Yes, I have a "problem" with - the definition: An "ordinary person" may very well discriminate, so that's not an appropriate standard here. Besides, we may all create our own identities, there's nothing wrong with that in itself. It's only wrong if we commit a crime doing so... but this definition makes it a crime even to create our own identities! - the fact that the court believed this definition fit the case. - with "just following" precedent, yes. If a court thinks that a precedent is wrong, it should not follow it. Everything else is not democracy (sorry to all you case law believers!), but just believing that a higher hierarchy has the right to prohibit your opinion. A lower court will be overruled by the higher court, fine, but they should voice dissent to show if the higher court is backed by others' opinions or not. - with a woman who first chooses to have consensual sex and then sue him because she believes he's of the wrong race. Yes, I have an enormous problem with such racist behavior. This woman should be sued for a hate crime. *That* would be reasonable. And yes, finally, I simply have a problem with undermining the term "rape" by defining that any such misrepresentation + sex = rape. That's a hit in the face of actual rape survivors. Call such misrepresentation fraudulent or whatever. Is it illegal? Maybe, in rare cases (though not here). Anyways, it's just not rape.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Preliminary report: Shooting attack in East Jerusalem's Damascus Gate (Haaretz)
from the article: He impersonated a human