Mission Nearly Accomplished at the UN!

To: info@mediaradar. org
Subject: Mission Nearly Accomplished at the UN!

Folks -

We have been advised by our contacts who monitor the UN that the Third Committee has made the decision to only "note," not "welcome" the Secretary-General' s Study on the Violence Against Women - see message below.

The Third Committee's recommendation will shortly be forwarded to the UN General Assembly. So the battle is not completely over, but it does look like we have succeeded in stopping the feminist juggernaut.

I'll keep you posted on news as it becomes available. However, we all deserve a big "pat on the back" for a job incredibly well done!

Best,
Ed

November 23, 2006 | Volume 9, Number 49
Dear Colleague,

We report today on the final days of this year's UN Third Committee, a committee that is the font of much mischief at the UN.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President

Violence Against Women and Children Resolutions Still Outstanding at UN Third Committee

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK C-FAM) In New York this week, the UN General Assembly's Third Committee is scheduled to finish the last of its work this year, but two important resolutions on violence against women and children are still outstanding.

The Third Committee, which deals with economic and social affairs, began its work in October on more than 60 resolutions covering a wide range of issues such as women's and children's rights, the family, the environment, and the protection and promotion of human rights.

As they have during previous GA sessions, conservative groups closely monitored the committee's work on contentious issues relating to sexual and reproductive health services, sexual orientation and sex education for children.

One of their main concerns centers on draft versions of the Violence Against Women (VAW) resolution. Previous drafts of the resolution have contained a reference to "sexual orientation" , a term that has never been included in a binding UN document though numerous attempts have been made by radical groups to have it included in the interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
To date governments have refused on the grounds that its inclusion could be used to deny religious faiths the freedom to speak out against homosexuality, and would bolster claims to same-sex marriage.
After weeks of debate, once more the Third Committee rejected "sexual orientation" and it was removed from the final draft version of the resolution.

Previous drafts of the Violence Against Women resolution also "welcomed the landmark VAW study and its recommendations" that was released by the Secretary General last month. The Committee determined it would not "welcome" the report but instead will use the much lower level of taking "note" of it.

Besides an outstanding resolution on women, also left to decide is a resolution on Violence Against Children. Center right observers are pleased that the resolution includes issues that were previously left out, like prenatal sex selection and female infanticide (this refers to the widespread practice of sex selected abortions now going on in China, India and elsewhere).
Conservatives are disappointed, however, that the new resolution excludes the protection of children before birth, despite the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) explicitly states: "Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

Action on the violence against women and children resolutions is expected to be taken by the end of the week. All Committee resolutions are then forwarded to the General Assembly for adoption by the end of the year.
These resolutions are all nonbinding.

Copyright 2006 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Read more!

Press Release: Equal Parenting and DNA testing

by Geoff Holland

prism@optusnet. com.au

R O L L I N G T H U N D E R R E V I E W !

____________ ___

Moral duty of Family Court to review past court orders

In playing God, the Family Court system has caused immeasurable damage to children of separated parents. Far from acting in the best interests of children, they have alienated children from their fathers ever since the Family Law Act was introduced in 1975.

Further, the Family Court's blatant prejudice against fathers and the alienation of their children has both directly and indirectly caused the suicide of many hundreds of fathers in Australia.

The Family Court mantra has always been, and still is: "We are not interested in the rights of parents. We are only interested in the best interests of the children."

So, when the Family Court was handing down every second weekend contact to fathers, was this in the best interests of children ? Or now that they are handing out equal parenting time - is this in the best interests of children ?

You cannot have it both ways - either the best interests of children were being served when fathers only had two days a fortnight access (14%), or now that they are being granted 50% access. The Family Court system was either wrong before, or it is wrong now.

And if it was wrong then, then it is still wrong - by not allowing a review of cases decided before the changes in legislation which came into effect in July 2006. Children are still being alienated from their fathers.

The reason the Federal Government does not want to allow a review of cases decided prior to the changes effected in July 2006 is because of the extra workload and financial strain it would place on the Family Court system. Obviously saving dollars is more important than serving the best interests of children.

The silent hypocrisy is deafening.

Fathers who have been prejudiced in the past, and have had the interests of their children compromised at the hands of the Family Court system, demand that the Family Court system recognise the recent changes to the Family Law Act ("the most significant changes since the introduction of the Family Law Act in 1975" - Attorney General's Department) as a "substantial change of circumstance" and allow a review of previous court orders - without prejudice.

Read more!

Three Things Only Australia Can Throw At My Face

Some days you just know it's all worth it.

It's only six thirty on my watch, and the coffee is percolating in its pot, and I've taken off my trainers, and I still have some time to go back to bed and sleep. But I'm too awake for that. I know the sun is good outside, perfect for just about anything.

Yikes, have I gotten too optimistic and sunshiny now? This is what Australia does to you; I've been living here for little over a year now, and I love it. It's seeping in my skin. It’s an in-my-face kind of bliss.

