Something you couldn’t possibly have read here

July 25, 2010 at 12:07 am (anti-semitism, blogging, Catholicism, censorship, Jim D, wankers)

From the Catholic, anti-semitic blog  ‘Splintered Sunrise‘ :

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

July 22, 2010 at 12:11 am (Middle East)

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?

28 Comments

  1. Jim Denham said,

    Sunrise: I submitted my response hours ago: you’ve blocked it, you shyster, coward and Catholic anti-semite.

  2. BenSix said,

    From the Catholic, anti-semitic blog ‘Splintered Sunrise‘

    Splintered can defend himself but, just out of interest, which do you consider to be worse?

  3. Jim Denham said,

    They are historically linked, aren’t they? The Catholic Church is institutionally anti-semitic, although Catholic anti-semitism in Ireland is not, perhaps, as virulent as in other Catholic countries. Nevertheless it still has existed:

    Limerick Pogrom
    The boycott in Limerick in the first decade of the twentieth century is known as the Limerick Pogrom, and caused many Jews to leave the city. It was instigated by an influential intolerant Catholic priest, Fr. John Creagh of the Redemptorist Order. A teenager, John Raleigh, was arrested by the British and briefly imprisoned for attacking the Jews’ rebbe, but returned home to a welcoming throng. Limerick’s Jews fled. Many went to Cork, where trans-Atlantic passenger ships docked at Cobh. They intended to travel to America. The people of Cork welcomed them into their homes. Church halls were opened to feed and house the refugees. As a result many remained. Gerald Goldberg, a son of this migration, became Lord Mayor of Cork.

    The boycott was condemned by many in Ireland, among them the influential Standish O’Grady in his paper All Ireland Review, depicting Jews and Irish as “brothers in a common struggle”. The Land Leaguer Michael Davitt (author of The True Story of Anti-Semitic Persecutions in Russia), in the Freeman’s Journal, attacked those who had participated in the riots and visited homes of Jewish victims in Limerick.[11] His friend, Corkman William O’Brien MP, leader of the United Irish League and editor of the Irish People, had a Jewish wife, Sophie Raffalovic.

    Father Creagh was moved by his superiors initially to Belfast and then to an island in the Pacific Ocean. In 1914 he was promoted by the Pope to be Vicar Apostolic of Kimberley, Western Australia, a position he held until 1922.[12] He died in Wellington, New Zealand in 1947.

    Joe Briscoe, son of Robert Briscoe, the Dublin Jewish politician, describes the Limerick episode as “an aberration in an otherwise almost perfect history of Ireland and its treatment of the Jews”.[13] Robert Briscoe was a prominent member of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. He was sent by Michael Collins to Germany in 1920 to be the chief agent for procuring arms for the IRA. Briscoe proved to be highly successful at this mission and arms arrived into Ireland in spite of the British blockade.[14]

  4. Steve said,

    I posted that article in a previous thread. I think the motive behind it is that it mirrors the kind of accusations we see made against Iran in relation to hanging homosexuals. Now Shiraz don’t complain at those do they? I fail to see what is wrong with exposing the racism at the heart of Israeli society.

  5. Jim Denham said,

    Steve: in the comment that Mr Sunrise blocked, I made it clear that I consider this verdict and the “reasonong” behind it, a racist disgrace. That’s one of the reasons I’ve cross-posted his article (ie: I largely agree with it). The other being to call Sunrise’s bluff. In my comment I also asked why a supporter of two states and someone known to be concerned about anti-semitism on the “left” *wouldn’t* be willing to publicise this matter.

    I don’t follow the logic of your point about Iran. “Racism at the heart of Israeli society”? More so than other “societies”?

  6. Steve said,

    Iran: People on your side of the left use stories of Iranian treatment of homosexuals as a stick to beat it with, this article is of a similar vein, just directed at israel. I don’t see a problem with these issues being highlighted, either in Iran or Israel.

  7. johng said,

    I have posted this on SS:

    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?

