Law is Brutality

There is a simple rule for when something needs to become a law.
And it follows from a simple, home truth about law: Law is brutality.

If you are willing to use brutality to enforce something, make it a law.
Otherwise, the law is just stupid brutality.

Numerous examples abound, from the silly to the vicious, from the momentary to those laws which will shape a nation for generations.

Are you willing to use the brutality of law to protect myself from murder, arson, theft, and assault.? Of course.

Are you willing to use the brutality of law to collect taxes? Most governments are certainly willing, that's for certain. But a law that will fine a family for not filling out a census form? -- and ultimately put them in jail?
No, that is not a legitimate application of the brutality of law.

Apply the simple principle that Law is brutality to any law, and the decision-making process is relatively simple: to make a law or not.

How do you reduce the brutality of a law? -- The most common answer is to write more laws. The effort fails. It only increases the brutality of the whole.
The only way to reduce the brutality of a law is to rescind the law and seek another way. A law fails because it is using the brutality of the law in the wrong way; or the brutality of the law is not applicable to the issue.
If a law fails, it is better to find other means to deal with an issue in society. Remove the law from the solution.

How do you influence people without laws? Leadership, examples, and information.
Let people make their own choices, young or old.

There is a concept of "duty of care" for governments and government officers at all levels.
Why does this not include the duty to seek out and rescind failed laws? Because there is no recognized standard to judge when a law is inappropriately applied.
The standard is simple: Law is brutality. When is brutality appropriately applied to an issue?

Chief Justice of the Family Court Dianne Bryant has said that the Family Law Act should be re-written from top to bottom. How does she make such a judgment? Very simply, she sees that the Family Law Act has been inappropriately applied at all levels.
She is really saying that the brutality of the law is inappropriate for nearly every issue in Family Law.
It has taken 30 years for someone of her insight to rise to a level where such a judgment can be meaningful. That's already 2-3 generations of Australians who have been poorly served by the law.

How can an average citizen tell where the brutality of law may be inappropriately applied?
We have in society a profession which lives off the gaps and inadequacies of the law: lawyers. Lawyers make their money in areas where the law is in conflict with the rights of citizens and other laws.
To see where the laws are inadequate or inappropriate, look to where the lawyers are making the most money.

Look to corporate law. A corporation is a legally-created edifice. Ideally, it is held to all the principles of law that an individual would face. But no person is responsible for the actions of the corporation. The corporation is held responsible. That creates a huge gap in the law, effectively creating a psychopath -- a faux person who is never responsible for their actions.
Corporations are formed knowing that their existance is to take advantage of the gaps in the law. Legal expenses are planned and expected.
Lawyers make millions in corporate law.

Look to family law. As is finally being recognized, there is little application for the brutality of law here. Contrary to corporate law, it is easy to recognize that when people must spend the money they would use to care for their children, to make a home, and even to eat and clothe themselves, they must spend on lawyers, -- It is an inappropriate application of the brutality of law.
Over the years, the abuse of this system has lead to tens of thousands of deaths, families being torn apart, homes and lives ruined because of the inappropriate application of the brutality of the law. Generations have suffered and will suffer because of this failing in the leadership -- of government, society, and the legal profession.
The less the courts, the police, and the law are involved, the better.
The activity of lawyers is the indication that the brutality of law in inappropriately applied.

Ideally, the law protects. This is an area of great conflict in the practical application of the law. Ideally, a severe punishment required by law will prevent certain actions such as murder, theft, rape, and assault. But the same reality of human nature is the reason they exist: human beings will commit murder, theft, rape, and assault.
Here is where the rights of the individual must be protected against abuse of the law by the officers of the law.
Because there is a conflict between the rights of the individual or group and the opportunity for abuse of the brutality of law, again, the activity of lawyers indicates what is happening. Here though, is an appropriate place for the lawyers.

Can the law not protect? Of course. Any officer of the government can abuse the law.
Here, supposedly, is the role of elected officials: to represent and oppose such knowing abuse of the law. Ideally, elected officials hold the officers of the court and police to the highest standards.
If an elected official is found to have abused the law intentionally, it is time to find a new elected official.
Any hired or appointed official of the government who abuses the law, or who condones the abuse of law, is ready for retirement -- if not jail.
Common citizens rely on the quality of government officers and elected officials. If they cannot rely on such quality, then any law is an inappropriate application of the brutality of law -- and the citizens will lose faith in their government, then ultimately their country.

Paul Donley

Read more!

A few thoughts on feminism

...the moral high-ground is dominated by people who are selfish, narcissistic, manipulative, petulant, opportunistic, hypocritical, deceitful and anti-intellectual, whose world-view openly derides reason and embraces instead any passing faddish mysticism, people who have, in short, absolutely no right to claim any kind of moral or intellectual superiority. I have been chronically and systematically offended by the behaviour of the feminists I have met, even while I supported them.

Read more!

Camera Outlaws

To paraphrase the American National Rifle Association:

"If you outlaw cameras, only criminals will have cameras."

Hey, it didn't sound that good when they said it about guns either.
Now tell me why a country that sells its tourism on natural, unspoiled beauty and the mix of cultures would want to make it illegal to use a camera?

Read more!

The Photo Police

(from "New laws to crack down on voyeurs" The Australian, by Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter, July 28, 2006)

You've got to be kidding? With all the problems with the Victorian courts and legal system, this requires the Attorney-General's attention?

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said he would push for uniform laws, using new Queensland legislation as a model, to stamp out the sordid practice.

"This kind of behaviour is obviously offensive and I'll be suggesting we look at national reform in this area of the law," Mr Hulls said. "With new technology bringing smaller and more discreet cameras, such as mobile phone cameras, we need a consistent national approach."

The attorneys-general will also consider similar measures to prevent the unauthorised use of children's photos on websites.

I love the way Hulls thinks. He does keep his prudish priorities in order. Hulls wants to protect the poor, innocent women from being photographed up their skirts.
Will the legislation also restrict women from taking photographs of men at sporting events? After all, many women will tell you they just like seeing the guys run around in those little shorts. Or is a man's butt that different from a woman's, Mr Hulls?

Someday soon, we'll have a digicam buy in just like the recent knife buy in. Men, not women of course, will be asked to trade in their digital cameras and mobile phones for sports tickets.
There will be police sweeps on the beaches and cafes. Police will ask to see all the mobile phones and digital cameras, then spend the rest of the afternoon reviewing the photos to decide who to arrest.

Frankly, Mr Hulls, I don't do "upskirt photos." In fact, until your office began discussing it as a state legislative issue, I hadn't given the idea a single thought. And I've never seen anyone do one.

And how will the police know if it is a father taking shots of his children playing?
Will the police tour the playgrounds and Maccas' daily?

And why, tucked into this "significant piece of legislation" is a note that no longer allows the Family Court to order female sterilization? The Family Court should never have been allowed such power in the first place.
The Family Court has no appreciation of disability matters, especially emotional and intellectual disabilities.
It serves as a blatant example of the prejudice in Australia agains the disabled, in fact. -- especialy disabled men, but ...

The proposed laws on sterilisation of girls with intellectual disabilities come amid anecdotal evidence many girls are being sterilised without Family Court authorisation.

Sterilisation is a last-resort measure that is only performed on girls with decision-making disabilities who do not fully grasp the potential to become pregnant from sexual contact and may not be able to cope with pregnancy.

