justice system as inherently corrupt, racist or evil is such a smear.
in the meantime, to use this interesting but obscure legal issue about the scope of "true or informed consent" in israel as a means to portray jews or israelis or simply the israeli criminal justice system as inherently corrupt, racist or evil is such a smear.
In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.
High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a ???person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him.??? http://abovethelaw.com/2010/07/bar-exam-question-of-the-day-sex-by-trick/
if that summary is accurate then the trial judge was merely applying the law as it now exists in israel.
Religion/ethnicity are not "critical matters" to a "reasonable" person seeking a sex partner.
says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
again, i say the defect with the law is that it is has been defined in an overly broad fashion by the high court but i haven;t read the full judgement of either case so i'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that the trial judge misconstrued or misapplied the existing law.
says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
A "reasonable" person is not devoutly religious
that may be your opinion but i disagree. a person can be devoutly religious and "reasonable". "reasonable" isn;t a synonym for "agnostic".
have you never met a "reaonable" rabbi or priest or imam?
says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
Nice dovetail. Casual sex, devoutly religious.
lt s the devoutly religious Jew who would be most offended by this ruling.
Justice s a central tenet of Judaism.
Zionism is a modern construct that has nothing to do with Judaism.
i can;t go tit-for-tat on these subjects anymore but what the hell does this case have to do with zionism?
if you bothered to read what i wrote, you'll see that i think the law is defective. the legal standard is messed up and needs to be adjusted. my hope is that it will.
to use this incident to vent your rage at zionism is just messed up.
Comments
Is there any statute about a prospective partner claiming to be one sex only to find out they were the opposite at the time of the sex act??
Dude, you're money's gone - get over it.
;-)
LOL.... I knew I was setting myself up for that.
But....ummm....I have a friend.....yeah, that's the ticket...a friend .......who went to this bar...
That's a big stretch of anything I said in the thread you're referencing, having just re-read it. I have no interest in rehashing it out, but I'd rather you link to something I actually said if you're going to just drop my name in something like this.
here's something you wrote, then:
I do not agree that Palestinians live as equals in Israel and never have, but your brand of hyperbole serves nobody but you. I don't appreciate my name being put in your initial post as I haven't wrote anything regarding this incident, or the conflict in general at all within the last year and change.
I wasn't confused at all, although your response is perplexing. Maybe if I reiterate what I already said, we'll come to some clarity. (although I'll try not to sink to the levels of addressing you like a child.)
Please try and put any nationalistic allegiances aside, this is a question of when it's acceptable to use strong language to describe a group of people in an SS thread title. And, in general, what is considered acceptable posting behavior on SS.
For the purposes of setting a benchmark for an acceptable use of the thread title, Fucking _____ Cunts. Can it be agreed that Nazis are fucking cunts? So would it then be acceptable to use as a thread title, "Fucking Nazi Cunts"?
Moving on.
Arizona law makers act in a racist way = Fuck Arizona = Acceptable thread title.
Israeli law makers act in a racist way = Fucking Israeli Cunts = Non-acceptable thread title.
Because the use of the C word is too much? Or is it because people here are personally offended because it's Israel.
To clarify, this is not about supporting any of the statements content, or defending the title of the locked troll thread. I could give a fusk. I'm purely trying to ascertain what people consider acceptable posting behavior on this internet msg board and why.
Like Paul said, LoLing over a video of a man beating a woman, is acceptable, yet trolling about Israel gets the thread lock.
In any case, I wrote to Duderonamy to work out a basic compromise but now I've realized that threads that have been locked cannot be unlocked without, I'm assuming, Raj's magic touch.
But the person in this case wasn't sued for "deceit". He was convicted of rape, which, under these circumstances, seems way above and beyond what the situation calls for.
This isn't a perfect analogy but I imagine how this case would look if someone went to bed with someone they thought was white only to later discover they were half-black and then tried to apply the same logic as this case. I can't see a credible justification for accusing someone of rape in that situation.
Religion, however, is more complicated but I still think the same rationale holds, especially if there's no abuse of power (i.e. a minister pressuring a worshipper to have sex under the guise of "God wants this.")
