Case against Rubel to be dropped because of world cup win :blink:

[Spikey]

Yeah, this isn't acceptable.

You're dead meat at the next PPV, ****. Your post created my joke ffs. Gonna sort you out so good, Mr Authority. I'll come up with a term other than rape that describes this Rubel case while I'm at it too. *without msg i am nothing plays*

 

[Swingpanzee]

Awful posting

waaaaaah?

 

[morgieb]

Yeah I have to say here Dan, you're not making a huge amount of sense with this line of argument, and there's something about this sort of cultural relativism which makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Spending too much time on Tumblr IMO

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Dan,

First, the stand of "Who are we to comment about what constitutes rape in the South Asian cultural context" would have merit if the South Asian/Bangladeshi norm was that *** on false promise would actually be considered rape. This, however, is patently untrue. It was not the intent of the legislature while framing the 'consent' laws that false promise would be interpreted within the legal framework for rape in the modern world devoid of context. Rape charges like this are widely considered a joke both by society and legal academic circles.

It is definitely true that reneging on a marriage promise obviously has drastically different connotations in BD and in the western world and a societal argument can be made for punishing false promises of marriage (though I wouldn't subscribe to it). However, that has to constitute a completely different legal framework and trying to hijack it using a super technical interpretation of rape laws is something which is thoroughly ridiculous. It is not a societal differences issue as you have framed it but an insufficiency in South Asian law regarding the interpretation of consent which has led to vexatious litigation which should be rectified within the next few years, at least in the Indian context.

Additionally, you obviously agree that there are certain types of laws in countries which should be universally looked down upon. A 5 year jail sentence/caning for possession of marijuana or say, imprisonment for homosexuality. Rigorous imprisonment, the deprivation of enjoyment of life and liberty for a charge such as *** on false promise of marriage is something you're comfortable with, regardless of where in the world it might be?

Basically, the false promise *** issue, particularly with regard to rape conviction is neither jurisprudentially nor societally nor logically nor morally accurate. It exists due to a technicality in interpretation of law.

It's the bastard child of blackmail litigation and context-less interpretation of statute and having the issue of rape in the same hemisphere does a lot of damage to rape laws which are an extremely important legal protection.

Fair point. I still think there are some relationship issues between the two which we're not getting because of the huge amount of Chinese whispers though.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, this shouldn't be rape at all. Guess what, even in India a rape case can be filed on grounds of having ***ual intercourse on false promise of marriage. We are seriously ****ed up country.

However, there was also this judgement by Mumbai high court which one hopes sets a precedence in India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...s-not-rape-Bombay-HC/articleshow/45663907.cms

Has to be said that while the law exists, it hasn't been put to use much to convict anyone in my knowledge, same way that conviction for homosexuality (also a crime according to law) almost never happens. Still the very existence of laws can be tools for exploitation.

 

[Dan]

Dan,

First, the stand of "Who are we to comment about what constitutes rape in the South Asian cultural context" would have merit if the South Asian/Bangladeshi norm was that *** on false promise would actually be considered rape. This, however, is patently untrue. It was not the intent of the legislature while framing the 'consent' laws that false promise would be interpreted within the legal framework for rape in the modern world devoid of context. Rape charges like this are widely considered a joke both by society and legal academic circles.

It is definitely true that reneging on a marriage promise obviously has drastically different connotations in BD and in the western world and a societal argument can be made for punishing false promises of marriage (though I wouldn't subscribe to it). However, that has to constitute a completely different legal framework and trying to hijack it using a super technical interpretation of rape laws is something which is thoroughly ridiculous. It is not a societal differences issue as you have framed it but an insufficiency in South Asian law regarding the interpretation of consent which has led to vexatious litigation which should be rectified within the next few years, at least in the Indian context.

Additionally, you obviously agree that there are certain types of laws in countries which should be universally looked down upon. A 5 year jail sentence/caning for possession of marijuana or say, imprisonment for homosexuality. Rigorous imprisonment, the deprivation of enjoyment of life and liberty for a charge such as *** on false promise of marriage is something you're comfortable with, regardless of where in the world it might be?

Basically, the false promise *** issue, particularly with regard to rape conviction is neither jurisprudentially nor societally nor logically nor morally accurate. It exists due to a technicality in interpretation of law.

It's the bastard child of blackmail litigation and context-less interpretation of statute and having the issue of rape in the same hemisphere does a lot of damage to rape laws which are an extremely important legal protection.

Yeah I have to say here Dan, you're not making a huge amount of sense with this line of argument, and there's something about this sort of cultural relativism which makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Thing is though, I'm not actually making that argument whatsoever -- I'm outlining that this isn't some simple, super-clear debate; its an inherently complicated subject with a wide range of viewpoints and arguments that are all influenced by a whole host of other factors, many of which are nebulous and contestable.

