Consensual sex? Or rape by deception.. A disturbing case..

[Bells]

Sabbar Kashur, 30, was found guilty of "rape by deception" by the Israeli court and sentenced to 18 months in jail.

According to the complaint filed by the woman, the two met in a Jerusalem street in 2008 and had sex that day.

When she discovered he was not Jewish, but an Arab, she went to the police.

Kashur was arrested and charged with rape and indecent assault, but the charges were later replaced by a different charge of "rape by deception"

(Source)

Now, apparently Kashur was originally charged with having brutally raped her. But those charges were later dropped when the DA found that the sex had been consensual. So they took a different route..

Aladdin described his client's liaison in more detail: "There was a short foreplay a few minutes before; during the foreplay, the guy tells a few lies, the lady tells a few lies. They both have one goal, and that is to go to bed together. After the sexual intercourse, which was totally consensual, the lady decides to claim that the guy raped her brutally. She comes to court and testifies that this was a case of rape in which there was the use of force.

"At this stage, the defense decides to make an independent investigation. The investigation came up with new facts upon which the D.A. [district attorney] decides to give up the claim the sex was not consensual. So both sides agreed that the sexual intercourse was consensual. However, the D.A. still wanted to charge him with rape by deception.

(Source)

Now, one has to wonder how they came up with the charge itself. After all, going from rape and indecent assault to rape by deception is a bit of a an interesting leap. The judge involved in the case puts it quite bluntly:

In the court's ruling the judge, Zvi Segal, wrote: "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, she would not have co-operated.

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls."

(Source)

Hmmm.. Because meeting a guy on the street and then agreeing to have sex with him in an abandoned building is really showing an interest in a serious relationship.

Basically what "Dudu" did was to meet a woman on the street, she apparently approached him, and after a few minutes talking (where he tells her he's single and does not inform her that he is an Arab), they decide to have sex and find a private spot and have said sex. Now, about a month or so later, Dudu is contacted by the police on the suspicion that he raped and indecently assaulted the woman involved. He was then placed under house arrest for 2 years. During this time, they found that the rape was consensual, but instead of dropping the charges, they charged him with rape by deception. The judges agreed..

Gideon Levy looks at the root cause behind the charge and the verdict.

In a country where Arabs have to pretend to not be Arab, he discusses how many Arabs adopt nicknames that allows them to blend in, to not draw attention to themselves and their ethnicity. Something that civil rights lawyer Leah Samael is also interested in. But why is this case so bizarre? Rape by deception? I mean we're not talking about a doctor who tells his patients that their only cure is sex and then proceeds to have sex with them. "Dudu" is apparently a Jewish nickname for "David". But Sabbar Kashur's nickname is also "Dudu" and that is how he introduced himself to the woman involved.

No longer a youth, Sabbar/Dudu worked as a deliveryman for a lawyer's office, rode his scooter around Jerusalem and delivered documents, affidavits and sworn testimonies, swearing to everyone that he was Dudu. Two years ago he met a woman by chance. Nice to meet you, my name is Dudu. He claims that she came on to him, but let's leave the details aside. Soon enough they went where they went and what happened happened, all by consent of the parties concerned. One fine day, a month and a half after an afternoon quickie, he was summoned to the police on suspicion of rape.

His temporary lover discovered that her Dudu wasn't a Dudu after all, that the Jew is (gasp! ) an Arab, and so she filed a complaint against the impostor. Her body was violated by an Arab. From then on Kashur was placed under house arrest for two years, an electronic cuff on his ankle. This week his sentence was pronounced: 18 months in jail.

Judge Zvi Segal waxed dramatic to the point of absurdity: "It is incumbent on the court to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth, sweet-talking offenders who can mislead naive victims into paying an unbearable price: the sanctity of their bodies and souls." Sophisticated offenders? It is doubtful that Dudu even knew he was one. Sweet talk? He says that even his wife calls him Dudu.

The court relied, as usual, on precedents: the man who posed as a senior Housing Ministry official and promised his lover an apartment and an increased National Insurance pension, and the man who posed as a wealthy neurosurgeon who promised free medical care and other perks. Dudu had nothing to offer but his good name, Dudu, and still his fate was sealed, just like those who promise apartments and perks. Not only fraud, but rape, almost like the convicted serial rapist Benny Sela.

