146
We require the headline match the original without editorializing.
"Flight from Mumbai to Zurich Businessman (44) rapes girl (15) on Swiss plane - convicted"
If you fix it, I can restore it.
Headline fixed! Post restored!
Why is it " a business man from india" and not Mr. So and So. Upon conviction, naming the offender is standard journalistic practice. Child protection laws cover the kids not the offenders unless they are connected so identifying one can identify the other.
This guy gets a tap on the wrist and isn't even publically shamed nor his acquaintances warned.
Because in Switzerland a criminal is still covered by the right to privacy, so unless the person in question is a public figure like a politician or the information was already leaked(among some other exceptions), it is not published. Same for the victim. Most you get is 'John D. from Soandsotown, 34 years old (name known to the editorial department)', if that.
Good thing Switzerland let a casual rapist go free and the public kept in the dark for rapist privacy.
I guess there is a dark truth behind the joke in Eurotrip.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending the decision in any way. The issue here is with letting him go free, that's disgusting and should not have happened.
The privacy part makes sense to me. If the purpose of prison/the justice system is resocialization, instead of punishment, then having your name all over the news just screws you over forever, even if in the eye of the law you did your time and don't pose a risk anymore, regret your crime etc., and it increases the chance of them just going back to crime when they leave prison, due to a lack of options.
That is interesting. Although in this case privacy is used to shield a serial rapist from social consequences.
Does Indian law require convicted criminals names to be made public?
In India money makes all the laws irrelevant
I want to point out, he has been in custody since March. So that's about 5 months.
At least in Germany custody ("Untersuchungshaft") is counted towards prison time if convicted.
Also what the fuck is wrong with some people.
Culture. There are still tons of backwards ass cultures in this world
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.
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 assault. That doesn't change the difference between sexual assault and rape, where rape is the worst kind of sexual assault.
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:
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.
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?!
notice the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about rape, and why it should be considered as such. it was ONLY in the headline!
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.
The only definition that matters is the one used by Swiss courts. And Swiss courts found him guilty of rape.
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.
That is interesting, it did not occur to me that the definition would be different in Switzerland.
This is a really odd case. Like how did no one see what was happening? Maybe they assumed she was his wife and that it was legal to marry teens in his country? But most people would still report it if it was two consenting adults. And since this was a minor... shouldn't the flight crew be keeping an eye on her a bit? Maybe it was very quick or something, it's hard to tell the duration of the assualt. But seems some review of procedures is in order to see what if anything can be done to prevent such a thing in the future.
And that he completely confessed? Does that get extremely beneficial treatment in sweden? In the US even the most obviously guilty plead not guilty.
While she slept, the man committed sexual acts on her and himself. He confessed to the acts in court and stated that he realized he had made a mistake.
"Sorry guys, I've just got a whole bouquet of oopsie-daisies today! Would ya give me the benefit of the doubt?"
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
146 points (100.0% liked)
World News
49369 readers
2143 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS