Here’s something you won’t read on Shiraz Socialist

Remember when the apartheid entity and the Zionist entity were different entities? The Daily Telegraph brings us this extraordinary tale from the land of the sad oranges, where it seems the courts take a rather South African view on miscegenation:

Palestinian jailed for rape after claiming to be Jewish

A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with an Israeli woman who believed he was Jewish because he introduced himself as “Daniel”.

A court in Jerusalem has made international legal history by jailing Sabbar Kashur, a 30-year-old delivery man from East Jerusalem, for 18 months.

He was convicted of “rape by deception” following a criminal trial that has drawn criticism from across Israel.

The court heard accusations that Mr Kashur misled the woman, whose identity has not been disclosed, by introducing himself with the traditionally Jewish name during a chance encounter on a street in central Jerusalem in 2008.

After striking up a conversation, the two went into a top-floor room of a nearby office-block and engaged in a sexual encounter, after which Mr Kashur left before the woman had a chance to get dressed. It was only later that she discovered Mr Kashur’s true racial background, lawyers said.

Although conceding that the sex was consensual, district court judge Tzvi Segal concluded that the law had a duty to protect women from “smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price”

“If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated,” Mrs Segal said as she delivered her verdict.

A conviction for rape by deception on the grounds of racial misrepresentation is believed to be internationally unprecedented, according to British legal experts.

The charge is rarely used in the West. In 2007, a Syrian pilot walked free from a court in Swansea after being accused of tricking a woman into intercourse by saying it could cure her of a sexually transmitted disease.

A court in Massachusetts also acquitted a man who allegedly masqueraded as his twin-brother in order to have sex with the man’s wife.

While forced sex by deception is an offence under Israeli law, legal experts say it is a charge used sparingly in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage.

Kashur was originally accused of violent rape and indecent assault, but later accepted the lesser charge under a plea-bargain after prosecutors received evidence suggesting the encounter was consensual.

Kashur’s lawyer, Adnan Aladdin, said he had filed an appeal to ensure that the verdict was not considered precedent-setting, adding that otherwise “many men would find themselves in jail.”

Israeli legal experts said they found the verdict disquieting.

“In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not,” said a former senior justice ministry official.

“The question is whether the state should punish somebody in that situation. It puts the law in the position of what could loosely be described as discrimination. I would feel intuitively uncomfortable about prosecuting someone for something like that.”

Asked whether his client was the victim of racial discrimination, Mr Aladdin said he “would rather not comment”. Others, however, were scathing.

Gideon Levy, a leading liberal commentator, said: “I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman. Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not.”

Israeli human rights activists said that Kashur’s actions reflected the deceits many Palestinians practise when in Israel in an attempt to avoid official and private prejudice because of their background.

“It is very well known that Israeli-Palestinians living in Israel disguise themselves,” said Leah Tsemel, a human-rights lawyer. “You change your accent and you change your dress because if you look like an Arab you face harassment.

“If you want to enter a pub, you’d better not look like an Arab and if you want to have sex with an Israeli girl, you had better not look like an Arab.”

The prosecutor in the case was unavailable for comment and officials in the Jerusalem district attorney’s office declined to discuss it.

Well, Jim and Max, what say you?

17 Comments

  1. bat020 said,

    July 22, 2010 at 12:27 am

    The Guardian version of this story quotes a longer, and even more astonishing, version of the judge’s statement: “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.”

  2. July 22, 2010 at 12:34 am

    Yeah, in any society where certain groups of people are privileged against others, the underclass end up being required by law to [i]proactively[/i] announce their underclass status, in case they get mistaken for a real human being. It’s not enough to oppress a people, if the oppressed don’t cooperate in their own oppression they are just spoiling everything.

    The narrative of “rape by deception” has also been used against transsexual people in many countries. Apparently, not telling your boyfriend that your vagina was surgically constructed before he put his dick in it gives him a right to beat you to death.

    • July 22, 2010 at 12:37 am

      The common factor in both cases: race (and gender, and probably class) are simultaneously constructed as natural, beyond-question categories, and have to be continually re-iterated in discourse and policed by violence.

  3. weserei said,

    July 22, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Lying to an intimate partner in order to get them to put out when they would not do so if they knew the truth: serious violation of another person’s sexual autonomy aka rape.

    Having incentives to lie about one’s racial background: societal racism.

    Wanting to have sex with someone who is actively racist toward your actual race: internalized racism.

    Trans people not wearing big signs saying TRANSSEXUAL at all times: a matter of survival in a lot of cases.

    Trans people telling intimate partners that they are cis: rare to the point of nonexistence, media depictions aside.

    Trans people making absolutely sure that everyone who they so much as flirt with knows they are trans: often one of those damned if you do etc. situations (and by “damned” I mean “raped, tortured, and/or murdered” if you did not guess)

    Law enforcement as a response to domestic violence and abuse: inherently inadequate and often counterproductive.

  4. policraticus said,

    July 22, 2010 at 8:38 am

    “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated,”

    Since when does ….

    “After striking up a conversation, the two went into a top-floor room of a nearby office-block and engaged in a sexual encounter..”

    by any stretch of the imagination [even by today's hedonistic standards] qualify as either party in the act being ‘interested in a SERIOUS romantic relationship.’? Or are there new definitions in the dictionary now for both ‘serious’ and ‘romantic’ ?

  5. Sussex Catholic said,

    July 22, 2010 at 9:23 am

    A man tells a woman he meets in a bar he is single when he is in fact married. They go back to her place and have sex.
    A man tells a woman he meets in a bar he is an airline pilot when he is in fact an Estate Agent. They go back to his place and have sex.
    A man tells a woman he meets in a bar that he loves her when in fact he doesn’t. They have sex and he then fails to call her.

