Changes in wording

Since no Intervention Order will carry a warning about perjury, perhaps the following terminology would be more appropriate.

• Change the phrase "aggrevied family members" to "egregious family members";
• and all references to the man should simply read, "the Abuser."

These changes would make the wording far more accurate, and possibly save millions of dollars in court costs and time. Then again, that is the whole idea of Intervention Orders, to give bureaucrats mascarading as magistrates and amoral attorneys a job.

A man often ends up defending himself. Legal Aid, especially in Victoria, doesn't like funding men. Men don't have "important rights." -- Besides, it blows their average, and the politics are in full budget play.

You'd think when a judge sees a man has prepared a lot of things for a court appearance, the judge would know he doesn't agree with the indelible allegations and the implications on the Order. A fair judge would want to see everything the man has produced, in order to make a fair judgment of the circumstances.
However, that isn't the case. Fair magistrates are few and far between, about as rare as the Tasmanian tiger.
The magistrate is just there to fill in the blanks; like a bureaucrat filling in forms. The things the man has produced don't fit into the tiny boxes. If you've ever tried to tell a process worker the whole story, you've seen the virulent aggravation such an attempt produces.

If it isn't easy and simple, it's just not allowed in a hearing. After all, the man is the Abuser, what's the big deal? That's what I mean by push-button justice.

What's sad is that a man standing before a court with a volume of evidence is an expression of faith; faith in justice, and fairness; faith in a fair go; a faith in the system. He learns that faith is misplaced in these courts. It is a sense of betrayal -- a wound -- he will never lose.
And what he will find after an illegitimate judgment will only pour venom into those wounds.

What I have learned by experience is that a woman may scream and shout the most bitter words aimed at the heart of a man's love for her; provoke by sarcasm and threats; even bait a man; day after day, and if a man reacts in a normal fashion to such abuse, he is condemned.
What the courts have forgotten is that a person only shouts and argues when something is important to them. A man will only attempt to return arguments so long as he has faith in the relationship and cares about the woman.
It's when he no longer wants to argue that he no longer cares. It's at that point that she is driving out his love for her.
And the courts will vindicate her abuse on the public record. She can say whatever she wishes. The courts and police prosecutors will read her words into the records without question or evidence. -- And they will brook no attempt to provide contrary evidence to their ignorant prejudice.

In these courts, a just verdict is an accident.