Brazen lies told to the public: Why do so many people suspend disbelief, and authorities do nothing?

We all know that it is difficult to get convictions for rape because the offence is often not reported and generally has no witnesses. In an alleged rape, determining what took place often reduces to a he said / she said matter as to who to believe.

The feminist lobby has pushed to change rape laws to increase the chance of conviction. Lawmakers have caved in and enacted legislation that has resulted in unwarranted convictions in many instances. Grave miscarriages of justice are occurring in our courts whereby men are being convicted of rape, when no rape in the normal sense of the word happened.

The latest example occurred in Canberra, when on 28 November a man was charged with rapeafter he allegedly refused to pay a sex worker. The 30-year-old was refused bail after he pleaded not guilty to a single count of sexual intercourse without consent relating to a mid-October incident.

According to several messages on the dating app Grindr, the man and his alleged victim organised for the exchange of $200 for sexual acts before meeting in a hotel room. The defendant, however, did not pay the money in cash as agreed and left behind his car keys and an eye mask as "collateral". "Could do 100 today and transfer you 100 tomorrow," he messaged. While there was further back-and-forth communication, the defendant never paid up.

The prosecution case was that the worker was unable to consent to the sexual acts because he took part in them because of fraudulent misrepresentation. When he spoke to police, the defendant said he had always intended to pay the money. He was also said to be experiencing homelessness and had told the same sex worker he could not afford his services days before the encounter.

Special Magistrate Wilson did not agree that the prosecution case was very weak and found the agreement between the two men was for immediate payment. The Defendant was remanded and is set to make a second bail application before Christmas.

On 6 February 2015, the same issue came into prominence, when a Canberra man was sentenced for "raping" a prostitute. According to the Canberra Times the defendant handed over a sealed envelope (supposed to contain $850) but stopped the woman from opening it to check the money, saying: "No, no, don't open it now, it's – you have to trust me on this – it's part of my fantasy that it's all about the romance." The pair had sex, but the woman later opened the envelope to find that, instead of money, inside was a folded paper bag that had been made feel like a wad of cash. The woman later reported the incident to police and the man was charged with rape.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and received eight months' jail and a two-year good behaviour order.

All of what happened in these two cases was legal because the ACT's version of the Crimes Act 1900 (Section 67) states that the grounds, on which it can be established that consent of a person to sexual intercourse is negated, include "consent caused by a fraudulent misrepresentation of any fact made by the other person". (Consent can also negated by a range of other factors). Negation of consent laws have the effect of reversing the burden of proof onto defendants because lack of consent is presumed.

Similar legislation in Queensland and NSW has also led to convictions for sexual assault, when fraud (for non-payment) was the real complaint.

At a practical level, the law is an ass because it is obvious that in all these cases the "victims" clearly consented to having sex. Their only issue was that they weren't paid. Based on common sense, a fraud and not a rape was committed.

Non-payment of bills is so common in our society that creditors routinely write off millions in small debts annually as being uneconomic to pursue, and it is rare for those committing minor frauds to be even prosecuted. For the man in the Grindr case to have been jailed for a month over an unpaid debt of only $200 (with realistic prospect of even further imprisonment) was manifestly unjust and excessive. The same can be said for the second case, where the fraudster got sentenced to eight months imprisonment. In both cases both men (unfairly) had a rape conviction on their record with all the implications which that entails. Also consider the cost to the taxpayer of the trial and placing the men in custody.

I would argue that, in terms of public policy, cases where the law inappropriately labels people as "rapists" are worse than the other cases where lies are promoted by individuals. The reason is simple. This is the State itself telling the lie!

Overall, in all these cases many members of the public are intimidated by authority and politicians show a lack of principle and courage. Commonly much of the public will either stay silent or (more pointedly) kowtow, when faced with a government promoted or politically correct paradigm. The result, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth", which is a key law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.