It requires the approval of the Family Court, but anecdotal evidence suggests this is sometimes not gained before it is carried out, possibly because the legal costs are too great.

The Family Court is jealous of the the medical profession? Hint: Read the last line of the excerpt again.
A Family Court that cannot manage healthy families without prejudice and perjury is no place to be deciding on the future of young intellectually disadvantaged women.


I sat my digicam on the beach recently -- digicam and me in plain sight -- to film a gorgeous sunset over Port Philip bay. The only people in the shot was a mother (or aunt?) playing with a few kids, just visible on one side of the shot.
But in the new Victoria, I suppose that would make such appreciation of the beauty of Australia a crime, wouldn't it, Mr Hulls?

In the words of Bugs Bunny: "What an ultra marooon!"

Got teach your legal system the concept of equal protection under the law, Mr Hulls. They don't know it -- and more laws won't teach them.
Stop trying to find work for yourself. There's plenty of useful things you can be doing.

Read more!

Torture and Sacrifice

If a person does something for someone else, there is a simple way to know if it is torture or sacrifice.

Respect.

If what you do is respected, then it does not matter whether it is done willingly or unwillingly, or how difficult it is.

If what you do is not respected, then it is torture. It doesn't matter if you do it willingly or unwillingly. To have what one gives of oneself lack respect is to feel foolish.
Take away respect, and the noblest words or actions are simply torture.

Read more!

A little humor

Ah, yes, divorce......., from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet.
-Robin Williams-

Women complain about premenstrual syndrome, but I think of it as the only time of the month that I can be myself.
-Roseanne

Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.
-Billy Crystal-

You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you a look that says, "My God, you're right! I never would've thought of that!"
-Sean Connery-

According to a new survey, women say they feel more comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful.
-Robert De Niro-

In the last couple of weeks I have seen the ads for the Wonder Bra. Is that really a problem in this country? Men not paying enough attention to women's breasts?
-Hugh Grant-

We have women in the military, but they don't put us in the front lines. They don't know if we can fight or if we can kill. I think we can. All the general has to do is walk over to the women and say, "You see the enemy over there? They say you look fat in those uniforms."
-Elayne Boosler-

There's a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe swelling. So what's the problem?
-Dustin Hoffman-

There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men don't think there's a lot they don't know. Women do. Women want to learn. Men think, "I know what I'm doing, just show me somebody naked."
-Jerry Seinfield-

If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.
-George Clooney-

Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house.
-Rod Stewart-

See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time.
-Robin Williams-

Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is.
-Barbara Bush (Former US First Lady)-

You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend.
-Yasir Arrafat (On going to war over religion)-

On the one hand, we'll never experience childbirth. On the other hand, we can open all our own jars.
-Bruce Willis (On the difference between men and women)-

And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan.'
-George Burns-

What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere? 'Hold my purse.'
-Sandra Bullock-

The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in 'Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire' and the computer will ask, 'Specify type of goat.'
-Jason Alexander (George Castanza on Seinfeld)-

Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships.
-Sharon Stone-

There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an airplane: Either you have diarrhea, or you're anxious to meet people who do.
-Henry Kissenger (former US Secretary of State)-

Read more!

Choices

James Adams of fathers4equality writes:

Male suicide
Three feminasty myths:

1: Women attempt suicide as often as men, they just use less lethal means.
This is partially true, but more unsuccessful -- if you can call a completed suicide successful. Many male attempts are never reported.
I also dated a girl for a while who did the "I've just attempted suicide and swallowed a packet of Panadol" attention-grabbing device. She knew she wasn't going to die, or even be injured. She ate the pills and rang the hospital.
Needless to say she had done that trick 5 times before, by her own admission. who knows how many times since...

Using the feminasties argument, this single woman is as important at 5 men WHO ARE REALLY ACTUALLY DEAD.

2: Many suicides are reported as accidents.
How many drug OD's (overwhelmingly male) are really suicides?
How many car accidents? Country coppers all know about the fatal "accident", where a sober driver, close to town, runs into a tree on a straight stretch, with no skid marks.
How many accidental shootings?
As a kid in the country I was perplexed by how many farmers had "accidentally shot themselves in the back paddock while climbing through a fence" Years later, I realised these were not accidents.

3: There are real social taboos against suicide. Catholics believe suicide victims die in sin and their remains are not to be buried in a churchyard.
Life insurance policies don't pay-out on suicides. And what country copper, when faced with a grieving family is going to point the finger and say "suicide", it is kinder to say "accident"

At the end of the day, more men suicide than all people killed on the road... It's carnage.

Suicide is seen as the easy way out; the cowards' way out.
Yet there is not a man alive faced with false allegations of abuse and domestic violence that has not considered it.

My ex chose her ground for extortion carefully and well. She knew the depths of my lifelong beliefs against striking a woman even if I were attacked.
My ex and her daughter knew that I would not turn to violence under any circumstances. And she knew the prejudices of Australian society and its legal system. No one would believe that I could endure the abuse for so long and not turn violent.
I prayed for nearly two years to not wake up because of her abuse. Then she lied to the courts and police, and without any evidence, effectively convicted and punished me for the abuse I suffered.

After months of hellish stress, the courts' decisions took me to the edge. I told a psychologist -- by phone, email, and in person -- that I wanted to be committed because I knew I was a danger to myself.
Now that I know the incompetence and neglect in the Australian mental health system, I understand why she wouldn't admit me. At the time, it just felt like I was being tossed away again.

Every man that I've met tells a similar story. I can see in their eyes that all of them would rather be dead than go through more.
In some cases, these men have carried that death wish with them for 8 years or more, and it is still continuing.

What should happen to those who file false allegations of abuse and domestic violence?
Jail.
If they have succeeded in taking property or money as a result of the extortions, the property should be seen as the proceeds of crime. It, along with damages, should be returned to the victim.
They are unfit parents. They should be removed from their children's lives.

That Australia condones and encourages such behaviour by the prejudice of its courts and social system is inhuman, and a breach of commonly held civil rights. The nation should be made responsible in the only way governments understand: financial.
The responsible parties, -- agencies, supervisors, judges, police, even court clerks and 000 operators -- should be removed and forbidden to hold any such jobs again.

Read more!

Virginia and Victoria

"As the British Constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceeded from progressive history, so the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

- William Ewart Gladstone, British statesman, prime minister four times

"Tyranny has always depended on ignorance—and the only way to overcome it is to empower voters by giving them more information. Until then, we will continue to have this phenomenon of candidates who appear to be harmless becoming judicial tyrannists once they're on the bench."

Yesterday, the Victorian Charter of Rights was enabled with the silent fanfare it deserved. It is a gutless, toothless document.

At best, it is a make-work rule that will require a small paragraph to be appended to the template for putting a bill before the Victorian Parliament stating that the bill is in compliance with the Charter of Rights. -- Whether the bill is or not won't matter. Parliament can simply ignore the Charter at any time.

Is Change needed in Victoria to better protect human rights?

Short Answer to Question 1:YES, Victoria needs change to better protect human rights. There is no institutional way now to stop legislation impairing the enjoyment of human rights, nor to require overnment to repair gaps in the law.

In Victoria, our human rights are not protected well enough. Even rights that many Victorians take for granted are not protected and available to all. For example the right to freedom of speech is given only limited protection underthe common law, and can easily be limited by statute.

