As a male it’s bad enough we’ve got lesbians who think we’re all a bunch of predators, parents who think we’re all kiddy fiddlers and a family court system that is stacked to buggery against us.

On top of all that though, what’s even more disheartening is that it’s still possible for someone to accuse us of rape, make up whatever bullshit story they please and drag our lives, families and reputation through the mud.

All the while enjoying the benefits of complete anonymity.

I’ve previously written about the ‘morning-after rape’ phenomena and how conniving manipulative women can use it to crush a man without any fear of punishment or public shame for their lies.

In my previous work I noted that here in Australia the first major case of morning-after rape happened in 1986 although I’m sure it’s been unofficially happening for decades before that.

Here in 2009, it’s good to know absolutely nothing has changed. Theo Theophanus, a Victorian state MP recently had a woman accuse him of rape that wait for it, occured 10 years ago. The reason she waited so long to come forward? Because she thought Theophanus might cut off her parents pension and make her brother do army service in greece.

You know, because Victorian MP’s have that sort of power.

Whilst marginally believable on the surface if you suspend your disbelief, it wasn’t until the case was played out that true extent of just how farcical her claims were was revealed.

• The woman claimed that Theophanus raped her in 1998. She claims the rape took place in Theophanus’ parliamentary offices no doubt on a red leather couch.
• 10 years later she goes public with her claims. She wrote 17 drafts of her original submission to police. Clearly she wanted to get her story straight with as much emotional impact as possible.
• Under questioning, her brother claimed that the night she was raped she came home and he noticed red marks on her. When he asked her if anything was wrong she didn’t reply and they didn’t speak about it for ten years. Right, so your sister comes home raped and you don’t talk about it. Sounds perfectly plausible to me.
• Theophanus’ wife claimed that the “victim” sent him Christmas cards five years after the alleged incident. She also claimed that a driver log book showed Theophanus being dropped home at 6pm on the night it supposedly happened.
• Despite claiming to have no social contact with Theophanus following the incident, Greek phone records were pulled and text messages were found to have been sent to Theophanus from the victim in 2003. At least two were sent, one on Christmas day 2002 and the other on New Years day 2003. Both were well wishes to Theophanus and his family.
• On the night of the incident the women claimed to have made an SOS phone call to a friend. Both of her friends later denied ever receiving SOS phone calls. One even claimed the ‘victim’ tried to coach her into giving false evidence and that she had also falsified email communications.
• A third call was allegedly made to another woman following the incident. A sworn statement alleged that after contacting the friend and telling of the incident she was then cut off because her money ran out. Local calls in Australia are untimed from payphones. The friend claimed to have received the call when she was living in Melbourne. The alleged rape incident happened in 1998, yet the victim’s friend wasn’t living in Melbourne until 2000.
• Prior to arriving in Australia the victim contacted one of her friends and wrote “she was coming to Australia from Greece in a couple of weeks and there would be something in the newspapers and she would make lots of money.”
• During the course of the hearing it was revealed that the ‘victim’ had previously lied to authorities to gain centrelink payments.


Thankfully the case was thrown out at the conclusion of the hearing due to the ‘victim’ being an “entirely unreliable witness in many aspects of her evidence to the court”. After a nearly nine month long hearing however the damage had been done and after twenty years of service Theophanus announced his retirement shortly after being cleared.

Meanwhile the “victim” will continue to enjoy anonyminity and receive no reprimand for telling porky pies in court. In other words her reputation and credibility publicly remain intact.

Is this fair? Laws are put in place to protect victims but what if people are found to not be victims, should the laws still protect their identities?

The fact that this can happen in 2009 signals that our laws are massively behind the times. Any woman (or man for that matter) can just stand up, accuse someone of rape and try their luck with the judicial system.

If they win then it’s massive payout time and a life of caviar. If they lose then they slink back into whatever hole they crawled out of their reputational integrity completely intact.

In the face of a clear ‘get rich quick scheme’ concocted by an opportunistic woman why is it the legal system still strives to protect her. I mean what exactly are we protecting once it’s been established the ‘victim’ is nothing more then a liar?


Tweet

1. Australian Fritzl case hardly a valid comparison
2. Australia’s “mistress laws”: Payouts for whores