But because he is an Arab, this case takes on an interesting dimension. One steeped in racism - harking back to the days of black men being accused of rape for having sex with a white woman:

In tune with the public, Kashur's judges assumed, rightly, that the woman would not have gotten into bed with Dudu were it not for the identity he invented. She also might not have gotten into bed with him if he had told her in vain that he was available, that he was younger than he really is or even that he is madly in love with her. But people are not prosecuted for that, certainly not on rape charges.

Now the respected judges have to be asked: If the man was really Dudu posing as Sabbar, a Jew pretending to be an Arab so he could sleep with an Arab woman, would he then be convicted of rape? And do the eminent judges understand the social and racist meaning of their florid verdict? Don't they realize that their verdict has the uncomfortable smell of racial purity, of "don't touch our daughters"? That it expresses the yearning of the extensive segments of society that would like to ban sexual relations between Arabs and Jews?

The court cited precedents of a man who claimed to be a housing official and received sexual favours for housing. But this was a one night stand.. met on the street, went to an old building, had sex and went to their respective homes. The sex was consensual. Until she found out he was an Arab.. So what's in a nickname? The danger of this case is that it sets an even more ridiculous precedent. That if a person lies to get someone to sleep with them, they could find themselves charged with rape. Saying "I love you" in the heat of the moment, when you don't love the other, could result in being charged with rape..

But at the heart of the matter is that the court is allowing a charge of rape to stand based on racial identity - in she is saying it was rape because she had sex with an Arab, not a Jew.

Just when you thought it could not get more ridiculous.. it does.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm sure there's a useful point in there, somewhere

I'm stumped. That's another one where if you wrote it as a novel it wouldn't sell because it's too unrealistic.

I will split a hair into two parts, grasping after something to say. It seems to me there are two primary issues to consider. In the first place, I tend against a standard that says you can't lie in order to get laid, but that's only because too firm a line creates too many questions. I'm not sure I want to charge every secret bigamist we bust with that many counts of rape. Not that there are many secret bigamists these days, or, at least, you don't hear about them because it's not spectacular enough until one gets busted. But at some point laying it on is just cruel. We have to admit that there are mental health issues caught up in this. Not only does a guy want to be married, he wants to be married more than once ... at the same time. I have the same objection to open polygamists.

But the idea that one could be happy maintaining the lies? It suggests dysfunction, and a serious one.

So, no. I don't like a hard standard.

But I despise the idea of lying to get laid.

And no, I'm not talking about the sappy, weak, "I'm sorry," when he's not because he wants to skip to the make-up sex. That's a lesson people just have to learn on their own. It's normal and unhealthy and pretty much everybody goes through it. It's virtually required.

And since I'm splitting hairs, I will split the difference between actively lying and failing to mention certain things. Arab? Not a big deal to me. HIV positive? Probably something you should mention.

No, I haven't enough facts to indict poor Dudu. He's beside the point at this point.

The gray zone, on such a standard, I would hope to have somewhat vividly pointed out. I just don't think it's psychologically natural to legislate basic human sleaze. At least, not this way. Yes, certain lies lead to unwanted children and messy divorces, but people are just going to do this shit to themselves. And, yes, how they deal with themselves affects other people. But trying to draw the line between rational crime and mental illness on this one is an exercise in absurdity. Every defendant would have a mental health defense.

Is it clear enough, then, that I'm opposed to legislation in this issue, and how?

Sorry, I'm just really, really stoned.

The second issue, obviously, is a complete fucking mess that has to do with Israel, perceptions, exploitation of perceptions, and, above all, a people asserted to either be wholly evil or unjustly persecuted for the fact of being alive. And by that last, of course, I'm referring to the Palestinians.

This, of course, is a separate issue entirely.

Dudu is a moron, at worst. Are we more worried that Arab morons are apparently so much worse, or that the whole thing has actually come to this in the first place?

:m:

 

[joepistole]

This is one of the problems I have with Israel. This kind of stuff is despicable. Israel also has a religious court system to enforce religious law. I wonder if this man was tried in the religious court system.

 

[S.A.M.]

Its a strange country when the government uses fake passports for their operatives to enter other countries because they won't permit entry to Israelis and then convict a guy who uses a nickname to get laid.

A point of interest, the flesh trade is very active in Israel, if a john uses an alias or a jane has a professional name, can they be charged with rape by deception even if they get paid for it? Or does it then become extortion by deception ?

Just when you thought it could not get more ridiculous.. it does.

Thats like a one line definition of Israel

Dudu is a moron, at worst

Men lying to get laid? Damn, whoever heard of that? All those extra-marital rapists by deception better watch out. Its not just the wife who doesn't understand you.

