I’ll quote this article in its entirety:

Dunedin police are investigating the sexual assault of a young woman in the centre of the city last night.

Police communications inspector Alan Weston said the woman was attacked about 2.50am.

See? It’s not that hard to report that it actually happened.

And it doesn’t incriminate anyone, neither the accused nor the woman who was raped.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4284751a10.html

The woman, who has name suppression and who made a liar of Mr Rickards’ former Rotorua CIB boss, John Dewar, was going to tell the disciplinary tribunal that Mr Rickards and Shipton had sex with her in and on police cars in Rotorua in the 1980s.

John Dewar is an adult in full possession of  his mental faculties (although his ethical ones are obviously another matter). He made the decision to lie, no-one else.

This is the same sort of mentality that says that if a woman wears skimpy clothing and flirts then she’s clearly irresistable, and of course a man has simply no choice but to rape her.

… he’s been charged with rape, not with having sex. Rape charges, not sex charges please.

Teen forced into car, pack-raped by trio

Stuff.co.nz and Waikato Times | Monday, 6 August 2007

Police in Morrinsville are investigating the pack rape of a teenager at the weekend. The 16-year-old girl was walking home alone along Page Street in the early hours of Saturday morning when she was approached by three men in a dark coloured station wagon.

The teenager, who had been reportedly out drinking with friends, was forced into the vehicle and raped by all three men.

Now I might be able to forgive the “early hours of Saturday morning” comment as a non-judgemental statement. But there is absolutely no excuse for saying she was out drinking with friends, particularly when the writer doesn’t appear to know whether this is true or not.

But this article in theHerald is even worse:

Teen pack-raped near home

Police say the pack rape of a teenage girl in Morrinsville should serve as a warning that women should never walk home alone in the early hours.

The 16-year-old was raped by three men early on Saturday, only 300m from her home.

…

He warned that women should not walk alone late at night or early in the morning, to keep safe.

“Always have somebody with you when you’re walking. Otherwise get somebody to pick you up and take you where you need to go. But we don’t want to be seen to be criticising [the victim's] actions, that’s not what she needs from us.”

Well guess what? By saying this you are criticising her actions, and you are implying she was at fault.

How about you follow your own advice. Never go anywhere alone at night. Never go anywhere not adequately lit. Don’t walk at night (and you can’t take taxis because many women can’t afford to do that). Don’t drink. Don’t have sex. Don’t speak to strangers. Live in constant fear. See what your quality of life is like.

More victim blaming:

Hamilton women planning a night out at central city nightspots this weekend have been warned not to be alone amid fears a serial rapist will strike again.

Police said the sex fiend man had picked up and raped three woman at weekends since April.

“He could attack again at any time,” said Hamilton CIB head Detective Senior Sergeant Chris Page.

…
He warned women to make arrangements to get home from the central city rather than walk, not to be alone or to accept rides from strangers or accompany strangers to remote places.

Not to mention the assumption that all women can make arrangements other than walking.

‘Commie Mutant Traitor’ pointed this out in a comment, but I think it bears repeating:

Mrs Nicholas, wearing a thick cream cardigan over a white t-shirt and a long red skirt, told crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway QC she initially found Dewar helpful after she laid the complaints and came to consider him a good friend, even writing a letter to Dewar’s superiors commending him on his support and work.

And John Dewar was tastefully dressed in a raven black suit with a royal blue tie? I think not.

This type of reporting is hardly exclusive to rape cases, but it is some guide to just how seriously the media takes women.

‘Man found dead was on child sex charges’

Alleged rape victim identified

Well, you know what I’m going to say about that headline by now, don’t you?

After an emotional outburst in the Christchurch District Court as she gave evidence – and after the court was adjourned to give her time to compose herself – Jacqueline Howat told Judge Murray Abbott she wanted her name made public.

Complainants in sexual abuse cases have their names automatically suppressed.

However, after Howat’s unusual request, the judge made a special order allowing publication.

I think this was incredibly brave of her, particularly given the way the media frequently treats both rape survivors and sex workers, let alone those who are both.

She repeated her claim that she could identify the accused as the attacker, but agreed she had blocked out a lot of what happened on the night.

The “but” implies that these things are contradictory; they’re not. I think it was Maia who said to me recently that trials in such cases should include expert witness on how memory works during and after trauma. Suffice it to say that for her memory to work in this way is neither unusual nor illogical.

SHE’S NOT AN ALLEGED VICTIM, OK?

I try not to read Stuff’s ‘Have Your Say’ page because it makes me angry. But I was looking at Google News for articles to blog about, and this one comment stood out:

This policy is very anti male – otherwise why not interview them as well? One half of society has been recruited to inform on the other half. One shudders at the use to which this information will be put.
Ian

Now I have extremely mixed feelings about the policy of asking women who go to hospital for any reason about whether they have been subject to violence or abuse – but my concern is for the welfare of those women, not the people they might be “informing” against .

But more to the point, acknowledging that domestic violence and rape are most often perpetrated by men against women is not anti-male. It is not saying that all men are violent – they’re not. It’s not saying that only men suffer from these types of violence – they’re not. If we’re going to have this system at all I have no problem with it being applied to both men and women, but it’s not some kind of nationwide prejudice against men that it’s not.

I have a lot of respect for people who genuinely work to end violence against both women and men. I have no time whatsoever for whiners who seek to undermine the experience of women or portray survivors of abuse as motivated by a malicious vendetta.

Also, welcome to Maia (capitalismbad) who’s just started blogging here.