Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Garden Rose who wrote (276362)	9/28/2010 1:56:49 PM
From: Sun Tzu	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

See this for a clear headed analysis: kittywampus.wordpress.com Here is a partial quote: The parallel that pops into my mind is one that I realize may be offensive to some folks: the charge of “race defilement” in Nazi Germany. No, I’m not equating these judges (much less all of Israel) with the Nazis. But there’s a notion of racial purity behind this verdict that is reminiscent of Nazi ideas about racial purity as expressed in the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor (the Blood Protection Law, for short). Under the Blood Protection Law, only men could be charged. That went for both “Aryan” and Jewish men, though the primary targets were of course Jewish. Women were interrogated and their privacy and reputations destroyed, but “Aryan” women were also viewed as victims. This legal practice followed Hitler’s bilious depiction of male Jewish sexuality in Mein Kampf: The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. (p. 270 in the James Murphy translation of Mein Kampf that’s freely available on the Web) Compare this with the language in Segal’s opinion: 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. In both instances, men in the out-group are envisioned as predatory and deceptive; they’re sexual beasts, but they’re also terribly clever. In both instances, women belonging to the in-group are portrayed as passive, innocent, and unsuspecting. In neither case are women conceived – or even conceivable – as sexual agents. In both cases, women will be despoiled if the state fails to protect them. In both cases, community, honor, and racial purity are at stake.

To: Garden Rose who wrote (276362)	9/28/2010 3:46:34 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

RACISM was the focal point of the discussion. Not for me it isn't. If he actually did rape her, than his punishment is hardly unfair, whether or not racism was involved. Excluding the possibility of actual forcible rape, then I'd say any felony conviction for "rape by fraud" would probably be "unfair". I don't consider lying a bout who you are to get sex, to be rape. And he may not have even done that, which would make the conviction even more unreasonable. Did racism play a role in the sentence he received? Quite possibly (although as certainly as its been presented by some here, a case of disparate sentencing at most suggests the possibility of racism being an important factor, it does not prove it), it wouldn't surprise me if it did. But I'm less concerned with a somewhat worse sentence do to racism (if in fact that's the case), than I am with the whole "rape by fraud" conviction in the first place, even if he did lie about himself, and with the possibility that an innocent man got shafted with a false forcible rape complaint, and a false "rape by fraud" conviction. If racism did play an important role, its hardly unique to Israel. It happens everywhere to a greater or lesser degree. Considering one's ethnicity to determine whether a crime was committed is ipso facto RACIST IN THE FIRST DEGREE!! If "rape by fraud" is a real crime that should be considered a felony and severely punished (and I disagree with that idea), then not racist on the part of the legal system. To say someone has committed a crime by misrepresenting his ethnicity to get sex, at least not if other misrepresentations ("don't worry you can't get pregnant I'm sterile", "no I don't have any STDs", "I'm xxxx (some celebrity who the "rapist" looks like", "I'm the CEO of XYZ corp (when the person is really an entry level worker, etc.) If there is any racism there its the person not wanting to have sex with a particular ethnic group and so considering it a material lie to the "rape by fraud" charge, but I'd hardly consider that to be "racist in the first degree". I wouldn't call someone racist for not wanting to have sex with people of some race. (Although usually that would be an issue of not being attracted to most members of a certain race, if she voluntarily had sex with him and then was upset when she found out his race that wouldn't be the issue. It could then be racism on her part.) So the charge considering alleged lies about race to be relevant isn't racist. The actual conviction, and/or the sentence received for the "crime", may have been. By the way, your technique in arguing minutiae I'm not arguing minutiae. False crime reports, false convictions, and criminalizing conduct that shouldn't be illegal (or making a minor crime in to a felony) are important issues, potentially they most important issues in this case IMO. Obviously you disagree. That's fine. Different people will find different things important, but having different concerns doesn't equal "arguing minutiae".