A Charter of Rights is a law or part of the Constitution which protects certain minimum standards common to all humans, called human rights. Human rights can be summarised by the Australian concept of a “fair go” for everyone. A Charter of Rights would protect rights such as the right to: affordable health care, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a fair trial etc. A Charter of Rights would also have a corresponding responsibility for the government to protect individual rights.

Over 200 years ago, another state issued a Declaration of Rights for its citizens. As you read through the sections below, you'll see that we are still fighting and literally dying for those rights today.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man(or woman), or set of men (or women), is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, (or woman and man) the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Thomas Jefferson compiled the Virginia Bill of Rights a few years before he wrote the American Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.

The weakness of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was the same as the cardinal weakness in the Victorian Charter of Rights: It is a state document which is limited to the jurisdiction of the state. However, the Virginian Declaration carried far more weight than the Victorian Charter because it was not hampered by limitations in the law itself.

The courts could enforce the Virginia Declaration; the courts are excluded from enforcing the Charter.
Any person could declare themselved protected by the Declaration; the Victorian Charter is only vaguely for the rich. If an individual finds a law or action of the government in breach of the Victorian Charter, they must sue in the Supreme Court for it to be enforced. -- The minimum cost for for an appearance before the Supreme Court is $100,000.
That alone will limit the number of people who seek to be protected under the law.
It would be nonsense anyway.
Even if a law or action of government were found by the Supreme Court to be in breach of the Charter of Rights, all that can be done is to make a reference to the Victorian Parliament, which is not required to do anything about it.
Parliament can simply ignore the reference.

Read more!

What is WRONG with the Family Court in Australia

What is WRONG with the FAMILY COURT system in Australia:
Version 26 July 2006

1. The Family Court system in Australia typically takes two years to process a case when it shouldn't take more than a few months at most. This delay contributes to the high rate of suicide and murder-suicide associated with family breakup.
The delay increases the death rate and generates conflict and human trauma.

2. Family Law solicitors make huge sums of money - typically $20,000-$40,000 per case (that is - each parent spends this amount !), and sometimes in excess of $100,000 from a single case - from parents who could be spending this money on providing a good home and opportunities for their children.
The financial strain of Family Court cases generates immense stress on separated couples and generates conflict between them.

3. Family Law solicitors are responsible in many cases for amplifying conflict between separated parents both inadvertently and deliberately. They have been known to subtly encourage their clients to construct and exaggerate issues and to portray the other party in terms of negative stereotypes. Family Law solicitors have been known to deliberately sabotage Family Court 'conciliation conferences' presumably to draw out the court case.
The adversarial system of the Family Court system generates conflict.

4. The Family Court of Australia awarded Joint Residency to 2.5% of cases in 2000/01 - the most recent year statistics are available. This suggests that Equal Residency was awarded in probably less than 1% of cases.
It will not award Equal Custody in cases where there is "entrenched conflict".

This policy encourages mothers to generate conflict and to lie about conflict - typically by applying for a Domestic Violence Order (DVO). A DVO can be obtained without the need for the police to investigate the matter - ie often they don't bother to even interview the alleged perpetrator.
Once a DVO has been issued, it is virtually impossible to have it struck out. The respondent is advised to "accept the charges without admission of guilt."
They are also advised "not to worry about it, that it is not in itself serious, and is quite common" even though the charge will last for two years, and although it will likely have achieved the aim of establishing "conflict in the relationship between the parents" and therefore preclude the possibility of equal parenting time.

In the event that a parent is able to disprove the allegations of domestic violence (or child abuse), there are no penalties handed down to the parent who fabricated the charges. This is not to say instances of domestic violence and child abuse do not occur, or that these instances are not serious.
It is to say that we have inadequate systems (or will) to distinguish real cases from fraudulent ones.

5. The Family Court system in Australia invariably awards sole residency to the parent with whom the children 'usually reside' - the 'precedent principle'. This encourages parents to use force to gain more time with their children in order to demonstrate that they are the prime carer during the two year period (or longer !) leading up to the Final Hearing.
The Family Court system therefore rewards the use of force and penalizes parents who show restraint. This policy generates conflict.

6. The Family Court system in Australia rarely awards Equal Residency even if the father has won sole residency but wants Equal Residency ! and even though numerous studies show that children invariably benefit more from Equal Residency arrangements compared to Sole Residency arrangements.

7. Under mounting social science research and evidence that Sole Residency is damaging for children, the Family Court system now tends to award the conventional second weekend access to fathers, plus an additional couple of hours after school one day per week, even though Family Court child psychologists will admit that children need block time, not fragmented time.
It is a cynical and inappropriate gesture on the part of Family Court judges to appear to be addressing the problem of parental alienation.

8. Under the existing system, if both parents qualify for the Single Parents Pension, only one of those parents can be awarded the pension in a situation of Equal Residency, and it is awarded to the first to apply.
They cannot receive half each. This policy generates conflict.

9. Legal Aid can be provided to only one party, even if both qualify. This generates conflict.

10. Decisions in the Final Hearing of the Family Court often rely heavily on the Family Report which is based on observations of the parents (particularly the father) with the child in an office for a period of half an hour (as well as two hours of interview with each parent, particularly the father who has to prove his competence).
This contrived environment and the brevity of the artificial 'observation' (try behaving normally when a psychologist is watching you and taking notes on everything you do !) on only one occasion is a seriously flawed assessment methodology.

11. The Family Court system of Australia does not recognize the rights of the child to spend a significant amount of time with both parents, nor does it recognize the rights of the father or mother. Instead it claims to know what is in "the best interests of the child." Similarly parental rights were extinguished in previous decades when the state took Aboriginal children away from their natural parents and adopted them out to White families because the State knew what was "in the best interests of the child." Just as that policy caused immense human trauma and suffering to children, the current policy of the State through the Family Court system in Australia is also causing immense and unnecessary trauma and suffering to children by alienating one of the parents, usually the father.
The Family Court system has been acting AGAINST the best interests of children for the last 30 years.

12. Typically the Family Court system in Australia awards sole residency to the mother. The father meanwhile, not only loses most in the property settlement (typically the family home), and is forced to pay ongoing maintenance to the mother, but he is given only token access to his children of two days per fortnight, and sometimes much less. If a mother moves further away from the father, the father usually has to travel further to see his children.
The Family Court system in Australia discriminates against fathers under the false pretext of acting "in the best interests of the child". Family Court judges, registrars, barristers and solicitors are in collective denial of the inherent gender bias.

13. Family Court judges have enormous amounts of discretion to the point they do not have to give breakdowns of reasons why they have given, for example, a 'global assessment' awarding 70% to 80% of property to the resident parent - typically the mother (a figure typically given to mothers by solicitors of the likely outcome of their case, irrespective of particular circumstances), or why they have awarded sole residency to the mother even in situations where the father has more time available to care for the children.
To appeal against a judge's order is almost never successful, because such an appeal will be heard by a panel of other Family Court judges who are reticent "to overturn a discretionary judgment of another judge."

14. Justice Rimmer was recently accused of plagiarism in her reasons for her judgments (and the evidence of plagiarism was plain).
There have been calls for an investigation to see if such plagiarism has occurred elsewhere, as well as numerous calls over the years to investigate the judicial integrity of the Family Court system generally, following a constant stream of complaints (far more serious than plagiarism), but no investigation has ever taken place.
Meanwhile, Justice Rimmer remains on 'extended leave.'

