Arab Man Convicted Of "Rape By Deception" For Pretending To Be Jewish

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,501
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Huffington Post

An Israeli man of Arab descent has been convicted of rape after allegedly duping a Jewish woman into having consensual sex with him.

30-year-old Sabbar Kashur was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after a Jerusalem court ruled he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman, Kashur, an Arab living in East Jerusalem, introduced himself in September 2008 as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship.

After the two met outside of a local grocery store, they had consensual sex shortly thereafter in a nearby building. When she found out that Kashur was Arab and not Jewish, the woman filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault. Those claims were later changed to a formal charge of rape by deception as the result of a plea bargain arrangement.

Judge Zvi Segal ruled that although not "a classical rape by force," Kashur had pursued the relationship through deception and under false pretenses -- and the woman would not have consented otherwise. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," Segal wrote in the ruling.

According to Haaretz, Kashur is vowing to appeal, and has fired back by calling the ruling "racist."

"If I were Jewish, they wouldn't have even questioned me," he said. "That's not called rape. I didn't rape her in the forest and throw her away naked. She agreed to everything that happened."

Meanwhile, the case has divided other Israeli legal experts. Elkana Laist of the Public Defender's Office told Haaertz the ruling was "paternalistic towards women," and said the Jerusalem District Court had "open[ed] the door to a rape conviction every time a person lies regarding details of his identity . . . that approach is not accepted around the world, either."

Dana Pugach, head of the Noga Center for Victims of Crime, felt differently. "It is a person's right to have sexual relations with a person knowing the facts about those characteristics. I see no difference between impersonating a Jew if you are an Arab and a wealthy pilot when you are penniless, if those are relevant characteristics to the decision to have sex."



Completely irrelevant compared to the subject matter-but can someone fix the typo in my topic line? Thanks.
 
I don't know about this. What if this was the United States and the woman was white and she later found out the man she was with was part black when she thought he was "totally white." They used to have a thing called the "one-drop" rule here.

I'm just not sure how I feel about the whole idea of "rape by deception." The "whole if I had known X,Y,or Z I wouldn't have had sex with him (or her)" sounds less like rape and more like buyer's remorse.
 
I'd say the guy was guilty of deception, but applying "rape" to this makes me really uncomfortable.

If I have consensual sex with a guy who tells me he's a doctor, and then I find out he's a gas station attendant, is that rape, too? NO.

This just reaks of racism.
 
Sorry, it doesn't fly with me. The sex was consensual, so it cannot be rape unless there is some other statutory reason like she is a minor. I defer to the statutes that define rape and lying isn't one of them. :shrug:
 
introduced himself in September 2008 as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship.

After the two met outside of a local grocery store, they had consensual sex shortly thereafter in a nearby building.

If naivete were a crime she'd be in serious trouble now. But this rape? No way! He certainly didn't do the right thing, but it's going too far to make this a crime.
 
Is it criminal deception only if the alleged victim subjectively believes that he/she they were deceived into believing that their sex partner wasn't as desirable as believed or represented to be? Does it work in the opposite direction?

That is, for example, what if he said to her, "You know, I'm just an average guy.". Later she learns that he has a genius IQ, has five gold Olympic medals, has royal lineage, and is a self-made billionaire? Is he still going to jail for "rape by deception"?
 
Is it criminal deception only if the alleged victim subjectively believes that he/she they were deceived into believing that their sex partner wasn't as desirable as believed or represented to be? Does it work in the opposite direction?

That is, for example, what if he said to her, "You know, I'm just an average guy.". Later she learns that he has a genius IQ, has five gold Olympic medals, has royal lineage, and is a self-made billionaire? Is he still going to jail for "rape by deception"?

I suppose it would if she would never have consented to have sex with anyone who wasn't just an average guy.
 
This is a very complex and complicated case.

Personally, I do not think it is racist. It stands to reason that if the woman had a choice whether to have sex with a Jewish man or with an Arab man then obviously she would have chosen the Jewish man - however, in this case, the choice was taken away from her by the man misrepresenting himself.

