Businessman (44) rapes girl (15) on Swiss plane - convicted
www.bluewin.ch
A 44-year-old businessman has been convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl during a Swiss flight. The case demonstrates the application of the new criminal law on sexual offenses.

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.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1826·
    2 days ago

    Headline:

    rapes girl

    Bullshit!

    Article:

    convicted of sexually assaulting

    From the description in the article although it may be disgusting, it was clearly not rape, but absolutely sexual assault.

    Maybe this was removed on reddit because the headline is bullshit! The headline isn’t just click bait, the headline is false, meaning the headline is a lie.

    • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      411·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        418·
        2 days ago

        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 assault. That doesn’t change the difference between sexual assault and rape, where rape is the worst kind of sexual assault.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      17·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Pro@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      141·
      2 days ago

      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:

      It comes after the National Council of Switzerland and the Council of States agreed on the formula ‘no means no’.

      The amendment came into effect a year ago and means rape is now considered to have occurred if the victim indicates through words or gestures that they do not consent to the sexual act.

      Before the amendment, rape only occurred if the perpetrator threatened the victim or used violence.

      Furthermore, the crime of rape no longer encompasses only forced sexual intercourse with a woman, but now also includes acts similar to sexual intercourse involving physical penetration.

      • camr_on@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        That is interesting, it did not occur to me that the definition would be different in Switzerland.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        711·
        2 days ago

        The legal definition of rape varies by country, but the general definition is that it involves involuntary penetration:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

        Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration.

        What’s new is not the difference between assault and rape, but in how it is decided to be voluntary or not.
        It used to be that a woman had to have said no very clearly. While now in many places, lack of acceptance is the same as no. That goes for both rape and sexual assault.

        PS:
        Wow, imagine being downvoted for showing a clear definition?!

        • Pro@reddthat.comOPEnglish
          12·
          2 days ago

          notice the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about rape, and why it should be considered as such. it was ONLY in the headline!

          From the article:

          Application of the new sexual criminal law

          The new sexual criminal law was applied at the trial. This law, which came into force a year ago, is based on the formula “No means no”. Rape is now deemed to have occurred if the victim shows through words or gestures that they do not consent. A state of shock on the part of the victim is sufficient as a sign of refusal.

          According to the Tages-Anzeiger, the 15-year-old’s state of shock was emphasized in the indictment. She was unable to defend herself against the acts and endured the assault without saying a word or moving. Before the law was changed, rape would only have been recognized if the perpetrator had used violence or threatened the victim.

          Stop defending your proven mistake already and just admit that you did not read and learn to improve and not do it again.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          41·
          2 days ago

          The only definition that matters is the one used by Swiss courts. And Swiss courts found him guilty of rape.

        • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          21·
          2 days ago

          It used to be that a woman had to have said no very clearly. While now in many places, lack of acceptance is the same as no. That goes for both rape and sexual assault.

          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.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            2 days ago

            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.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            2 days ago

            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.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            2 days ago

            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 body or the headline that is right, the 2 parts remain at conflict on whether it’s sexual assault or rape.