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 her 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

1. are drugged and/or drunk;

2. have sex, and

3. only one of them is a male

    

there is absolutely no legal reason (at present) why the police should not prosecute the man for rape and give the woman name-suppression.

AND THAT IS YOUR FAULT!

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 (Anyway, formal logic does not underlie the verbal reasoning that people actually carry out): 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 also:

• Sexual Violence Interview of Jan Logie by Q+A (Transcript)

• Abolition of Men's Human Rights in New Zealand

• Green MP Jan Logie Proves that Women's Suffrage Should Be Repealed.

• Jan Logie: Man-Hating as a Religion

• Andrew Little Lies Like a Girl.

• Andy Murray, Defender of Truth and Sex-War Hero

• Two Power-Shifting Left-Wing Lies

• Expulsion of Jan Logie from Parliament

• Chapter on rape

• Rape and the Backlash against the Backlash

• Daterape Scenarios