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.

  • Pro@reddthat.comOPEnglish
    1·
    5 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.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      02·
      5 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?!

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          01·
          5 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 content or the headline that is right, the 2 parts remain in conflict on whether it’s sexual assault or rape.