 

[Bells]

This is one of the problems I have with Israel. This kind of stuff is despicable. Israel also has a religious court system to enforce religious law. I wonder if this man was tried in the religious court system.

Nope.

He was charged in their criminal justice system.

I'm stumped. That's another one where if you wrote it as a novel it wouldn't sell because it's too unrealistic.

I couldn't understand it either.

There is something disturbing about this case. That in this day and age, consensual sex between two adults can be deemed as rape because one thought the other belonged to the same religion..

I mean we have a court saying that she was apparently looking for a serious relationship - because meeting a guy on the street and going to an abandoned building to have one off sex (or to put it bluntly, a one night stand) and then never having contact with him again is how one goes about starting a serious relationship.

And then of course we have this:

But, if the circumstances had been different -- if a religious Jew had said he was not religious in order to woo a potential suitor -- "he would not be brought to court," she said.

(Source)

That a legal system can openly and so blatantly uphold such racist ideology - as Levy puts it - "don't touch our daughters" - is quite vile. And this:

The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls.

So having sex with an Arab is to rob someone of the sanctity of their bodies and souls?

I have to admit, I laughed when I first read it, thinking there is a punchline in there somewhere. But unfortunately for Dudu, there is not. What we have is a woman, who willingly had sex with another man and then cried rape a month and a half later when she found out he was an Arab.

A point of interest, the flesh trade is very active in Israel, if a john uses an alias or a jane has a professional name, can they be charged with rape by deception even if they get paid for it? Or does it then become extortion by deception ?

Or as one article put it. A man telling a woman he loves her to get laid, and he does not love her, could find himself accused of rape. But I guess it could only apply if one is non-Jewish.

I am all for protecting men and women from rape. But this?

This belittles the actual crime of rape. It makes it into a god damn joke and that is what angers me about this.

 

[wynn]

The insanity of modern times ... makes martial law appear perfectly sane.

 

[GeoffP]

Nothing too surprising about it. Stems from the same "us-vs-them" mentality that underlies the murder of cross-religious couples in religious apartheid countries like Pakistan and Malaysia.

 

[visceral_instinct]

What a pile of puke. She chose to have sex.

Rape is when you say NO or STOP, or you resist, or you are obviously incapable of consenting (eg asleep, unconscious, etc) and someone does it anyway.

Duh.

It's not rape when you CHOOSE to have sex.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Wow, if they're using that definition then it turns out everyone I know has been raped.

What a pile of puke. She chose to have sex.

Rape is when you say NO or STOP, or you resist, or you are obviously incapable of consenting (eg asleep, unconscious, etc) and someone does it anyway.

Duh.

It's not rape when you CHOOSE to have sex.

Ever said no and then jumped on top of someone anyway? Confuses the shit out of them.
Although the best line is "we shouldn't be doing this"(but carrying on anyway), it's not quite a no, but does give some plausible deniability.

 

[Bells]

What a pile of puke. She chose to have sex.

Rape is when you say NO or STOP, or you resist, or you are obviously incapable of consenting (eg asleep, unconscious, etc) and someone does it anyway.

Duh.

It's not rape when you CHOOSE to have sex.

The thing is, rape can occur even though it is consensual. For example, a psychiatrist telling his patient that the only way she can be cured or helped is for him to have sex with her as a part of her treatment. She is mentally ill and/or emotionally vulnerable and she says yes. Cases such as this will usually result in a guilty verdict.

But in this instance, we have a guy who only identified himself as "Dudu", his real nickname.. She thought he was Jewish, had sex with him and then a month and a half later, found out he was Arab and said he'd raped her. He was charged with indecent assault and rape.. Investigations found the sex was consensual, so in most circumstances, nothing would have happened. But in this instance, because he is an Arab, he is charged with rape by deception and found guilty and given 18 months in jail, after serving 2 years under house arrest.

There is no crime here.

It quite literally harks back to the days when black men would have been lynched for raping a white woman, even if and when the sex was consensual. But apparently the sanctity of her body and soul would not have been tarnished if she'd had a one night stand with a Jew.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The thing is, rape can occur even though it is consensual.

This statement is incorrect. Your example is of someone considered mentally incapable of giving consent, so the sex was not consensual.


As to the case referenced in the OP, complete bullshit. How can you reasonably expect honesty from your partner in a one night stand? As Captain Renault would say, I'm shocked, shocked to find that one or both partners in a one night stand were not completely honest!