Spring 1998 RAPE BY FRAUD AND RAPE BY COERCION
Patricia J. Falk
http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/Rape by Fraud.pdf
Two states provide for global treatment of fraud in relation to rape or other sexual offenses-Tennessee and Alabama. The distinguishing characteristic of both states' statutes is that they do not specifically set forth the exact types of fraud at issue. In contrast to the statutes in the next part which explicitly articulate the precise types of fraud needed to commit the offense, the following statutes can encompass a variety of deceptive behavior on the part of perpetrators.
a. Tennessee: Rape and Sexual Battery by Fraud
Under Tennessee's rather sophisticated grading structure, four categories of sexual offenses exist: aggravated rape, rape, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual battery. [FN330] Aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery statutes punish defendants' use of force or coercion when they are armed with a weapon, cause bodily injury, or have accomplices. [FN331] On the other hand, Tennessee's rape statute covers cases in which "The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud." [FN332] Its sexual battery statute covers instances in which the *110 defendant achieves sexual contact, rather than penetration, and also includes a provision on fraud. [FN333] Such fraud is defined as "used in normal parlance and includes, but is not limited to, deceit, trickery, misrepresentation and subterfuge, and shall be broadly construed to accomplish the purposes of this title; . . . ." [FN334] Finally, Tennessee provides that consent is not effective when it is induced by deception. [FN335]
b. Alabama: Sexual Misconduct
Unlike Tennessee's incorporation of fraud into its rape and sexual battery provisions, Alabama criminally punishes certain lesser forms of sexual misconduct as misdemeanors. One section of Alabama's statute punishes sexual misconduct if: "Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female . . . with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; . . . ." [FN336] The commentary to this statute provides:
Section 13A-6-65 is not concerned with aggravated cases of rape, . . . rather it is directed toward the more unusual situations where a person has acquiesced to sexual intercourse . . . as a result of some fraud, artifice or stratagem.
Section 13A-6-65(a) offers an offense in instances where the line between criminal and noncriminal sexual conduct has been transgressed to an extent which requires punishment of the actor and vindication of the victim. It comprehends specific instances presently criminal (see below), but it is broad enough to include other situations where the naivete of the victim or guile of the actor is sufficient to allow the actor to gain sexual access to the person of another through some artifice or fraud, e.g., "necessary medical treatment." . . . Section 13A-6-65(a)(1) also includes the offense of seduction . . . . [FN337] Alabama's sexual misconduct statute operates when the victim has consented, thus the defendant cannot claim consent as a defense. [FN338]
Some states have generic consent provisions applying to all types of criminal offenses not just sexual crimes. These provisions track Model Penal Code ("MPC") ?? 2.11 which describes when consent is ineffective in relieving a criminal actor of liability for conduct. [FN349] One enumerated circumstance, for example, is when consent is induced by force, duress, or deception. Ten states' provisions incorporate the MPC language with respect to deception. [FN350] These generic consent statutes commonly take two slightly different forms. One form specifies that assent does not constitute consent if: "It is induced by force, duress or deception." [FN351] Two states further qualify *115 this language by retaining the MPClanguage "of a kind sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense." [FN352] The other form provides that consent does not constitute a defense under the same circumstances. [FN353] Therefore, in rape cases where consent is procured by deception, such consent could be vitiated in states with global consent provisions fashioned after the MPC. [FN354]
Finally, in addition to rape or sexual assault statutes, several states retain criminal seduction statutes which implicate deception. Criminal seduction statutes are one of the oldest types of statutory law prohibiting the commission of sexual intercourse based upon some form of fraud.
I think this is the distinction you make above, taken from the same article, and the most common approach today. So, I think that you are right that the palestinian posing as a jew would not be rape, but that is not to say that there is no crime of rape by deception or fraud.