The argument that this isn't rape is an entirely valid one, and without making a normative judgement myself, it may even be the right one. But to wave the opposing argument away with a "that's ridiculous, this isn't rape because rape only covers X" misses entirely the discourses on rape culture, consent and feminism more generally that this case undoubtedly is contextualised by.

I'm not saying we should be culturally relativistic, and maybe it doesn't apply here anyway and I should never have brought it up as a possible source of contestation in this case. Far from it, I think I'm personally shifting further away from cultural relativism as a conceptual worldview.

 

[Spark]

It isn't complicated, though. There is an irreducible element of inherent violation of individual liberty here which is not in the slightest way complicated, and attempts to inject complexity into that element where it doesn't exist just muddies the waters. There is no intersection between the - completely valid - discussion on culture normalising certain aspects of rape and this, which is nothing of the sort. It feels very, very odd to argue that "well, this manifestly is not rape buuuuut", and simply weakens the argument where you do have to consider the normalising the aspects of culture. It's imprecise, at best.

And, ultimately, there's no contradiction or even inherent tension between the irreducible simplicity of what this is and the complicated discussion of rape culture, because the nastiness of the latter arises precisely when false complexity is injected into the conversation: "well, [situation which is manifestly rape] isn't actually rape because [spurious, misogynistic reasoning]".

 

[Dan]

I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying here. Are you saying that the allegation that Rubel lied to her to get her to sleep with him, by promising marriage, is separate from the consent she subsequently gave him? Because I think there is an intersection there. I see this as culture normalising certain behaviours towards women and certain views of their ***ual agency, resulting in a case where he has allegedly deceived someone to sleep with her, resulting in a response of "well he's undoubtedly a dick but it has no bearing on the legitimacy or informed-ness of her consent".

I think that there is a genuine argument to be made that it does impact on that consent. To me this essentially boils down to how broadly 'rape' (in a non-legal sense) is defined. There's arguments for and against each of the sides, and a lot of them are reasonably compelling.


If I'm misinterpreting what you've said there and am building a straw man, my apologies.

 

[Prince EWS]

Are you saying that the allegation that Rubel lied to her to get her to sleep with him, by promising marriage

I'm not even sure that's what he's been accused of. Is there actually a distinction drawn in Bangladesh law between intending to go through with the marriage at the time then changing your mind, and being intentionally deceitful?

I was pretty much under the impression that he'd been accused of the former rather than the latter, but that there was no legal distinction.

 

[Spark]

I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying here. Are you saying that the allegation that Rubel lied to her to get her to sleep with him, by promising marriage, is separate from the consent she subsequently gave him?

Essentially, yes, from a legal point of view (which, ultimately, is the crucial one for reasons I'll get to). It's not possible, morally or legally, to envisage a situation where this situation would be defined because in essence removes the ability of one of the parties to make a choice way down the line. It's not possible to absolutely prove that someone lied as opposed to changing their mind, and as a result criminalises the act of someone changing their mind.

Because I think there is an intersection there. I see this as culture normalising certain behaviours towards women and certain views of their ***ual agency, resulting in a case where he has allegedly deceived someone to sleep with her, resulting in a response of "well he's undoubtedly a dick but it has no bearing on the legitimacy or informed-ness of her consent".

But that's come in way before the fact. The normalising aspects are what drove this situation, the arrows are all pointing the wrong way.

I think that there is a genuine argument to be made that it does impact on that consent. To me this essentially boils down to how broadly 'rape' (in a non-legal sense) is defined. There's arguments for and against each of the sides, and a lot of them are reasonably compelling.


If I'm misinterpreting what you've said there and am building a straw man, my apologies.

But here's where I think the actual problem lies, because this to me doesn't make sense. What precisely do you mean by "rape in a non-legal sense"? How is this concept remotely well-defined or meaningful? How do you distinguish between "rape in a legal sense" and "rape in a non-legal sense", which, by construction, creates the possibility of legally permissible rape? I mean, this is where you get ugly **** like marital rape and the like being decriminalised.

If you are arguing about "situations that are rape but aren't covered by law but should be" then that's a different matter and even then, implicit in that argument in that distinction that rape is everywhere and always a crime.

 

[weldone]

I'm not even sure that's what he's been accused of. Is there actually a distinction drawn in Bangladesh law between intending to go through with the marriage at the time then changing your mind, and being intentionally deceitful?

I was pretty much under the impression that he'd been accused of the former rather than the latter, but that there was no legal distinction.

It's hard to prove the difference, unless there's an email/message from Rubel to someone at that time admitting to lie.

 

[Dan]

I'm not even sure that's what he's been accused of. Is there actually a distinction drawn in Bangladesh law between intending to go through with the marriage at the time then changing your mind, and being intentionally deceitful?

I was pretty much under the impression that he'd been accused of the former rather than the latter, but that there was no legal distinction.