 

[visceral_instinct]

Wow, if they're using that definition then it turns out everyone I know has been raped.

Ever said no and then jumped on top of someone anyway? Confuses the shit out of them.
Although the best line is "we shouldn't be doing this"(but carrying on anyway), it's not quite a no, but does give some plausible deniability.

Nope. Never done that.

I reserve my loud harsh NO for when it genuinely is a no.

There is no crime here.

It quite literally harks back to the days when black men would have been lynched for raping a white woman, even if and when the sex was consensual. But apparently the sanctity of her body and soul would not have been tarnished if she'd had a one night stand with a Jew.

Agreed. She was a sane adult choosing to have sex. If it mattered so much to her to only have sex with Jews, maybe she should have found out a bit about his lineage..

 

[WillNever]

If I'm not mistaken he lied to her in order to get her to have sex with him, is that correct..? That is not a cool thing to do. I don't think it's worthy of prosecution, but it is not a cool thing to do.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Nope. Never done that.

I reserve my loud harsh NO for when it genuinely is a no.

Pff, you're no fun.

Agreed. She was a sane adult choosing to have sex. If it mattered so much to her to only have sex with Jews, maybe she should have found out a bit about his lineage..

Get to know someone before sleeping with them? What kind of insane and depraved world do you want us to live in???

 

[Doreen]

This definition of rape would create a huge class of rapists. People who misrepresent themselves and then have sex are rapists. I mean, isn't that what most people do to varying degrees?

 

[Anti-Flag]

This definition of rape would create a huge class of rapists. People who misrepresent themselves and then have sex are rapists. I mean, isn't that what most people do to varying degrees?

From what I remember reading earlier I'm not sure she ever asked if he was Jewish or not? It says they both "told a few lies", but I can't recall the specific part pertaining to him lying about his heritage. She "thought" he was Jewish and he apparently has a "Jewish name" but that's all I can remember. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't even come across as misrepresentation, just something she assumed and he never said otherwise, and he might not have thought it mattered.

 

[Doreen]

From what I remember reading earlier I'm not sure she ever asked if he was Jewish or not? It says they both "told a few lies", but I can't recall the specific part pertaining to him lying about his heritage. She "thought" he was Jewish and he apparently has a "Jewish name" but that's all I can remember. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't even come across as misrepresentation, just something she assumed and he never said otherwise, and he might not have thought it mattered.

I agree. But let's say he lied, outright. Imagine the men who could be prosecuted for saying 'I love you' when they don't. Since this would be misrepresenting himself. Or for saying 'I stopped sleeping with Sue a month ago.' When this is not the case. And so on. Women, of course, could suddenly be prosecuted in great numbers for rape for the first time. Only racism or, I suppose, religionism, really a mix of the two, could have made the court think this case came under their purview. It's not a legal matter.

He should have immediately charged her for rape and claimed she said she loved him or was an Arab, etc.

 

[wynn]

It is a legal matter when someone, in good faith, agrees to a transaction, and it later turns out that the other party deceived them. This is a standard pattern for fraud.

Suppose you, in good faith, buy a used car from someone, and it later turns out that the car was stolen and that the seller knew it was stolen but didn't tell you.
If you report it to the authorities, or if the authorities in a regular checkup discover that it is a stolen car, you can't keep the car, you lose the money, and the seller faces charges.

If this pattern is used as a precedent, then the rape charges from the OP stand, provided that not disclosing or lying about one's religion or nationality is considered incriminating.

Which I find to be an interesting point: Is it incriminating to not disclose or lie about one's religion or nationality, and if yes, under what circumstances?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is a legal matter when someone, in good faith, agrees to a transaction, and it later turns out that the other party deceived them. This is a standard pattern for fraud.

That's true: when the transaction itself is subject to the law.
You cannot claim fraud if someone says they'll meet you at the cafe at nine and they actually have no intention of turning up 'til 11, or maybe not at all.
Purchasing a car is a legally-defined transaction (goods for recompense [cash/ cheque/ whatever]) but a one-night stand? Come on...
"You told me you were only 28 and I found out you're 32!" = fraud?
"I thought you were the manager not a junior office member" = fraud?
Pfft, "You looked much prettier after eight pints and in dim lighting, I'm gonna sue" :shrug:

 

[wynn]

By Israel law, how are relationships (of any kind) between Arabs and Israelis defined?
Do they have a kind of Apartheid?