He had to have known that if he had identified himself as an Arab, it is very difficult to believe that woman would have willingly have sex with him - again, not out of racism but because Jews tend to go with Jews and Arabs with Arabs - just like anywhere else in the world. Race has nothing to do with it.

It is obvious to me that the man's goal was strictly to have sex with the woman and therefore used deception to get her into bed where she would have otherwise refused if she had known that he was an Arab - again, not out of racism.

For example:
If I'm a very poor secretary living on welfare and one day I come to you claiming to be heiress to a very large fortune and ask you to lend me money in anticipation of a large inheritance that I'm due to receive, and I assure you of who I am and that you will be paid back every dime, you may or may not be inclined to lend me the money but you would CERTAINLY be less inclined to lend me money if you knew that I was a poor secretary on welfare with no means to repay you. However, I do not give you that choice because right from the onset I tell you that I'm an heiress to get you to lend me the money.

when you lend me the money and then discover who I really am, then you for sure would feel deceived and you would take me to court to get your money back, and it would be considered stealing even if you willingly gave me the money.

I contend that the only reason she had sex with this man is because he told her he was single and Jewish. Therefore, the choice was not hers to make and therefore there was deceit which, ultimately, leads to the charge of rape.
 
It stands to reason that if the woman had a choice whether to have sex with a Jewish man or with an Arab man then obviously she would have chosen the Jewish man

The conflict between radical muslims/Palestinians and Israelis notwithstanding, if that's not racist, then I don't know what.

He had to have known that if he had identified himself as an Arab, it is very difficult to believe that woman would have willingly have sex with him - again, not out of racism but because Jews tend to go with Jews and Arabs with Arabs - just like anywhere else in the world. Race has nothing to do with it.

In the western world, which Israel likes to be part of, that is most certainly often the case and neither race nor religion is a hinderance except, well, you are racist or intolerant of other religions.

It is obvious to me that the man's goal was strictly to have sex with the woman and therefore used deception to get her into bed

Quite true
where she would have otherwise refused if she had known that he was an Arab - again, not out of racism.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. While he did decept her, and that was certainly unjust, it's neither rape nor is her reasoning anything but racist. She has a legitimate argument that he lied to her, and that she would've refused had she known he was most certainly not looking for a serious, committed relationship then she'd have my full understanding. But she sued him for the fact that he lied about his religion/ethnicity.

For example:
If I'm a very poor secretary living on welfare and one day I come to you claiming to be heiress to a very large fortune and ask you to lend me money in anticipation of a large inheritance that I'm due to receive, and I assure you of who I am and that you will be paid back every dime, you may or may not be inclined to lend me the money but you would CERTAINLY be less inclined to lend me money if you knew that I was a poor secretary on welfare with no means to repay you. However, I do not give you that choice because right from the onset I tell you that I'm an heiress to get you to lend me the money.

What does the Nigeria connection have to do with all of this?

when you lend me the money and then discover who I really am, then you for sure would feel deceived and you would take me to court to get your money back, and it would be considered stealing even if you willingly gave me the money.

Only if you were not going to give it back to me. But I should be damned for falling for this old trick.

I contend that the only reason she had sex with this man is because he told her he was single and Jewish. Therefore, the choice was not hers to make and therefore there was deceit which, ultimately, leads to the charge of rape.

It totally was, she could just have said: "He, I just met you outside this store. You seem nice to me, and maybe we can get something going here. But if this is really meant to be a serious relationship, shouldn't we maybe meet for a dinner and getting to know each other a little better instead of going to the next best building to have sex?" You don't have a choice only because the stranger you meet outside the grocery story fits two rather broad and meaningless criteria?

Her argument against a long-term relationship would be understandable, then also concerning their different religions. That's something that is not always going to work out, especially if the religions are that different. So if she had said, "Oh well, you are a nice guy but I don't see this going to work out. Our ways of life are just too different.", it would be understandable. I would have my doubts with a person that was strongly religious. But was she really going to go for that in the first place? It more sounds like a one-night-stand and afterwards she was shocked because this guy turned out to be an Arab.
It's not justifying what he did, and the intention he had. But it's questionable whether it constitutes rape.
 
This is a very complex and complicated case.

Actually it's not.
Personally, I do not think it is racist. It stands to reason that if the woman had a choice whether to have sex with a Jewish man or with an Arab man then obviously she would have chosen the Jewish man - however, in this case, the choice was taken away from her by the man misrepresenting himself.

He had to have known that if he had identified himself as an Arab, it is very difficult to believe that woman would have willingly have sex with him - again, not out of racism but because Jews tend to go with Jews and Arabs with Arabs - just like anywhere else in the world. Race has nothing to do with it.

Just because this type of discrimination is common where you live it doesn't mean it's not racist.

She was willing to have sex with a complete stranger, do you really think the "Jews tend to go with Jews" thing is really an excuse?

The fact that you can't see this for what it is scares me...
 
This is a very complex and complicated case.

Not really, it's fairly straightforward. Defenders of Israel like to make claims about what a modern, secular nation it is. This case proves it isn't - it's a theocracy where citizens of one religion are favoured over another.
 
Sorry, it doesn't fly with me. The sex was consensual, so it cannot be rape unless there is some other statutory reason like she is a minor.

Not necessarily true - consent can be vitiated by fraud. I have no idea what the statutory language or Israeli caselaw are but it seems like they are relying on this type of principle here.
 
I feel like I want to reply to many of the posts in here

just don't have the time

If the man were Jewish and represented himself to be single, but she later found out he was married, would he be in jail for rape? would he even have been charged?
 
The articles I've read place more emphasis on the fact that he lied about his religion rather than lying about being married.

Did the woman take equal offense at both lies? If he had just lied about being married, would she have filed charges?

He was convicted of "rape by deception." I'm assuming the court didn't care what he lied about, just that he used deception ... did the woman feel the same, or is the media (and the man, based on his quote) playing up the religious angle?
 
I don't believe it is right to lie to someone to have sex

do we lable rape? each time someone has consensual sex wtih someone
and later find out there was a misrepresentation?
 
I don't believe it is right to lie to someone to have sex

do we lable rape? each time someone has consensual sex wtih someone
and later find out there was a misrepresentation?

I have to admit that I actually don't know much about this area of law. It's been years since I've taken a torts or criminal law class and it's just never been something that's interested me.

I wish we had an Israeli lawyer here to tell us what the state of the law is. From what I remember, in Canada it depends on whether the misrepresentation is the factor that induced the person to consent to sex. In other words, but for THAT lie, the person would not have consented. I would think she'd have a hard time proving that.
 
I'm assuming the court didn't care what he lied about, just that he used deception ... did the woman feel the same, or is the media (and the man, based on his quote) playing up the religious angle?

Can you imagine how packed our courts would be if anyone could file rape by deception here?

What do you mean you're not rich?

What do you mean you're not related to Brad Pitt?

What do you mean you're not a swimsuit model?
 
i remember hearing a story in the news about a case in Miami where a woman married a man who turned out to be a Cuban spy.

she sued the Cuban government for rape, because she did not consent to have sex with the man he was, she consented to have sex with the man he presented himself to be.

my guess is that forging a totally new identity requires several levels of deception -- as opposed to just slipping off your wedding ring in the hotel bar -- so perhaps that's taken into account legally.
 
Can you imagine how packed our courts would be if anyone could file rape by deception here?

What do you mean you're not rich?

What do you mean you're not related to Brad Pitt?

What do you mean you're not a swimsuit model?

I am thinking more along with you

it is not rape

there may be cases of fraud, where fraud was used to induce someone into a contract, partnership, or relationship

the aggrieved party may be due some redress, especailly where there has been a finanical impact
 
I know it's a little aside for a serious topic, but this issue reminded me of part of Chris Rock's standup.

"When you meet someone for the first time, you're not meeting them. You're meeting their representative. Because you can't get no one looking like you look, sounding like you sound, acting like you act. You've got to lie to get somebody."

Fast forward to about 2:15

YouTube - Episode 27:Chris Rock Women and lies

(I should point out, this clip NSFW or the ears of the young folk.)
 
Last edited:
I'd say the guy was guilty of deception, but applying "rape" to this makes me really uncomfortable.

If I have consensual sex with a guy who tells me he's a doctor, and then I find out he's a gas station attendant, is that rape, too? NO.

This just reaks of racism.

I think so too. A liar maybe, rapist no.
 
I feel like I want to reply to many of the posts in here

just don't have the time

If the man were Jewish and represented himself to be single, but she later found out he was married, would he be in jail for rape? would he even have been charged?

I'm willing to bet the answer is no. If it really is enshrined in Israeli law that deception based on religion/ethnicity specifically qualifies as rape (which I would be surprised to find that it does) then the law itself is racist. It'd be just like a law in the old South stating that if a man who has a certain percentage of black blood lies about it in order to sleep with a white woman then it is "rape by deception."
 
This reminds me of women/men who dye their hair. Omg I thought you were a natural blonde !!!

It sounds like racism to me.
 
I found this article through Google, don't know what happened with the bill


Feb 28, 2008


(UWIRE.com) This story was written by Johanna Kaiser, The Daily Free Press


Massachusetts legislators considered a bill Wednesday that would close a loophole in rape laws to allow prosecutors to bring charges against people who gain a victim's consent to sex through deception.

Under current law, rape in Massachusetts can only be prosecuted if the act involves force and non-consent. The law does not protect victims who have been intentionally duped into having sex without force or violence.

"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. If the law passes here, a common concern is that the legislation's vague language regarding deception will result in women who have been seduced by men posing as someone else or claiming to be unmarried filing rape charges.

Both Leone and Worcester County District Attorney Joe Early said the new legislation is not open to this misinterpretation. They said though the legislation pertains to a small percentage of cases, any accusation of rape is seriously investigated and considered by prosecutors before charges are filed.

The district attorneys said the law leaves room for future changes based on what society considers to be rape.

Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc. -- an organization which oversees the state coalition of rape crisis centers and domestic violence programs -- said rapists who deceive their victims operate by deliberately creating an environment of trust.

She said a person's intentions determine whether criminal charges apply to a case because the proposed law aims to stop sociopaths who repeatedly rape by deception - not people who are simply boasting to seduce someone.

"Our laws cannot start from a place only considering defendant rights," Lauby said. "It is only the victim who can say if rape is committed."
 
In Israel

Jurists say Arab's rape conviction sets dangerous precedent - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

"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."

Rubinstein said the question was also whether an ordinary person would expect such a woman to have sex with a man without the false identity he created.

In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.

One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud. "
 
If this case hasn't been misrepresented in the media, there is so much to go against and she sued him because he was Arab instead of a Jew?

Would get a bit philosophical, but how reasonable is that woman if she fell for that?
 
In Israel

Jurists say Arab's rape conviction sets dangerous precedent - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

"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."

Rubinstein said the question was also whether an ordinary person would expect such a woman to have sex with a man without the false identity he created.

In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.

One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud. "

Well it sounds like the legal precedent for "rape by deception" in Israel is not built around race or religion, so I'd have to revise my conclusion. If they have precedent for those kinds of convictions in other circumstances then I don't think it can be fairly argued that racism is the motivator here.

It is a thorny issue, but I can imagine circumstances that set rape by deception apart from mere fraud.
 
"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.

I found that last night, too.

There is something seriously wrong with labeling that rape.

The women were certainly defrauded, I don't believe they were raped, they were consenting adults choosing to engage in sex for a benefit,
that they did not receive.

I think if a person went to a barber and got a hair cut and did not pay, he should be charge with theft, theft of a service.
I think if a person went to a brothel and did not pay for sex, he also should be charged for theft. Again, theft of services, not rape.

Every time a person has consensual sex and expectations are not met,
is it rape?
 
Back
Top Bottom