I certainly don't Lovett*

So, Andrew Lovett has walked free on the rape charges brought against him by a distressed yet brave woman who pressed her claims all the way through the court hearing, unlike many women who are, or claim to be, sexually assaulted, but who are unwilling or unable to face the prospect of a drawn-out trial and possibly having to deal with their attacker again.

Part of the reason he got off could be because of the sexist, leading, leering questions asked of the alleged victim by Lovett's barrister, David Grace QC, such as these ones at the committal hearing about the length of her skirt:
"Was it a skirt that went from the waist down to your thighs? ... Did it start at your waist or below your waist? ... Was there any flesh visible between the end of the singlet and the top of the skirt? ... What was the distance between the top of the skirt and the bottom of the skirt?"

Unbelievable, right?

Fortunately, the Law Institute of Victoria got involved, via their spokesman Rob Stary, who said:

"The fact that they might be wearing a miniskirt or low-cut clothing really is not, at one strict level, relevant but if through some process of flirtation or invitation, the person's inviting attention or sexual contact then I suppose it can be relevant."

Wait, what?!?!

Well, at least the general public has a reason for not understanding the law, as displayed by this response in the comments section of the above article by "Bloke" from "Toorak":

"he's been proven to be innocent, so that should be the end of the issue for him. the court was there to try him, not the media or the masses."

Ahh, not exactly.

The rilestar could not let this aggression stand, man. This is the tamer of my submissions to The Age for publication in the same comments section:

"Just because a jury could not find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt does not mean they are innocent.
And the questions asked by the barrister in this case are reprehensible. In our society, a woman should be allowed to wear whatever she likes without fear of unwanted or forced sexual encounters. Contrary to what Mr Stary believes, such questions are in NO WAY relevant to the question of whether a rape occurred. Consent is not given by wearing a mini-skirt. If those questions changed the result of the jury's decision, then I would argue that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
I am sorry, on behalf of the male gender, to all of the women who are reading this who have been raped. You shouldn't have to put up with this."

An earlier submission had recommended that David Grace QC should change his first name to "Dis" and then continued to refer to him by his changed name. I also made unflattering - but fair - comparisons between him and Sheikh Al-Hilali. When The Age didn't publish that one I wrote the above comment, but that wasn't published either (except here).

Unlike The Age, I am against censorship. Especially censorship of me.

I'm also against rape (and, yes, especially rape of me), and injustice. It may be that Lovett was innocent, but if the trial allowed cross-examination such as that above, the fact that he got off does not help his protestations at all.

At least he's not with the Saints, anymore. We've got enough problems of our own making without outsiders making more for us...

* Bad opportunity for a pun? His name is "Lovett", and I am a weak man.