    Rape?

  6. robert said,

    July 22, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    You would have thought that all those centuries of anti semitic persecution would have made Israelis more sensitive to racist bigotry but apparently not.

  7. July 22, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    Good stuff

    But, why would I not be able to read this on Shiraz Socialist?

    Plus, why am I not on your blogroll yet? What on earth do I have to do to get the privilege?

  8. July 25, 2010 at 1:08 am

    [...] July 25, 2010 at 12:07 am (Catholicism, Jim D, anti-semitism, blogging, censorship, wankers) Here’s something you won’t read on Shiraz Socialist [...]

  9. johng said,

    July 25, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I would just like to express my moderate disgrief about the frankly slightly regrettable censorship of Father Denham. Well known for his comically surreal tendency to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being an anti-semite and then demanding examples of anyone who has ever accused anyone of anti-semitism. Surely its wrong to ban people just because they are ludicrously offensive and stupid and disrupt any discussion with inane repetition and childish abuse, or slander people for no good reason? How can that possibly be fair?

  10. Sue R said,

    July 25, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Speaking as a member of the fair sex, can I ask if I am not allowed to refuse sex to anyone who asks me now? And, yes, I think lying bastards deserve everything tehy get. The man was married with two children. According to his religion, he shold be stoned to death. Anyone going to set up a campaign for his stoning? Or, does it only count if it’s with a fellow Muslim? Can a Muslim man commit untold adulteries with non-Muslim women with no one giving a damn? Probably, yes. Asking whether it would be the same the other way round is ridiculous. Everyone knows that Muslim women are NOT allowed to have anything to do with non-Muslim men. And, if they did, there’s this little thing called honour killing. A non-Muslim man was murdered in cold blood in London about six years ago for having a relationship with a Muslim girl. Was that racist? The other point is, n one is screaming about theh law passed in Egypt last week that refuses to recognise marriagies between Egyptian men and Israeli women: these marriages have now becoe void, annulled. Isn’t that closer to apartheid than a philoophically difficult case about consent. I see the man involvedin the case is accusing her of being all over him. What a slimeball and I would say that whatever his ethnicity.

    • Mark P said,

      July 25, 2010 at 3:50 pm

      As far as I can tell from the detailed media coverage, there is no allegation that the sex was anything but consensual, Sue. The woman concerned gave evidence that she would not however have consented had she known that the man was an arab.

      The extent of his deception, again as far as I can tell from the reports, was that he introduced himself as “Daniel”, a common Jewish name. If the man is married, then his wife certainly has a right to be very pissed off, but he hasn’t been charged with cheating on his wife.

      Assuming that I haven’t missed some important element of the story, the issue of whether you “are not allowed to refuse sex to anyone who asks” doesn’t seem to arise. The issue is more whether you have been raped if the stranger you voluntarily have sex with turns out to be part-black instead of the pure snowy white you had believed.

  11. johng said,

    July 25, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Does Sue R agree with sexual aparthied or not?

  12. Sue R said,

    July 25, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    As I pointed out, it is hypocrisy for Muslims to claim that this is sexual apartheid as Islam is the religion par excellence for not allowing ‘religion mixing’. In a sharia law country, this would be an honour killing. No doubt about it. Speaking as a woman, in my younger days I would have been extremely angry that I had been taken advantage in this way. A lot may depend upon whether this was an active or passive deception. I understood that they had had dealings over the internet and she was led to believe that he was interested in a serious relationship. All he wanted was a quick fuck. Yeah, not an uncommon story, I know, but does that make it any better? If, she is a religious woman, and the religious identity of any mate is important to her, then he has misrepresented himself if he said that he was Jewish. In England in previous centuries, a man who promised to marry a woman and then deserted her could be sued for ‘breach of promise’ and damages could be awarded. Not exactly rape I know, but it shows that jurisdictions have accepted the importance of ‘honest dealing’. As for the nonsense about a apparentkly white man turning out to be black, it has happened in South Africa. Presumably such a marriage in those days was ruled invalid in South Africa, just like the upto date example I gave of Egypt outlawing Israeli/Egyptian marriages. As for on a persoal level, it would be hard to claim rape in that case because consent would be based on physical appearance rather than religious background. Say for example, I presented myself as a member of the Roman Catholic Church to befriend a lonely billionaire who I knew was exceptionally devout. Say the poor fellow died and believing me to be a good Catholic decides to leave his fortune to me in the belief I will use it to missionise around the word. Once the old fool is safely pushing up the daisies I reveal that I am really a godless heathen and use the money on drugs and sex and rock and roll. Is that a) moral or b) legally valid?

  13. robert said,

    July 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Looks like Splinty has hit a raw nerve over at ShirazSocialist

    http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/something-you-couldnt-possibly-have-read-here/

  14. Heavens to Betsy said,

    July 25, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    @ Sussex Catholic:

    Rapist? Emphatically not.

    Bastard? Absolutely.

    Especially the estate agent.

  15. jim denham said,

    August 28, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    “Here’s something you won’t read on Shiraz Socialist”: actually, you can. I told the author of this blog that I would cross-post this item, and offered him a bet to make it interesting. he simply barred my coment from this blog. I understand that his barring has now been lifted. Only fair, seeing as I have allowed him to comment at “Shiraz” throughout. Nevertheless, I will continue to denounce Catholic reaction, hypocrisy, racism and (in particular, here) anti semitism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers

%d bloggers like this: