cross-posted from: https://reddthat.com/post/48520958
More Sources.
While researching this news story I noticed that it was removed twice from Reddit by the mods with no clear reasons, so I added here some extra sources to make sure everything here is accurate.
I am not sure if the news story is being censored or if there is other reasons.
If you find any local articles or coverage that can add more context, please drop them in the comments and I will add them to the post.
Headline:
Bullshit!
Article:
That’s a lot more likely.
Maybe this was removed on reddit because the headline is bullshit!
You seem to be factually wrong. Every source quotes the crimes he was found guilty of as “rape and sexual acts with a child”, in quotes. “Sexually assaulted” seems to be an informal description chosen by the journalist, as it’s not quoted.
That is a pretty strong reaction to correct the record on something where you seem to be wrong yourself. I’m gonna agree with the other commenter here that you may want to think about why that is.
For the record, if you wanted to be mad about the headline, the most misleading portion is that he was not fined, he was given a year and a half prison sentence that will not require him to go to prison for procedural reasons. Also, he spent five months incarcerated during the trial which, as is common in Europe and other places, is counted towards his sentence once found guilty.
Still a surprisingly lenient sentence given the crime. For reference, where I am the rape would get him 1-4 years, so he could have been in this situation where I am with a lenient judge, but the underage victim would get him at least two years and there’s no avoiding jail with that big of a sentence. I have no idea how Swiss laws are formulated here.
i originally written a comment referencing different sources, but to keep it simple and to not waste time.
Here is a quote from the Daily Mail:
That is interesting, it did not occur to me that the definition would be different in Switzerland.
The legal definition of rape varies by country, but the general definition is that it involves involuntary penetration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
This is a weird fucking thing to fixate on and rail about on a thread about a sleeping 15 year old girl getting raped by a 44 year old. Whether or not she said no changes fuck all.
The only definition that matters is the one used by Swiss courts. And Swiss courts found him guilty of rape.
People keep quoting Swiss law at you, as if that has any bearing on what the English word “rape” means in common parlance.
I would say in English speaking countries, rape means “non-consensual sexual intercourse”. This is in spite of the fact that the UK also requires the rapist to penetrate the victim.
In normal speech, and not a court of law, people do routinely say, for instance, “the female office manager raped the new male apprentice in the store cupboard” - even though the victim was the one penetrating the rapist. In the UK, the female office manager in this instance would be tried for sexual assault, not rape, although the punishment would be the same.
I think you’re right that the headline would mislead many readers here, given that native English speakers would, in normal speech, say that someone who non-consensually fingered someone (I assume that’s what this guy did) committed sexual assault, rather than rape. But because of how laws define things, penetration occurred so this is legally considered rape in Switzerland.
However whoever writes a law does not get to dictate what the “real meanings” of words are. The fact is that words are often ambiguous, and do not have a clear meaning for all people. In this case, the authors of the article must have known that, and by choosing not to clear up the ambiguity in the headline, I have to wonder if they were either trying to get clicks, or trying to spread a racist narrative.
They don’t really read the article right, what has changed is not what rape is, but when a no is no. so it’s WHEN it’s rape, not WHAT is rape. The rule also goes for sexual assault.
The law on rape was changed, but sexual assault is still not rape.
Anyways, whether it’s the content or the headline that is right, the 2 parts remain in conflict on whether it’s sexual assault or rape.
I agree with everything up until the part where you accuse the authors of trying to get clicks. That is literally the purpose of a headline.
Of course Swiss law matters. This article is on a Swiss website and reports on a Swiss trial.
If you think someone convicted of rape is not necessarily a rapist, that’s on you.
From the article:
Stop defending your proven mistake already and just admit that you did not read and learn to improve and not do it again.
It’s interesting you act like you read the article, but it clearly states the definition of rape under Swiss law and the criteria that made this judgement fall under that label.
The article is editorializing the definition too.
The judgement was clearly stated as sexual assault and not rape.
Many countries now have a much wider definition of rape where you don’t have to say no for it to be rape or sexual assault, you actually have to give permission, otherwise it’s sexual assault.