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.

If this particular Friend is in need, stay the hell away

You, my loyal sometimes-reader, know that I like to write flippantly, about matters of little to no consequence.
However, I need to get serious, just for a moment. Then I can take us to Nothing Land once more.
I watched a documentary last night called "A Loving Friend" by film-maker Kerry Negara. It was hard yakka, not because of the quality of the film but because of the subject matter. This is a blurb about it from the Melbourne International Film Festival's website (which is also showing the film this year) - I managed to copy the text in between cyber-attacks by disturbingly patriotic Chinese:

"In his posthumously published diaries, Australian artist Donald Friend made shocking admissions of sexual liaisons with children across Asia and the Torres Strait, though many among the arts elite of Australia continue to deny any wrongdoing on Friend’s part.
"Filmmaker Kerry Negara confronts this culture of evasion and the creation of the “nice, culturally acceptable pedophile”. Her documentary encompasses the viewpoints of academics in Canberra through to unprecedented interviews with Friend’s houseboys on the island ‘paradise’ of Bali."

Yeah. A real laugh-fest.
Now, obviousy, Friend was a complete sicko.
But it's his friends and peers in the arts community, the so-called "elites", who are really vile in this documentary.
People like James Murdoch, a fellow artistic wanker-type in Bali, who said the young Bali boys "gave" themselves to Friend - basically saying: as long as no money changed hands it was OK (conveniently ignoring the fact that children are incapable of making such decisions rationally - that's why they need to be protected, not exploited).
And Chris Carlise, a former diplomat, who said the boys appeared to grow up fine and get married, and so they weren't "damaged goods". So, y'know, fuggedaboutit.
And Margaret Olley, a...um...Stupid Old Cow, who said the boys were lucky because Friend gave them opportunities that other, unassaulted, Bali boys did not get.
I'll refer to the members of this "elite" as Wannabe Pedophiles (or "Paedophiles", let's not get paedantic. Though "Pedophiles" had more hits with a Google search, says he expecting the Federal Police any minute now).
First things first.
I don't care how good an artist Friend was*, Friend was a selfish, narcissistic predator, who didn't really care about the children under his "care" - he just wanted to have sex with them.
And I don't care if he looked after the boys financially. Wannabe Pedophiles like Margaret Olley who make this argument are basically saying "If you're nice to the children you're putting your dick in, you're all right!"
And I don't give a flying fuck with a consenting adult about how charming and genial he was. As Bernadette McMenamin from Childwise, a charity which tries to fight child abuse, said: "Monsters don't get close to children, nice guys do."
You were all sucked in by a sociopath, Wannabes.
And others who make semantic arguments about the definition of a pedophile, contortioning themselves to avoid the fact that that's exactly what Friend was, here's a cold hard fact for you.
In Victoria, section 45 of the Crimes Act 1958 states: "A person who takes part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 is guilty of an indictable offence" (other Australian States are very similar).
One of the fuckheads in the film tried to argue that a pedophile was someone who had sex with children under the age of 10 or so, and pretended to be mortified that there would be people like that, very different to our good Donald.
And those who try to argue that it's culturally acceptable to have sex with children in Asia, it's a crime there, too, douchebags.
But, of course, Australians are racist. Especially Australian Wannabe Pedophile Douchebag Arty-Farty Cocknockers.
I'll put some hypotheticals to these Wannabe Pedophiles.
What if a truck driver was living in Bali having sex with children? Would you equally leap to his defence? Or what if Donald Friend had a house full of young girls that he regularly had sex with? WHITE GIRLS! Horrified yet?
And another thing - it's not like the evidence is equivocal about Friend's activities: this is all actually based on Friend's own words in his now-published diaries. So what we know is based on the BEST possible version of events assuming Friend didn't embellish his diaries! Imagine if what he did was even worse, but he chose not to write about it, or exaggerated things to put himself in a good light.
In relation to the publication of the diaries by the National Library, in accordance with Friend's wishes, I found this great article about Friend, and the National Library's complicity in glossing over Friend's wrong-ness: National Library gives arts community a bad name
My only gripe with the film was that Kerry was a little too hands-off, though good documentary filmmakers generally are. But I would have liked to see some Michael Moore-style in-your-face blunt accusations and unwanted opinionating (y'know, like in this blog). The subjects in this documentary, like those mentioned above, seemed to get a bit of a free ride. That said, I'd love to see their faces if they ever watch this doco.
Speaking of which, it's still on at the MIFF, and I recommend it, even if it is harrowing viewing, it tells an important story.
* I'm gonna come out and say it: He was a shit artist and his painting of bananas looked crap. But, don't worry about my opinion, Wannabes. To quote James Murdoch about Friend's child-fucking, "It's not a big deal".