Conclusion

The Family Court system in Australia is geared to exacerbate conflict. Much of the conflict currently associated with family breakups can be avoided with the implementation of a Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Residency, meaning that if both parents desire at least half time caring for their children, then this will be the outcome unless there are compelling reasons against it - such as issues of child abuse, or practical problems.
Children are better off with significant access to both parents and the best way to achieve this is through equal parenting time.

The government is establishing a network of 65 Family Relationship Centres in Australia in order to minimize the need to go to the Family Court. This is a recognition of the inappropriate adversarial nature of the Family Court system (clearly stated by the government). Also, solicitors are not allowed to advise clients until after they have attended a Family Relationship Centre.
This is a recognition that solicitors tend to 'up the ante' and exacerbate conflict.

However, it is unlikely Family Relationship Centres will work.
They require a mere three hours of mediation. The Family Court already provides at least two 'conciliation conferences'.
Until there is a change in the law to implement a Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Residency, because fathers will continue to seek equal time with their children, and mothers will continue to carry the process through to the Family Court. In the present Family Court process they know they will likely be awarded 70-80% of the property (ie the family home) and 70-80% of residency of their children, ie Sole Residency or quasi Sole Residency, not to mention a regular income from their ex-partner in the form of Child Support.

Organizations such as Relationships Australia, Centacare, Anglicare and UnitingCare are amongst the main organizations who have won tenders to operate the Family Relationship Centres.
All these organizations have made submissions to the House of Representatives Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event of Family Separation, arguing against a presumption of equal residency - even though the government has stated that equal residency is to be the starting point for negotiations between separated couples in the Family Relationship Centres.

Press Release Published by EqualParenting-Cairns
e-mail EqualParenting-Cairns@yahoogroups.com

Read more!

My Message to FM Kate Hughes

(reproduced here by request of the author)

My Message to Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes
-She is discraceful! PLEASE READ

Federal Magistrate Kate Hughes,

It is with sincere consternation and fear for the future of our children and our society that I find myself writing to you.

I have for the first and hopefully last time, had the regrettable experience of being an observer and participant in the Australian Family Law System, namely the Melbourne Federal Magistrates Court.I have been supporting my friend through this horrible process for almost twelve months now, and as I am not directly involved in the matter I believe I have been able to observe with a reasonable and objective eye.

You cannot be acting in the best interests of the child if you do not also incorporate and consider the father's right to be a father, be a parent to the child in conjunction with the child's inalienable right to be fathered, to build a meaningful and sustainable relationship with his paternal parent.

It is neither acceptable nor logical to alienate one from the other.

It is incumbent upon you to be realistic, not tokenistic when considering the best interests of a child.every kind of meaningful or important relationship that exists in the human realm requires significant and on-going interaction to take place.it takes time and that time is essential.

Judges dictating one or two days a week for father-child interaction are simply ignorant, ill-informed, out-of touch, retrogressive and in part at least, are responsible for the adverse effects it inevitably imposes on the child. Research clearly shows that judgments of this kind directly impact on suicide rates, alienation of child to father and contribute to school delinquency, drug abuse and emotional problems.

The best interests of the child are not met if Judges and courts continue to deliver judgments that clearly disadvantage the child, the father and their relationship.a relationship that will significantly impact upon and shape the future of the child. This is undeniable injustice and should not be tolerated by our society. It is an act of gender discrimination in part, conducted in a maternally biased and farcical courtroom. It shows a fundamental ignorance of true justice, the child's best interests and the significance and value of the father-child relationship.

Ms Hughes, in your deliberation of the [name withheld] Contravention hearing you have blatantly delivered injustice to the child and his father.In delivering your judgment you relied heavily and unfairly upon the Affidavit and oral testimony of the wife and her witness. You gave minimal credence to the husband's evidence in his oral testimony and Affidavits and you did not adequately consider pertinent issues of the child's bi-racial heritage.

One does not require a law degree to conclude from the written and oral evidence brought before you that the mother's actions were intentionally provocative, controlling in the extreme and simply misleading. Her actions directly contributed to the events that unfolded on the [date withheld] 2006, to which your decision was based upon.

Ms Hughes, you display an appalling lack of insight and understanding of the evidence that was presented to you.

In your judgment you site as "controlling behaviour", the father returning a pair of shoes to the mother that the child did not want to wear. Your judgment and pertaining comments rely purely upon assumption. And your assumption is incorrect.
Your lack of insight and understanding in this instance is simply astounding.
If you knew the child and his character or gave appropriate credence to the father's testimony in court, you would not find this controlling at all. The fact is that the child often makes it clear when he does not want to wear particular shoes. He clearly and assertively says "No shoes papa. Shoes off, papa. Shoes off" or "No shoes [name withheld]. Shoes off.shoes off please" and he will attempt to remove them himself. Furthermore, if you have children you would know that this is common behaviour for a two and half year old child.

In relation to this you reminded the father, Mr [the father], that the child is only two and not linguistically capable of negotiating the language required to make it clear that he did not want to wear those particular shoes.the child was over two and a half at the time and you should know that a child of that age is perfectly capable of using such language.

In your deliberation you have failed to adequately consider the impact on the father of the wife's on-going irresponsible and self-indulgent parenting.
It is glaringly obvious that there is a shared-responsibility for the events that took place on [date withheld] 2006 at [place withheld]. What you fail to comprehend and acknowledge is the fact that the mother's display of anger is passive in nature and is directly linked to her dissatisfaction with the marriage and relationship breakdown, whereas the father has long moved on from the relationship, his anger is not expressed passively and is directly linked to his genuine concerns about the health and well-being of his son.
You sight(sic) the father as verbally abusive towards to the mother's friend who came along to handover, but fail to give equal weight to the harassing behaviour which the mother's friend inflicted upon the father.
There is an obvious gender bias in your views and findings.

I have discussed this matter and your judgment with colleagues, academics, law professionals and lay persons. The overwhelming consensus is that the decision you have handed-down in this instance epitomizes all that is faulty and unjust in the family law system. We all agree that your decision is precisely representative of the many ill-considered and paternally discriminatory judgments that clearly adversely effect father-child relationships.

Many of my colleagues and friends including myself are separated and share the care of our children equally. We all concur that there is no justice to be found in the family court system, and as such, we have all, in our wisdom chosen not to make use of this unbalanced, uncaring, unintelligent, unsatisfactory and sub-standard system. The realty is that there is very little public confidence.

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in an address on "The State of the Judicature" (Law Institute Journal, December, 1999 p. 67at 71) stated:

"The most important measure of the performance of the court system is the extent to which the public have confidence in its independence, integrity and impartiality".

The courts and the judiciary realise that there must be public confidence in the courts or the legitimacy of the courts is challenged. In a speech by the Chief Justice of Australia to the Australian Bar Association Conference in New York, the Chief Justice commented:

”There is now a broader concept of accountability recognised by the judiciary. That is, in order to maintain public confidence in the courts, the judiciary and court administrators have to be responsive to criticism where that criticism is justified.”

I truly believe that you, Ms Hughes have been mistakenly appointed to the position of federal magistrate. I now professionally and publicly call for your resignation.the delivery of such injustice cannot be tolerated by those whom you serve, the Australian people.
This injustice forced upon both father and son is an affront to the collective intelligence of our society.

You have unfairly and unjustly penalized the child and his father. Depriving the child of meaningful and acceptable contact with his father is disgraceful to say the least. The child has been used to a twenty-four hour period of contact, weekly with his father, interim orders made by Federal Magistrate Phipps in 2005. You have reduced this essential father-son interaction time to a six-hour period. This is unquestionably detrimental to the child's emotional welfare and development. Moreover, you have not appropriately or passably considered pertinent cultural issues that are inextricably part of this child's life. Your ignorance of these issues of culture, ethnicity and race are simply staggering.