I did bring that up in the big post earlier:

But, let's imagine he isn't being fraudulent. In this permutation, if the guy is genuine in his promise to marry and isn't doing it to fraudulently procure ***, how to we distinguish this from the previous situation in a legal sense? Life is uncertain, so do we take the female's consent to be contingent upon the marriage actually happening, or on a balance-of-probabilities good faith approach? I'm sure there's been many a teenage relationship whereby the two partners were so naive and love-struck that they genuinely believed they'd be together forever, and as such had *** with the consent underwritten by that belief. If, as most teenage relationships do, it all ends in tears, does that retroactively call into question the consent? Or, if we take the good faith approach, how do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the guy never had any intention of marrying her?

I mean, if we do accept broadened definitions of rape informed by certain aspects of contemporary feminism and 'Social Justice Warriors' (and that's a hugely contentious assumption, obviously), then there certainly are a whole host of legal sticking points that are raised. Firstly it would be incredibly difficult to enshrine in a coherent law. Secondly the law would be almost useless because you could rarely prove it. Unless you reverse the burden of proof -- which is what we've begun to see happen in certain contexts in an attempt to deal with campus ***ual assaults and rapes.

 

[GIMH]

I'm sorry but if you've consented based on false promises, you've still provided consent. You can question it morally and whatever, but no way in any fair and reasonable definition should be it be considered close to rape, assuming the consent was made in sound mind etc.

I once told a girl I was four years younger than I was and that I earned twice what I did. if she'd come home with me that night (I didn't even buy her a drink FTR, turns out she was out with her boyfriend) - what would you think of her consent? Alcohol issues aside.

 

[Dan]

But here's where I think the actual problem lies, because this to me doesn't make sense. What precisely do you mean by "rape in a non-legal sense"? How is this concept remotely well-defined or meaningful? How do you distinguish between "rape in a legal sense" and "rape in a non-legal sense", which, by construction, creates the possibility of legally permissible rape? I mean, this is where you get ugly **** like marital rape and the like being decriminalised.

If you are arguing about "situations that are rape but aren't covered by law but should be" then that's a different matter and even then, implicit in that argument in that distinction that rape is everywhere and always a crime.

Yeah, I've certainly worded that poorly and agree with you here completely. The point I'm trying to make is that the current legal definition of rape (i.e. what is presently encoded in law in Western countries) is a subset of the things that a significant portion of the population want (and genuinely believe should be) encoded in law as being rape.

If this case (if Rubel intentionally deceived her) had occurred in a country with different laws, then I am sure there would be a strong discourse from those circles that what had occurred was rape by any reasonable definition of the term, but isn't classed as rape with the law in its present (in their view, broken and unreasonably defined) form.

 

[Dan]

I'm sorry but if you've consented based on false promises, you've still provided consent. You can question it morally and whatever, but no way in any fair and reasonable definition should be it be considered close to rape, assuming the consent was made in sound mind etc.

I once told a girl I was four years younger than I was and that I earned twice what I did. if she'd come home with me that night (I didn't even buy her a drink FTR, turns out she was out with her boyfriend) - what would you think of her consent? Alcohol issues aside.

I think you could roughly split the reactions into three groups (not including the "you're a legend for getting laid" one):

-- The consent was a result of deception and coercion, and therefore should (note, not 'does') constitute the crime of rape.
-- You're a dick and there's lots of moral questions to answer about lying to gain consent, but you're far from a criminal.
-- The lie was completely tangential to the actual consent, so there's moral questions over lying but nothing morally questionable about the *** itself.

 

[Riggins]

I once told a girl I was four years younger than I was and that I earned twice what I did.

What a legend.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think you could roughly split the reactions into three groups (not including the "you're a legend for getting laid" one):

-- The consent was a result of deception and coercion, and therefore should (note, not 'does') constitute the crime of rape.
-- You're a dick and there's lots of moral questions to answer about lying to gain consent, but you're far from a criminal.
-- The lie was completely tangential to the actual consent, so there's moral questions over lying but nothing morally questionable about the *** itself.

I'll also add:

-- Rape through physical force should not be trivalised by comparing it to cases like this, but as you've personally gained through deliberate deception, this should (note, not 'does') constitute the crime of fraud.

 

[GIMH]

Doesn't fraud generally involve some sort of monetary loss

 

[Prince EWS]

Doesn't fraud generally involve some sort of monetary loss

Civil fraud cases almost always do for obvious reasons, but criminal fraud needn't, really.

 

[Dan]

I'll also add:

-- Rape through physical force should not be trivalised by comparing it to cases like this, but as you've personally gained through deliberate deception, this should (note, not 'does') constitute the crime of fraud.

Yes, indeed.

This Rubel situation strikes me as something that -- if it has to proceed through the legal system at all -- could be addressed through the not-criminal bit of the judicial system (civil suit? torts? I don't know the actual term there, which is rather dire).