  8. Egg on your face said,

    Being accused of being an ‘anti-semite’ by Jim Denham is like being accused of being a ‘Trotsky-fascist’ some nut Stalinist. Everyone knows that Denham is simply nuts and/or drunk as a skunk (usually both).

    And the barbed use of “Catholic” is pretty rancid (If anyone had used ‘Jewish’ in quite that barbed manner there really would be grounds for accusations of anti-Jewish racism). From a leader of an organisation that invited the convicted Loyalist killer Billy Hutchinson as a guest speaker at one of its past public events, that sounds pretty bad to me. Why didn’t Denham go the whole hog and call Splintered Sunrise a ‘Taig’? Seems to me that anti-Irish, anti-Catholic prejudice is behind this rant. But then again, he was quite likely pissed when he posted it.

  9. maxdunbar said,

    Christ, do we have to have the ‘Orange Zionist’ discussion again?

  10. maxdunbar said,

    By the way any further comments along the lines of ‘Jim Denham drinks too much lol’ will be deleted purely on the grounds that the joke is boring and unfunny

  11. Steve said,

    [boring, unfunny joke, deleted]

  12. resistor said,

    But Max, you have no sense of humour.

  13. Steve said,

    Hang on, you said any more jokes about him drinking too much, I have said he doesn’t drink enough!!

  14. skidmarx said,

    If anyone had used ‘Jewish’ in quite that barbed manner there really would be grounds for accusations of anti-Jewish racism
    Or perhaps in both cases the attack would be more adult if directed at the argument rather than the phraseology.
    On a previous thread here I suggested that describing SS as a Catholic was a little unfair, though after his blog has been dominated by articles about the Church far more uncritical than he ever was of the National Secular Society or the SWP, I’m not so sure.
    Why he feels the need to obsess about Shiraz now he has entered a moanasterial phase I don’t know. I thought it was an little unfair when Andy Newman got into the habit of using his blog to attack people without allowing any reply, but someone with a far less popular blog (though the blogroll is still useful) doing so seems just petty.

    Anyway, by the rules of Only the vaguest link needed to prove anti-semitism, the fact that the initials of both blogs are “SS” shows you must all be…

  15. Will said,

  16. Will said,

  17. Jim Denham said,

    Steve: ” I don’t see a problem with these issues being highlighted, either in Iran or Israel.”

    You just don’t geddit, do you, Steve? You “don’t see a problem”…and neither do I. It’s Mr Sunrise’s hypocritical pretence that he’s inviting comments from me (and Max) when in fact he censors my reply, that I object to. That and the presumption that ‘Shiraz’ wouldn’t cover the “rape” story because (presumably) we don’t hate Israel as much as he does.

  18. Egg on your face said,

    I wonder if *other* AWL members, more reasonable ones who do not simply spit abuse and bile but attempt to argue, would have been ‘censored’ if they had commented on Splintered’s blog? Maybe they should try it and see? I strongly suspect they would be allowed to comment.

    And this stuff about ‘hating’ Israel really is cringeworthy. Again, it evokes Stalinists who used to say that critics were motivated by ‘hatred of the Soviet Union’ and ‘anti-socialism’ if not pro-fascism.

    When in fact, most of those criticising Israel today are doing so because they hate racism. And the kind of racism involved in this decision is identical to Jim Crow and the South African ‘Immorality Act’ or even the Nurenburg laws – not in fine detail of course but in overall rationale and ideology. The idea that a woman is somehow ‘defiled’ becuase she did not realise the ethnicity of a sexual partner who she willingly went with is incredible, and that the partner should be branded as a rapist for this is obscene. It is ‘racist’ in the classic sense.

    One thing Islamic fundamentalism, by the way, does not recognise (at least in theory) is concepts of race. A look at the make up of the Saudi Arabian football team is instructive – one of the most mixed in the world – despite the vile nature of the regime its vileness is centred not around racism but something else – religious puritanism – and often hypocrtical puritanism to boot. There may be regimes that profess such puritan beliefs but in practice behave in a racist manner, but if that is true, they violate their own ideology.