Furthermore, the change over venue you chose is excessively distant from the father's home. The driving time from Williamstown to Narre Warren is more than one hour. When you consider the driving time involved, effectively the child now only has four hours a week to spend with his father. This is disgusting and intolerable. I truly hope that you will have the same situation imposed on you and your children (assuming you have them) during your lifetime. Only through experiencing such an unwarranted and intolerable situation yourself, will you properly understand the reality and true consequences of it.
Your decision is in no way considerate of the best interests of this child.

In the face of serious allegations of sexual abuse of his son while in the mother's care (raised by [the father]) you chose not to address this matter, one which clearly requires immediate attention. Instead, you chose to set the next hearing for September, which leaves this matter unaddressed for an obviously unacceptable length of time. Your decision and handling of this matter has left the child in a potentially unsafe and harmful situation. Had the situation been reversed and there were allegations of sexual abuse of the child while in the father's care, I have no doubt that appropriate actions would have been facilitated expediently.Ms Hughes, I understand that you have a duty of care to this child. You have acted without due care, diligence and attention; you have not acted in the best interests of this child. Your actions have placed this child at further risk. Your actions are reprehensible and you must be held accountable for such negligence and incompetence.

We, the Australian public must be provided with an accountable and transparent method of recourse when inexcusable judgments such as this are imposed.

The court appointed Child Advocate:
The court appointed Child Advocate has also played a contemptuous and dubious role in this process. The Child Advocate, represented in court by Mr Holte, is motivated by personal interest and certainly does not show that he acts in the best interests of the child. He is clearly not acting impartially. It was obvious from the outset that Mr Holte was disenchanted and uncomfortable with the fact that the father was self-representing. Some of the behaviour I observed Mr Holte display towards the father was condescending, juvenile and unprofessional at best.

An official letter of complaint compiled and lodged by Mr Aschendorff, in regard to Mr Holte's unprofessional conduct, has conspicuously affected the attitude and stance of the Child Advocate. Again, it is clear that personal agendas have taken precedence over the best interests of the child in this process. If this procedure is to be seen as fair, just, impartial and transparent, it is imperative that the court appoint another child advocate, one who is capable of fulfilling the role honourably and impartially.

Ms Hughes, your deliberations and actions have unduly penalized a young father and caused damage to the long-standing and mutually essential relationship between father and child. In court on the final day of the contravention hearing you relied wholly on Mr Holte's assertion that the [name withheld] Contact Centre was only 20-30 minutes drive from the father's home in [place withheld]. This is simply a false statement. The drive time from the father's home to the Contact Centre is more than one hour, one way. If traffic is heavy it takes over one and a half hours, one way.

[father'sname withheld] right under the law to receive a fair and just hearing has certainly been denied. I am aware that Mr Aschendorff intends on appealing your decision and I unequivocally support him. It is however truly unfortunate that he must engage in this process in search of real justice. It is an unnecessary strain on him and his child.

Your judgment in regard to the wife having a reasonable excuse for breaching [name withheld] interim contact orders and suspending contact with the father, are fundamentally flawed. Again, you did not fairly nor sufficiently take into account the long-term and on-going actions of the wife. It is clear in Affidavit and oral testimony that the wife's actions were calculated, intentionally malicious and a deliberate attempt to distract from issues she did not want to address, namely issues of child safety, welfare and emotional well-being.

Clearly, the husband's underlying stress and anger stems from the wife's choice to ignore the father's concerns of suspected sexual abuse of the child by the wife's brother-in-law. I observed the child cry and scream almost every week when it was time to return to his mother. This took place for over thirty weeks. Surely you have a duty of care to the child to adequately consider and give weight to the fact that a two and a half year old child becomes so overtly distressed when he realises he has to go home with his mother. There is obviously something untoward occurring in this situation. This fact warrants serious and immediate attention. You have failed the child once again.

The farcical conduct that I observed this court engage in blatantly sacrifices the investigation and acquisition of the truth, and instead, indulges in legal competition and the pursuit of personal agendas. How can this possibly create an environment where the child's best interests are paramount? It simply is not possible.

Both the system and you Ms Hughes, as the deliverer of judgments, have dismally failed this young child.

Yours Truly, [name withheld]

Read more!

Mealy-mouthed Rights

Just before the Opinion pages, about 20 deep in today's Herald Sun, is the story that today Victoria's Charter of Rights goes into effect. The Age didn't even bother to print a story.
(The Herald Sun story isn't even on the Victoria - Breaking News webpage that I can find.)

Why is the story buried so deep in the paper? Because the charter is meaningless. It is an obsequious bit of legislation that does nothing.

Is Change needed in Victoria to better protect human

rights?

Short Answer to Question 1: YES, Victoria needs change to better protect human rights. There is no institutional way now to stop legislation impairing the enjoyment of human rights, nor to require government to repair gaps in the law.

In Victoria, our human rights are not protected well enough.

Even rights that many Victorians take for granted are not protected and available to all. For example the right to freedom of speech is given only limited protection under the common law, and can easily be limited by statute.

The purpose of making a law is to make the protections of the law available to everyone because the government must enforce the law. This is a law that is written to never be enforced.

This is not a Bill of Rights which protects the citizen against malicious or foolish legislation. This law protects no one but the present administration. They can say their administration was the first to pass a charter of rights.

A Charter of Rights is a law or part of the Constitution which protects certain minimum standards common to all humans, called human rights. Human rights can be summarised by the Australian concept of a “fair go” for everyone. A Charter of Rights would protect rights such as the right to: affordable health care, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a fair trial etc. A Charter of Rights would also have a corresponding responsibility for the government to protect individual rights.

How does it work? (or not work, more correctly..)
From this day forward, every bill set forward in the Victorian Parliament must contain a section where it shows the proposed law is in compliance with the Charter. -- That sounds good, until you find out that this compliance is not required. Parliament can ignore the need for compliance.
The courts would normally enforce a law. This law is not enforced by the courts. That means the average citizen will never enjoy its protection -- There is no element of government to provide such protections.
The citizens cannot go to the courts and demand they enforce the law. The Charter precludes the intervention of the courts.

If a law is shown not to be in compliance with the Charter, what happens?
A report can be sent to Parliament indicating how the law is not in compliance with the Charter. -- That's it. The buck stops ... in thin air.
Parliament is not required to do anything about the report.

But this is a law, can't a citizen sue to be protected under the law? That's how half of Common Law developed, after all. Citizens sue to establish protections.
Of course a citizen can sue for protection under the Charter. All they have to do is go to the Supreme Court. That's a minimum of $100,000 just to appear before the Supreme Court.
The only people who will be able to seek protections under the Charter will be that 1% of Australians who have $100,000 or more to throw around.

Australians still have no guarantees of any rights: speech, association, property, or even life.
Oh, did I mention three other states are thinking of their own Charters? -- Why waste the time and money?

And just when I thought I had found something to like about Rob Hulls, I went and found out the facts behind his support of the Victorian Charter of Rights.
This is a perfect law .. for lawyers. It does nothing for anyone else, unless you count the make-work requirement for more paperwork.

Read more!

What do the courts teach?

What do the courts teach a child?

There is a lot of verbiage about the “best interests of the child.” It occurred to me that no one has considered the lessons the courts offer the children.
Not only the courts, but the police, social services, and lawyers, what lessons do they teach a child?

A child knows what is happening. Despite the pressure or influence of those around a child, a child knows the truth inside.
Of all the means to judge the effectiveness of the legal system, perhaps this is the most poignant and meaningful.

If we were to look at the police, the courts, magistrates and lawyers through the eyes of an impressionable young person, a child, what would we see?

A child, it has been said, knows the truth, even if they dare not speak it.

Why would a child not speak the truth?

• They will not speak the truth because of the influence of a parent, who urges them to lie, or make up stories to support the stories of the parent.
• Children will not speak the truth because of the influence of their peers or siblings because they want to do what their peers or siblings want them to do.
• Children will not speak the truth they see because they have been taught to tease adults or other authority figures with what the adults or authorities want hear.
• Children will not tell the truth because they know will be punished; or that they are afraid they will be punished.
• A child will do anything to please their parent or parents.

To train a child not to speak the truth is to train them to be irresponsible and, in the extreme, to train them to be a psychopath. Does the legal system teach a child not to tell the truth?

No, the legal system teaches a child that lying is powerful.
In fact, it teaches a child that only a fool tells the truth.

What about those who will say that training a child to deny the truth they know is to show them what it means to be an adult? They will say that learning to choose your lies – or maybe how you express the truth; how they interpret the truth – is simply a necessary part of growing up.

Is this just a lesson of maturity? -- The first step towards the sophistication necessary to be an adult?

These are most obvious lessons from the court -- learned from lawyers and judges.

Are these worthwhile lessons for a child?
Are these the lessons the courts want to teach a child?
Are these the lessons we want the courts to teach a child?

It's all just a game, man.

An aging hippie friend used to tell me, "It's all just a game, man. And we're all just pawns."
It was his way of saying there was no sense in believing in anything. "Some people are pieces, but most of us are just pawns."
If you believe in something, value something, love something, it just leaves you open to be maneuvered.

It took me a long time to understand why I was repulsed by his words. He meant them as a way for me to protect my feelings, to separate myself from the strange mad things we both saw around us.
But what repulsed me was that the saying instantly objectifies us all. We all become just plastic pieces to be moved around according to rules that we had no say in or control over.
In a way, he was being hypocritical. He often said he just wanted to be "a human being, that's all." Game pieces are not human.

The courtroom is special game where only a few know the rules. If you go in there without knowing them, you're less than a pawn. You may be tolerated for a while, even patronized, but sooner or later the people who know the game will just turn you out in disgust.
At that point, the judges and lawyers do whatever they want to you. Like the pieces in a game, you're just there to be amusing.
The fact that the things you love, have worked for all your life, believe in -- even if that is your country or children -- are at stake is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the game.

For an adult, such lessons are hard. An adult can be shattered emotionally by the coldness and condescension of the lawyers and judges, but they have years of experience that can help put the experience in perspective.
For a child, the lesson is traumatic.
The parents whom they have learned to trust and love are reduced to idiots before the court, accused of strange things that are -- within the game -- seen as horrible and bad. Even if the child realizes these strange things are untrue, it only makes the experience worse. -- Which of the parents are telling the truth?

And then, the realization hits them: The truth doesn't matter. This is all about money and who controls it. They, the child(ren) are only notches in a belt. From being the most precious possessions of their parents, they have become pawns to decide who takes what from whom.
To a child, it is not a game.
But it soon will be.

This game is not the same as stealing someone's lunch, getting in a free punch, or making someone look foolish, by lying to teachers or parents.
The judge is the parent, and his or her gang is the police and the law.

Is it any wonder that the children of divorce are 7 times more likely to be addicts or criminals? Not at all.
The courtroom experience only multiplies the failures of the parents -- and all under the guise of protection. The courtroom experience is a training ground for sociopaths, even if the child only sees it second hand when the results rule their lives.

Protection

Why would a child believe that the people in the court -- the lawyers, judges, and police -- are really going to protect them?
In most cases, neither parent has done anything wrong, but the judgment of the court condemns one or the other. One parent is raised to sanctity; the other condemned as a criminal.
One winner. One loser.
There doesn't have to be any pretense of reality, or justice, or truth, involved. The game is over.

And then, the game board is put away.
In the terms of the court, due process has been served. The judge leaves, the lawyers pack up, and all the people are ushered out of the room. There is no expression of concern or care, no hint of affection to salve the wounds or heal the moment. The people are all dismissed. In most children's experience, this is not how those who love and want to protect them act.

Children cannot miss the lesson that "Justice" has little to do with fairness as they've been taught.

What other lessons does the court teach children?
That the law and the judge are more important than their parents or God?
That their parents are not worthy of respect?

Read more!

Constructing Hate and Fear

Constructing Hate and Fear

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
– Thomas Paine, circa 1738, “Common Sense”

Reforms

The rushes on (new Family Court Chief Justice) Dianna Bryant’s Family Court reforms at the federal level are coming in. One of the most significant early returns is the way the new process handles allegations of domestic violence. Where previous courts went by the blind doctrine of “err on the side of caution”, which produced a statistic which can only be called an insult to the nation of Australia: “8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive.” – Mostly generated by the archaic thinking that prevailed.

The judges and opposing lawyers are now taking the attitude of “put up or shut up” towards such complaints.
The results are dramatic: approximately 75% of the complaints are either dropped or discredited. Quick arithmetic comparing this percentage with the generated statistic yields “2 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive”, which instantly returns Australia to the rest of the human race. Recent studies consistently show that approximately 15% of relationships are abusive.
If there is an objective measure of the success of Ms Bryant’s Family Court reforms, this is one of the most significant.

The propaganda continues though

On 20 July, Tim Holding is quoted as saying that “intimate partner violence was the leading health threat to women aged 15-45”. I asked “Where does he get this stuff?” on this blog.
In the same article, Domestic Violence Victoria spokeswoman Fiona McCormack slammed KIm Wells' views (see below, A little perspective) as archaic.
I’m afraid the early returns from Ms Bryant’s reforms indicate that Ms McCormack’s thinking is “archaic”; not Mr Wells’.

But the way to develop a Big Lie is to repeat it. Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, explained that process clearly.
On the 21st July, Cheryl Critchley is in the Herald Sun again citing again-- I assume. --- the same study. Thanks to the sidebar on her article, I was able to find it on the Net. (It’s a pdf file. You’ll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read it. On the same site is an HTML version that can be read by any browser.)

In reading this report, you have to wonder if Mr Holding – who I assume was trained as a lawyer – Ms Critchley, or Ms McCormack were ever schooled in critical thinking. Or maybe they just read the first few pages and looked at the pictures?

The report is more a sales presentation than a scholarly report. It is a superb example of how to misrepresent data for a prejudiced purpose.
There are "feature pages" of clearly coached -- inflammatory and misleading -- quotations before every section. There are 12 sections.
There are sidebar conclusions that emphasize misleading conclusions even
from the information in the study itself.
These are where Mr Holding and Ms Critchley find their quotations; not from a critical reading of the study or from many other more scholarly studies on the VicHealth site itself.

In fact, other reports on the VicHealth site discredit the report’s findings. Even the information in the report contradicts the conclusions blasted across the feature pages.

Misleading quotes and fine print

The misleading and offensive quote is a sidebar on the first few pages.

Intimate partner violence is responsible for more ill-health and premature death in Victorian women under the age of 45 than any other of the well-known risk factors, including high blood pressure, obesity and smoking

It’s repeated throughout the report, but it is hardly the most valuable information in the report about the topic named in the title and subtitle, “The health costs of violence – Measuring the burden of disease caused by intimate partner violence”.
Based on the title, you could assume the report was not sexist or discriminatory, until you find the following paragraph on page 7:

Although men are among the victims of intimate partner violence, evidence suggests that the vast majority of victims are women and that women are more vulnerable to its health impacts. Intimate partner violence occurs across cultural and socio-economic groups.

In that short paragraph, hidden in the fine print on the first pages, the study identifies itself as sexist and discriminatory -- and completely discounts the title and subtitle of the report.
It wouldn’t make it past most 5th grade teachers anywhere. The authors have just dismissed half the population.

Those of you who have looked at the Domestic Violence Clearinghouse site will recognize this tactic in their reports and statements. In fact, you'll recognize the same paragraph that appears over and over.

I'll just cite another recent study:

In fact, what our findings suggest is that amongst young adults, men and women are equally violent towards partners, in terms of the range of acts of domestic violence examined in this study.

The New Zealand study reiterates the findings of other recent authoritative studies which indicate that 60% of domestic violence goes both ways.
The same report reiterates that 1.5 times as many women as men attack children. Where is the concern for children in this study?

This report accents dramatically the healthiest age group of women, from 15 to 45. The real health costs come for women after age 45, as illustrated in the report itself. (see Figure 3 below from the report) Why is this group highlighted as if it were the subject of the whole report?

Disinformation poisons the public debate

We have to put an end to this sort of disinformation. It is poisoning the public debate and misleading the public. It is simply discrimination and hate-mongering in a pretty format. It is generating an atmosphere of fear for political reasons.

If you look to page 29 of the study, you'll see the second instance of a chart showing that intimate partner violence affects 9% of the women aged 15-45 included in the study. Based on the women-only focus of the study, which supposedly studies health costs for all Australians, that makes intimate partner violence the leading health risk for those women.


This graphic is repeated in the report. It appears on pages 13 and 29. On page 13, it is coupled with another graphic that deals with the whole of the female population.

The question is never asked about why the Victorian women chosen for the study are so far out of the (Australian) national and international statistical reality. It isn't hard to see if you consider the source of the study and how much of the implied group is not studied.
The study does not include violence by children (adolescents usually) against the women. This chart implies that all the intimate partner violence is done by men.

Based on many international findings, this chart would suggest that at about 5.5% of the ‘disease burden’ of men would be from intimate partner violence, but we know that men in this age range suffer most commonly from job-related injuries.
The report ignores the prevalence of women violence on men.

No one is condoning intimate partner violence here. But inflammatory disinformation such as this report cannot be condoned in a free society either.

Far more important for a balanced perspective is the following graphic on page 29:


You have to wonder if Mr Holding made it this far into the report. From the sidebar in her article, Ms Critchley certainly did. Where Mr Holding can be assumed to have been lazy and irresponsible, Ms Critchley must be assumed to have intentended to inflame the debate and misinform the public.

Figure 3 from the report is rightfully coupled with the following graphic about health outcomes from intimate partner violence, Figure 1 from page 29.

This graphic illustrates the health outcomes for the whole population -- women of all ages in Australia.
However, it deals with only 3% of the overall health burden oof the women of Australia, based on Figure 2 above.
Why, with so many other health problems illustrated in the data gathered for this report, is this 3% given such prominence?

The answer can only be that the report writers were funded to produce a report on the national – male and female – population and chose to use the money to promote their own self-serving political agenda.
Frankly, they should be required to return the money – since they seem incapable of producing the report as contracted and paid for. This is hardly the only example.
And any further funding to these unethical professionals should consider this breach of the public trust.

Considering that the rate of male suicide is 5 times greater than female suicide in Australia, as has been widely reported as a real health crisis, the same graphic would be very different for men. – But nowhere is the rate of male suicide as a result of “intimate partner violence: reported!

Study after study on the VicHealth site can be used to ridicule and refute the intentionally misleading of the study; along with many other nationwide and international studies. Misleading conclusions blasted across the readers’ consciousness.

A little perspective

Not discounting the need to oppose domestic violence in any form, 9% is
not a social crisis in any way. It is unfortunate, and we would like to say avoidable, but it is human nature.
For one thing, the definition of “intimate partner violence” has been expanded to almost ridiculous proportions. At this point, hogging the remote or shouting is considered “intimate partner violence”, or “domestic violence.”
Somewhere in this debate, common sense must make room for human nature.

This study cites that 1 in 5 women will experience intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. That’s disgusting, but about average for the rest of the world. We would all like to see that number reduced.
But disinformation like this study is not the way to do it. We need to attack and discredit this attempt to propagate a Big Lie on the people of Australia, and especially Victoria.

When Kim Wells, the Liberal Opposition Police Minister, attempted to highlight the fact that police are not suited to be counsellors, he was hammered by fear-mongering rhetoric from Tim Holding, the present Police Minister, and other Labour spokespeople.
Kim Wells is correct.

Police will tell you that half or more of their on-street time is tied up responding to “domestic violence” or Intervention Order calls; most of which turn out to be spurious or plain ridiculous. Police in Victoria and across Australia are needed to reduce what one Acting Sargeant called “real crimes”; not chasing vindictive calls that are truly civil matters and the purview of social services.

It’s hard to determine who is at fault here other than the report’s authors.
Did Mr Holding knowingly recite half truths for the news article? He can claim incompetence and laziness and it will allow him some plausible deniability.
If you add this instance to many others in the same administration, the plausibility drops dramatically.

Did Ms Critchley attempt to establish a Big Lie knowingly? Based on the sidebar printed with her article, the conclusion would be, maybe. Maybe she was just trying to salvage Mr Holding though; promote this Big Lie report; and maybe continue the attacks on the Liberals by Ms McCormack.
None of those issues are important though. What is important is that this sort of disinformation which amounts to hate- and fear-mongering by the leaders of the country stops.

This report discounts men outright, then children ever more subtly by just ignoring them. You have to wish Ms Bryant Godspeed and Good luck reforming such a system.

Given the misleading presentation and gross negligence illustrated by the authors, even the damning finding that intimate partner violence is the leading health cost of women ages 15-45 must be called into question.

I have to say that Mary Booth from Bundalong was not wholly taken in.

Read more!

Hodding

When I was a young man, one on of the 'survival jobs' I took was as a hod carrier for a bricklayer. It meant running up and down barely navigable boards slung across metal scaffolding. The scaffolding was just heavy metal pipe frames lashed together to make a tower, with heavy wooden boards forming ramps from one level to the next. At the end of each board, I had to lift the wheelbarrow full of bricks or mortar from one board to the next.
The old bricklayer saw me sweating and shaking a couple of times and teased me, "You're a little scared."
Scared Hell! I was inside out with gut-wrenching fear. Every time that scaffold groaned or creaked, swayed and shook, I wondered what they'd do with my body when I was gone!

In between work, the old man would tell me stories about himself.
Turns out, when he was about my age, he was a Tiger tank driver in Russian in World War 2, chosen because of his stature and quick wit, he was one of the elite of the German tank corps.
He told me about the war, and one memory kept coming back over and over: Pulling chunks of human flesh out of the treads of his tank.

He had been wounded by a hunk of shrapnel in a battle near Kursk, one of the most famous battles of WW2. He showed me the wound. The wide scar ran up one side from nearly his hip to just beneath his arm. It's a wonder he survived. That must have nearly ripped him in half.
At that point, it had been over 25 years before, but the memory was so traumatic, all he could do was smile nervously when he told the story.

Turns out, the foreign studies institute where I was tutoring had a couple of teachers who'd survived the concentration camps. A couple of them still had the numbered tattoos. Some of the students -- myself included -- decided to tape a series of interviews with them to get their impressions and feelings on record. All of them were getting old. I arranged for the aging tank driver to be one of the interviews.
Every one of them had defining moments in their memories of their experience. For the bricklayer, it was pulling the flesh from the treads of his tank.
Some remembered the cool politeness of German officers as they ordered men and women to their deaths, or talked openly of the small difficulties of logistics with so many men and women to move. Moments and memories that held the essence of their experience.

Years later, musing on those memories myself, I wondered what my defining moments would be about my time in Australia.
The first memory that comes to mind was the insanity of watching a magistrate as he read out the court orders with bored annoyance removing me from my home for a year.
Another was the look on the acting sargeant's face when he came to take me from my home. Red faced and ready, his hand on his baton, he came to my house intending to use that baton on me.
The next is the months of horrible anxiety that began just after returning from the hospital and intensified when the Intervention Orders were delivered. The wrenching struggle to try to form a defense against the indefensible: a Big Lie. These people had already determined I was a pedophile, drunk, and abusive far beyond anything even alleged, but with what few cognitive hours I could find each day, I had to try to defend myself and my character.
In the end it didn't matter, that magistrate never wanted to hear my side of the story. He just thought of me as amusement.
Another is the moment I ripped the wallet photo of my ex twice, and tossed into the trash at my home. I shook in pain. My eyes literally hurt from tears. But it had to be done.

Two years of twisted abuse while crippled taught me more about the experience of those concentration camp survivors than the hours of taped interviews. The time under legalistic attacks taught me the roots of my own character, and how deep what little dignity a person may find inside themselves under such accusations may run.
I could never convince myself that a violent reaction was warranted. I can take some small, personal pride in that.
I went to my fate with enough personal dignity to earn many friends, and the respect of nearly all who heard my story. It's not much. But it is over.
Sadly, what I went through is nearly a social paradigm in Australia. None of them were surprised.

Defining moments, like remembering old movies or half-forgotten books, change over time. It is not the great wounds that define a life-changing experience. It is the feelings, and we search for a moment that incorporates them all.
Time and human nature makes the decisions for us.
Defining moments are like scars that reopen in our hearts. They damage our souls. Some sort o reminder opens the scars for us. For some, it may be a date. We ennoble someone who drifts into depression or seclusion each year on the day a spouse dies. For others, it may be a word or phrase that drives them to relive the pain of a traumatic experience.

This year, it was a time frame for me, nearly 4 months, from January when my ex first threatened me with a ridiculous lawsuit, until early April when I was removed from my house while negotiating settlement via email. I felt all the daily anxiety and depression. I was just as exhausted every day. The feeling that my heart was ripped open and left bare to the open air.
The pain was in my heart and gut, visceral, all through me -- and it hung inside me like being wrapped in a poisoned blanket.
I called my friends and made myself usy with them. I worked with them on their dreams, business, and plans. It was not enough to try to hide from those feelings in study.
I can only hope that in time that sense will leave me.

Defining moments are like a bitter taste. There are not words to describe it, so you seek to share the feelings with some experience, and fail.

Read more!

Does it do any good

Does it do any good to expose hate- and fear-mongering by government in a free society?
The standard answer is Yes, that is the role of the citizens and the Press in a free society, to remain forever vigilant against those who will seek to use their office to put forward a radical agenda for their own gain.
Without such a dialogue, a society cannot be called free.
This is the dialogue that must enforce the system of checks and balances built into the structure of a free society.


Vigilance is the price of freedom.
That has been the watchword of every free society throughout history. Whenever and wherever the Press and the citizens let themselves grow slack in their duty to remain vigilant, some element in society will step forward to abuse the tolerance of a free society to curtail the rights of all. The price of freedom must be the courage to speak out against injustice.

That speech then tests the character and quality of the government.
It tests first the character of the individuals in government to respond to injustice and prejudice. Most governments fail to listen. The individuals seek to maintain the structure and attitudes that have brought them to power. Their fear of losing power prevents them from acting from their best judgment and purpose.

It then tests the structure of the government. Are rights truly protected and guaranteed? Are they available to all equally?

If a right is protected in law, then it is the duty of the government to enforce it. It becomes available to all.

This is where the price of freedom can be demonstrated in bare, monetary terms. If the rights of a society are only available to those who have the substantial amounts of money necessary to hire attorneys to defend those rights, then the society is not truly free. It is simply for sale. The freedoms the citizenry assume to belong to all are only available to a select few.
Sadly, as the society becomes less free, that select few becomes smaller. They are selected by those who seek to hold onto power. It could be said that these two groups select each other in a way: one protects the privileges and power of the other.

Prejudice and fear are a means to hold onto power.
Perhaps a good watchword for citizens of a free society would be:

Whenever the government seeks to make you afraid, look to how it intends to take more power unto itself.

And take more rights from you, the citizen, and your voice: the Press.
And then ask: Why?

There are many examples of this sort of thing in history, and even in day to day living.
Hitler made the whole world afraid of the Jews, and he took over almost complete control of one of the world’s longest-standing societies. Tojo made the Japanese afraid of the rising influence of the West. He and Hitler started a world war.

Those were not free societies, of course. Germany’s parliamentary structure was still roughly formed. It was a nascent democracy, at best, in a time of great social upheaval and economic pressure. Fear and privilege held Hitler in power. Germans lived a privileged life throughout much of WWII.
In both societies, the government took over the Press. This was made possible because of the pressures on the societies, and the increasing control of the government on the economic structure of the country.

Australia is still a nascent democracy, based on a parliamentary structure – a roughly formed democracy. In this way, Australia truly has been lucky.
Human and civil rights are not guaranteed in law. Some will cite common law, but common law is very flexible. It can easily be twisted in the wrong direction.
Others will cite international treaties which hold Australia to a high standard of human and civil rights. The assumption there is that the articles in UN declarations and treaties are binding on the Australian government.
They are not.

As Brian Walters pointed out in The Age (20 July 2006):

… Australia has never legislated to protect properly the human rights set out in the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Australia in 1976).
In the US, for example, a ratified treaty is part of the law of the land. Not so here. For a treaty to be legally enforceable in Australia, legislation must be passed to give effect to it. Britain, New Zealand, Canada and other Western nations have all enacted laws giving effect to the ICCPR. In 2004 the Australian Capital Territory took the first step when it passed the Human Rights Act, which protects the rights recognised in the ICCPR.

(Going the wrong way on rights)
Australia remains a rich, ripe plum for those who seek to curtail and abuse human and civil rights. In fact, the history of Australia can be seen as one abuse after another.
Perhaps that’s why American and UK history is taught in Australian schools; not the history of Australia.

There are few Australians who want to acknowledge such things. The national character seems to be to assign such ideas to the “too hard bin”, and go on in the bliss of ignorance.

So the question remains, and is especially poignant in Australia in this time of so many social and economic pressures: “Does it do any good to expose hate- and fear-mongering by government in a free society?”
This question tests first the character and courage of the people of Australia.

Read more!