The traditional formula for distinguishing legally valid from invalid consent in fraud cases is the dichotomy between fraud in
the factum and fraud in the inducement. [FN566] Perkins and Boyce *158 describe such concepts as follows:
The general rule is that if deception causes a misunderstanding as to the fact itself (fraud in the factum) there is no
legally-recognized consent because what happened is not that for which consent was given; whereas consent induced by
fraud is as effective as any other consent, so far as direct and immediate legal consequences are concerned, if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter (fraud in the inducement). [FN567]
The authors maintain that the most striking illustration of this dichotomy occurs in rape law, [FN568] supporting their thesis
with the following example. If a doctor falsely tells a woman that sexual intercourse is necessary for her treatment and she
agrees, no rape occurred because the doctor's misrepresentation constitutes fraud in the inducement and the resulting consent is effective. On the other hand, if the doctor pretends to perform a routine pelvic exam and instead has sexual intercourse with the woman, then it is rape because this is fraud in the factum which vitiates her consent. The woman never consented to sexual intercourse because she was deceived about the act itself. [FN569] In fact, the court in Boro v. Superior [FN570]
relied on this classic distinction. As discussed supra in Part I.A.1, Boro involved a feigned doctor who told his victims that
sexual intercourse was a necessary treatment to cure their fatal blood disorder. The Boro court held that the defendant's lies
constituted fraud in the inducement, the victims' consent was effective, and, therefore, defendant was not found guilty of
rape. [FN571]
Funny,
And I'm not sure if this still stands. But the only way for a Palestinian to gain citizenship through marriage in Israel is through deceit and get himself a fake life I suppose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111727.stm
Palestinians with Israeli citizenship = about 1,271,000.
Jews with Palestinian or Jordanian citizenship = 0.
totes.
Well, my post was dealing with marriage and deceit off of Sabas post about marriage & deceit. I wasn't trying to debate Jews and citizenship.
Is it illegal for Jews to marry Jordanians to gain citizenship?
What's different about the deception at issue here?
There are plenty of Israelis that wouldn't condone the bizarre rape charge. I apologise to them, and anyone else who felt offended by the title of the thread.
Not that they'll be reading this, but I don't apologise to the judge, the prosecution team or the woman involved. They're the c*nts.
The case seems so extreme to me as to be funny.
I don't know if victims of real rape would find the judgement, or the thread so funny though, and it got me wondering if that case opens the way for men to accuse women of rape by deception - "I thought she was a natural blonde. Only in the morning did I realise my terrible mistake"
http://cynts.com/default.aspx
I do think there's a cultural difference with the use of the word cunt in Britain and the US.
I thought that prize went to the countries that stone people to death for adultery.
We're all cool, right?
why should anyone accept that assumption? because the so-called "intellectual" in that totally slanted guardian piece says so? because it fits a narrative that you somehow find comforting or reassuring?
if that summary is accurate then the trial judge was merely applying the law as it now exists in israel. as a bunch of people have pointed out, in a number of jurisdictions rape and sexual assault by fraud is an offence; here is a sad case from the uk that talks about "informed consent": http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/706.html
the problem with the Israeli high court ruling seems to be that it is entirely overboard and vague. it criminalizes all sorts of everyday behaviour that probably shouldn't be and if enforced to the letter means the criminal justice system would be overrun. the law clearly needs to be modified and clarified and perhaps this case will allow that to happen.
the guy is appealing and if he gets leave the high court will have an opportunity to reconsider their previous ruling on the matter. sometimes even the highest courts with the smartest and best people get it wrong and that's not just in israel.
in the meantime, to use this interesting but obscure legal issue about the scope of "true or informed consent" in israel as a means to portray jews or israelis or simply the israeli criminal justice system as inherently corrupt, racist or evil is such a smear.
Just to be clear, all of you defending this decision also disagree with it?
Religion/ethnicity are not "critical matters" to a "reasonable" person seeking a sex partner.
again, i say the defect with the law is that it is has been defined in an overly broad fashion by the high court but i haven;t read the full judgement of either case so i'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that the trial judge misconstrued or misapplied the existing law.
A "reasonable" person is not devoutly religious
that may be your opinion but i disagree. a person can be devoutly religious and "reasonable". "reasonable" isn;t a synonym for "agnostic".
have you never met a "reaonable" rabbi or priest or imam?
Nice dovetail. Casual sex, devoutly religious.
lt s the devoutly religious Jew who would be most offended by this ruling.
Justice s a central tenet of Judaism.
Zionism is a modern construct that has nothing to do with Judaism.
if you bothered to read what i wrote, you'll see that i think the law is defective. the legal standard is messed up and needs to be adjusted. my hope is that it will.
to use this incident to vent your rage at zionism is just messed up.