In the Sydney Morning Herald today is a court story where the focus is yet again on the victim, not the perpetrator (which always sounds like a nasty vibrator). What’s unusual is that the victim is male – a cop who is now wearing the proverbial short skirt and asking for it.
When Constable Robert Hogan took Corporal Aristotelis Koutsoubos to court for biting him on the face, the other bloke’s lawyer used details from Hogan’s Facebook page to show he was a bit of a knob who liked to drink. Helpfully the paper includes two photos ripped straight from Facebook, all of which makes it a story about Hogan, not about Koutsoubos who committed the crime.
But it’s a bit further down that really pisses me off.
“In another case, Saftwat Abdel-Hady was not so lucky.”
Abdel-Hady drugged and raped a woman, and photos of him on her mobile phone were used as evidence. But he was just unlucky, right?
“After a double dose of the sleeping pill Stilnox, his victim did not remember events before he indecently assaulted her at his Mosman apartment.” This makes it a story about the victim. If you haven’t done so, check out Anna Greer’s excellent article on the passive voice.
Later, the two journos call the pictures on the victim’s phone “happy snaps”. Oh what joy, what a lark.
And then this sentence, which makes Abdel-Hady out to be the poor victim of technology:
“The evidence helped to jail him for nearly six years despite his continual denial.” I could be wrong, but I reckon most rapists deny it.