A lawyer's job is to help his client,
and so Gary Gotlieb cannot be criticised for saying about Tea Ropati,
his client on a rape charge:
"He had a high profile, he has a well-known sporting family.
It's what the media love. So this chick cried rape and [the police]
saw an opportunity" (According to the Sunday Star Times and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4385769a10.html
).
What the lawyer was saying is that the case was so weak that the police
would not have prosecuted if it had involved a less prominent man.
On the contrary, there are probably
lots of men in jail because they did not have Tea Ropati's money, and
therefore could not afford to hire Gary Gotlieb, who no longer works
for the Government's measly legal aid rates.
The important thing to realise is that Gary Gotlieb got his client
off on what you could call a technicality: one of the main issues that
he raised was that the actual statement from the complainant that formed
the basis of the police prosecution was made 5 weeks after the event,
after two psychotherapy sessions, and after she had been talking to
he friends, and the police. So it could be argued that her recall was
contaminated with all these discussions she had been having with other
people in the meantime (See video at http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/465467/1566972
).
The main issue is really the
law relating to rape and sexual violation, and Gary Gotlieb spoke
about that. However, for him, as a lawyer concerned with defending one
particular man, the state of the law is
a bit outside the scope of his job. For me, as a person with a law degree
concerned with defending all men (because almost no one else is doing
it), the state of the law is very much within the scope of my (unpaid)
job.
The crucial thing to understand is that if two people
You have been sitting on your hands, letting the law (in all its aspects)
become more and more anti-male, leaving me and a few others to fight
the Feminist monster virtually alone!
Section 128A(4) of the Crimes Act 1961 (as amended) states that:
"A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity
occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug
that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity."
On the other hand, it is well-established that being affected by alcohol
or some other drug is not a defence to a criminal charge.
So Tea Ropati could just as well have laid a complaint of sexual violation
against the woman! He had not got the woman drugged or drunk -- she
had done that to herself. In fact, Gary Gotlieb said on television that
there was evidence that Tea Ropati was more drunk than the woman was!!
(See video at http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/465467/1566972
) Of course, he could not have accused her of "rape", because
section 128A of the Crimes Act 1961 (as amended) states that "rape"
is something that only a person with a penis can commit. This allows
organisations like Rape Crisis to continue to spew out their male-hating
propaganda, which they couldn't do if the law was gender-neutral and
abolished the term "rape".
If there was damage to the woman's genitals, that may or may not indicate
that she did not consent to sex. There is no one-to-one relationship
between sexual intentions and sexual performance, as the existence of
sexual dysfunctions makes clear. As another example, men can have erections
or partial erections as a result of travelling on a vibrating vehicle.
People tend to assume that erections are inherently sexual, but that
is because people are simple-minded.
There are very few people in the world who actually
THINK about rape, and even fewer who think about it from a male point
of view, so think about this: Is sex just something that occurs for
the benefit of men, so that women are free to decide afterwards that
they are going to put the man into jail for it?
You have to realise that the universities, parliament, the public service
and the media are full of vicious people who are actively (and without
opposition) working to make the law more and more anti-male.
When I got my Law degree at Victoria University of Wellington, Elisabeth
McDonald was the Coordinator for the compulsory course in Criminal Law.
On the basis of the material she gave us to read, it was clear that
she was actively working to make the law on rape, in particular, more
and more anti-male and pro-female. The point is that she was doing it
using the money of taxpayers and the fees of law students,
whom she was indoctrinating by inviting in sexist propagandists from
Rape Crisis (and showing a British Lesbian propaganda video on domestic
violence). A student who was a solo mother planted herself next to me
in classes and found out that I had studied formal logic, amongst other
things. At the next lecture, Elisabeth McDonald gave an example of a
syllogism (a feature of formal logic). However, I have never thought
that she was unintelligent or illogical: my point has always been that
she was corruptly using other people's money to indoctrinate students
and the wider community in anti-male viewpoints.
See the chapter on rape in my book Sex,
Lies & Feminism.
See also my reply to a Feminist criticism of
that chapter.