    Regarding this case, if it had happened in Saudi Arabia, both parties would have been at risk of deadly punishement for adultery – which is foul in a different way – but the Saudi authorities would not have punished one partner as a rapist for his ethnic origin and portrayed the other as the victim when in fact it was a consensual act. It take two to tango, so to speak. In that sense, what the Israelis have done is worse than the jurisprudence of Saudi Arabia and closer to the sick ideologies that led to genocide motivated by ‘race’ in the 20th Century.

    According to Denham it is ‘anti-semitic’ to single this out. But its pure form of racism is precisely why it should be singled out. This is not singling out Jews at all, it is singling out racism in its pure old-fashioned form. The fact that it is a Jewish state that is practicing that pure form of racism does not mean it is in any way racist to single out that form of pure racism (quite unfashionable these days in the wider world) for condemnation. The innuendo that is is anti-semitic is scoundrelly, and similar again to the argument of cynical Stalinist liars that criticism of the crimes of the bureaucracy was motivated by sympathy for fascism and the like.

  19. Jim Denham said,

    Egg-brains sez: “According to Denham it is ‘anti-semitic’ to single this out. ”

    I said: ” I made it clear that I consider this verdict and the “reasoning” behind it, a racist disgrace. ”

    Learn to read, Eggy: then learn to think.

  20. Egg on your face said,

    A rather muted reply. Whether or not he pays lip service to it being a ‘racist disgrace’, he still denounces Splintered Sunrise as a ‘Catholic anti-semite’ motivated by ‘hatred of Israel’ for raising it in the first place. In other words, saying that Splintered Sunrise is motivated by anti-Jewish racism for raising it. This is an example of trying to have your cake and eat it.

    The problem is that the old-fashioned classic racism that this incident typifies is redolent of apartheid, Jim Crow and even fouler phenomena from 1930s Europe. Its so blatant that Denham can’t dismiss it, and its so damaging to the reputation of Israel that it is concrete evidence that substantiates the ‘apartheid’ accusation against the Zionist state. But to admit this is to be an ‘anti-semite’ according to Denham. Hence the silly and incoherent smears, that just degrade those making them and raise the suspicion that that the words written and spoken about the ‘disgrace’ involved in this case are less than fully sincere.

  21. Will said,

  22. Will said,

  23. Jim Denham said,

    I can onlt repaet, Egg-brains: learn to read; and then think.

    Plainly at the moment you have only mastered the first to a limited degree, and the second not at all.

  24. Will said,

    Predrag Matvejevitch one of Croatia’s leading intellectuals could be behind bars this time tomorrow. His only crime was to describe an ultra-nationalist Croatian poet as the “Catholic Taliban” whereupon he was promptly sued for libel. In his blog La regle du jeu, Bernard-Henri Levy has brought together a string of prominent authors including Umberto Eco, Claudio Magris and Salman Rushdie to voice their protest. Maria de Franca outlines the case:

    http://laregledujeu.org/2010/07/23/2450/pour-predrag-matvejevitch/

    “Matvejevitch regards his punishment as unjust and unworthy of a constitutional state. He is arguing for freedom of expression and is rebelling against what he calls a ‘punishable metaphor’. This is why he will not be filing an appeal. The prime minister is aware of the rising indignation from abroad and has spoken out against the sentence…. Is it acceptable that a country on the brink of EU accession can treat someone like a criminal for taking a public stand against an ultra-nationalist poet? La RDJ has also published a translation (French) of Matvejevich’s text which cost him his freedom.

    http://laregledujeu.org/2010/07/25/2472/nos-talibans/

    See Also BHL here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/predrag-matvejevitch-must_b_658159.html

  25. Egg on your face said,

    Evidently not a political reply. Is that the best you can do? Pathetic!

  26. Will said,

    That Free Deranged Egg smells bad. Two WerdS: Sulfur.

  27. treasurecoastnews said,

    Hi I located this forum on Google. Just wanted to greet everyone and commend the admin’s for a web site well done!

    Talk to you all soon,
    Rebecca :)

  28. Will said,

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 470 other followers

%d bloggers like this: