Constructing Hate and Fear
Constructing Hate and Fear
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
posted by Unknown at
10:50 AM
Social bookmark this
1 Comments:
Spousal Abuse Rages on Behind Closed Doors
Study finds most victims report only once
By Joan Delaney
Epoch Times Victoria Staff Jul 20, 2006
The report found that victims of spousal abuse tend to seek help more often if the violence is witnessed by children .. The study also showed that women are twice as likely to report spousal abuse than men, (because of the expectation that) men are strong, and should be able to deal with abuse ..(reports) ..
(Earl Silverman, Program Coordinator with the Calgary-based Family of Men) says another reason men report domestic abuse less than women do is because the police often misunderstand the situation and end up arresting the man-the victim of the abuse. He says he's heard from male victims of domestic violence who have been told by the police that if they call again they'll be arrested for causing a nuisance.
"The perception of the police is that men are bigger and stronger, so the man should be able to handle it and not rely on the police to come to the rescue," says Silverman.
By
Anonymous, at 7:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home