What happens when you play loose with the definition of rape

I wrote about case in February in which an Iraqi refugee raped a 10-year-old boy because the man had a “sexual emergency”. The man, known as Amir A, claimed he had not had sex in four months and felt the need to release his “excess sexual energy”. He assaulted the boy while they were a pool facility. After the assault, Amir went back to the pool and continued diving and swimming. The boy reported the assault, and when confronted, Amir admitted to committing the crime.

This occurred Austria, a country that has taken in a number of Middle Eastern refugees. The Austrian government tries, like many European nations, to avoid any apparent attacks on Middle Easterners or Muslims. While this is a noble and reasonable position, the application of it is far from either of those. Instead of revealing what happened, the Austrian government attempted to conceal the assault from the media, claiming to do so for the victim’s protection.

Now, the Austria Supreme Court has taken it one step further. Amir A was convicted and sentenced to six years in jail for sexual assault and the rape of a minor. The Supreme Court decided recently to throw out the conviction. Their reason is because the prosecutors did not prove the victim said “no”:

Supreme Court President Thomas Philipp said that while the verdict was “watertight” with regard to the serious sexual abuse of a juvenile, the written verdict on the second indictment, rape, cannot be sufficiently proved.

According to the Supreme Court, the first court should have ascertained whether the offender had thought that the victim agreed to the sexual act and whether Amir A. had the intention to act against the will of the boy.

One would think that would be clear by the boy seeking out help and informing the authorities that Amir assaulted him. One would also think that would be apparent from Amir’s admission that he snatched the boy at random, assaulted him, and went back to swimming as if nothing happened. One would also think that if the government were so confused about the boy’s consent they should not have awarded a rather paltry monetary compensation to the victim’s family due to the boy suffering “physical injuries and ‘profound depression'”.

Yet even if we granted the bizarre notion that a 10-year-old boy would consent to sex with a stranger that was so violent the boy required medical attention, it would not matter because Austria’s age of consent starts at 14 years old:

The Age of Consent in Austria is 14 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 13 or younger in Austria are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law.

So it is unclear why “the rape case therefore must go back before the regional court” and a “second legal process […] take place in 2017, [with] a new sentence must […] imposed.” According to Austria’s law, a 10-year-old cannot consent to any sexual act. That would by default render any sex with a 10-year-old “rape”.

To throw out this sentence when it is clear from the available evidence that the boy did and likely could not consent smacks of Austria trying to protect the image of Iraqi refugees over the safety of children in their country. There is no part of anyone’s situation that excuses this type of assault. This shows the pure cowardice of the Austria government. They are so afraid of being called racist and anti-Islamic, and likely terrified of a potential terrorist attack, that they are willing to let certain crimes slide.

Amir A still remains in jail, as only part of the conviction was thrown out. However, given how the Austrian government has handled this case, it is possible they might release him following the result of the 2017 with time served, assuming he is not convicted again. It is absolutely deplorable, yet it appears a real possibility.