Here are three things only the land down under can throw at me.

1. Fishes: Lots of them and all kinds. Barramundi, flathead, cobbler, gummy shark, lungfish, the list goes on. And they're always fresh! I can never figure out how to cook them properly, but I try my best, and they still come out tasting good. It helps that Australia has countless restaurants with cuisines from all over the world because when I'm feeling lazy, I just leave it to the experts.

2. Mornings: Jogging is almost a religion for me. It makes me sweaty and short of breath. If I don't jog in the morning, I'd be guilty the whole day. Haha. But seriously, I know for a fact that the Australian air and sun is the healthiest. And you have to admit, there's simply nothing like being the first to see the sunrise, hearing birds chirp, making friends with other joggers, and knowing you're alive. Simply put, in Australia, I learned how to run for my life.

3. Market Days: Which is to say, everday. Australia has lots of good and exciting markets. Exciting because you never know what you're going to see and get. It's a hodgepodge of everything: Chinese incense, German sausages, Italian herbs, New Zealand pavlova, Greek cheeses. To shop here is to take a trip around the world.

At the end of the day, it's never really about what kind of stuff you're going to bring back home. Not jade bracelets, or rutabagas, or cocoa tablets, or Japanese lanterns for that matter. Whether I’m on the beach or in the outback, or a sushi bar, or a football stadium, I’m always sated when I get back to my house. Sated with the friendship of people. It's about participating, it's about involving one's self. I'm in Australia, and it's all that matters.

Article Source: http://www.article-hangout.com

Read more!

The Hard Stuff

I never wanted any more than a passing interest in Australian politics. At most, I would have preferred to follow it as a form of mild amusement, something like watching cricket - "baseball on valium", as some Americans characterize it. Never much of a political animal, I'd have preferred to have left Australian politics about where I left American politics - as a rich source of humor and occasional frustration.
Something to growl and laugh about in small talk.

Australian politics forced its way into my life in a series unjust, and simply inhumane, ways. One unavoidable conclusion is that I stayed here too long. To expect to avoid running into a country's maladies for 6 years is unreasonable.
Unreasonable, and unavoidably, I have to admit that the prospect of another term under the Bracks-Hulls government saddens me. This is a government that is conservative in only the most political ways; not based on deep beliefs and principles, but only to maintain their hold on power. Political leaders that seek only to keep themselves in power are the source of tremendous suffering around the globe, no matter what their methods or the structure of government.

There are those who say politics is the art of the possible: that the ends justify the means. At some point, however, the means become the ends in order to satisfy those who come to influence the government.
It is up to those who rise to power to resist this influence.

Voters are swayed by the mad flurry of political promises during campaigns. Major accounting firms are hired by parties to add credence to political white lies. You would think after so many forgotten promises, no one would bother listening, but the papers are full of them, and people have very little else to go on.
The campaign promises that matter, under governments more desperate to keep themselves in power than to be responsible, are the promises that never find their way out of dark corners.

It is intolerable that a government can be so irresponsible as to allow courts to become blind and prejudiced, functioning on coached perjury and making convictions on no more than allegation; that people are dispossessed, slandered, and marked for life because no one will seek to prove or disprove the allegations - by government regulation, mandate, or direct order.

It is intolerable to find that a whole system has been allowed to perpetuate that prejudice for decades because of the growing influence of a few radicals.

It is intolerable to see people trained to blind prejudice as they seek to take jobs that they feel will make a contribution to a society; that this training is given to all levels of clerks, police, social workers, lawyers, teachers, ... Simply intolerable.

It is intolerable to find that agencies set up by government to oppose such discrimination and prejudice are in fact the proponents of the prejudice; that the governments have actually set the mandates of some agencies to allow them to avoid coming into conflict with the political influence that keeps them in power.

It all comes back to the unspoken promises in dark places that never make the news.

It is intolerable to find millions spent to study and understand Australian society misspent; and tens of thousands suffering injustice that will affect all parts of their lives as long as they live.

It's disheartening to find that Australia is another country that seeks to ignore the issues of disability, the elderly, the mentally ill, and its own health system. Australia is a small country spread wide across a vast land. It is a very young country, not so much in years but in experience and national character. In terms of maturity, Australia is more akin to a caribbean 'sand kingdom' than the US and UK.

Disheartening, and maybe even embarrassing, because if the injustices had not touched my life, I would never have given them more than passing notice.
In the past, Australia cared for its elderly and disabled at the state and council level. 'Council homes' were provided, and there was the same medical system for everyone. But local councils have followed the lead of state and national leaders to be both jealous, and more profligate, of their power over citizens. More money was spent by Melbourne councils on self promotion and travel for the last two years than for providing homes for the elderly and disabled - despite the flood of new housing.

The hardest of all is the sense of self-loathing that is unavoidable. A person who endures abuse comes to believe that somehow, for some reason, they deserved the abuse. Even when the abuse ends, that twisted sense will not leave easily, and certainly not quickly.
It doesn't matter what the reasons were for enduring abuse: love, a sense of duty or manliness, social or family pressures or imagined principles, illness or disability, whatever excuses the person made for the abuser - abuse marks the mind and heart with deep scars. A person has to fight for their own self respect, and the fight may take years depending on many factors.

For all that is intolerable, what is humbling is to realize that if it had not affected me personally, I would never have bothered. All of these intolerable facts would have just made me chuckle about the curiosities of Australia. A question screams silently to be answered though: Do I find these things intolerable because of an honest social conscience? - or is it just because of the deep scars within myself?
Will any changes to the social fabric that I may be a part of do anything to heal my own wounds?
I suppose, like so many things, time will tell.

Read more!

Feminism: The Complementary Angle

Feminism: The Complementary Angle
Author: Gina Stepp

When it first dawned on Betty Friedan that something was wrong with the role of women in society, she was not incorrect. Nor, of course, was she the first in history to notice, or the first to hit on an inadequate solution. The problem, as she articulated it, was the discontent of the average suburban housewife with a role perceived as smothering and unfulfilling, inferior and therefore unfair. Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, was printed in the early 1960s and is considered the precursor to the so-called second wave of feminism, the first having been the suffrage movement begun the previous century.

While controversy surrounds Friedan’s claim that she spent 20 years as a bored housewife, and that this caused her to become a feminist, it is fair to acknowledge that there were a number of bored housewives in her generation and in the generations before hers. Whether they pursued feminism in any of its many forms as a result, or if not, why not, are questions worthy of pursuit.

Bored or not, however, housewives over the centuries have been the subject of many attempted solutions to the problem of establishing women’s role once and for all. To some the answer is a matriarchal society and the elimination of male violence, under the assumption that violence is a particularly male attribute. To others it is the complete subjugation and humiliation of women in order to “keep them in their place.” The treatment of women under Afghanistan’s Taliban regime is a reminder that even in modern times the pendulum can swing widely.

Generally, though, most in the West agree that men and women should be treated as equals and have equal value in the social order. But even that is open to many interpretations. Some modern feminists are pursuing what they refer to as “complementarity”—that is, equivalence that acknowledges sexual differences. Others suggest that such a concept actually threatens the equality that feminists have worked so hard for.

EQUAL YET DIFFERENT?

So what is equality?

“Women are the equals of men and should be treated as such” is feminist author Wendy McElroy’s opinion, even as she asks, “But what is equal? How is equality defined? . . . Does it mean equality under existing laws and equal representation in existing institutions? Or does it involve a socio-economic equality—a redistribution of wealth and power—that, in turn, requires new laws and an overturning of existing institutions?”

When equality is defined as equitable treatment under the law, even the staunchest conservative would probably agree with McElroy. “No one questions the concept of equal access to the Law; to a just and fair treatment for all in the Courts, before the bar of Justice,” says Jacob van Flossen, ultraconservative author of a 1998 political novel entitled Return of the Gods.

This basic concept of equality has been the broad legal intent in certain earlier cultures as well. Notable among them is first-century Jewish society. Under its laws, men were given definite instructions on their obligations to their wife’s needs, and women were endowed with inheritance and property rights not enjoyed by Western women until modern times.

Such a definition of equality doesn’t go far enough, however, to pacify adherents to all the numerous branches of feminism, particularly those known as gender feminists or radical feminists, who maintain that women will be oppressed as long as traditional gender roles are accepted by society. This form of feminism, like most others, is hard to pin down dogmatically, because the approaches to ending such “gender oppression” are as numerous as the individuals who seek to apply them. While some may go so far as to reject heterosexual relationships and/or advocate complete separation from patriarchal society in the belief that men are inherently evil, other gender feminists focus on changing media portrayal of gender differences or removing gender-specific pronouns from communication. The latter group, believing that equality simply means sameness, is trying to eliminate perceived differences between men and women.

But are there differences? And if so, is that a bad thing? Or does the idea of complementarity have some merit? Van Flossen asks, “By what compulsion do we make the denial of human difference—the denial of that which makes each of us unique—an ultimate goal?”

Danielle Crittenden, author of What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us, echoes his question: “Should men and women be trying to lead identical kinds of lives, or were there good reasons for the old divisions of labor? . . . If so, do these divisions make us ‘unequal’?”

MUTUALLY DEPENDENT

In trying to get to the core of the issue, it might help to take this question even further. Which “old” divisions of labor do we look at? Those extant in the ’60s? The ’50s? Do we go back to the Middle Ages? The first century? Ancient history? Do we look to agrarian societies, where men and women both worked at home or on the adjacent family property, performing different but vital functions? Or to urban societies, where one or both have to go away from home and property to make a living?

Elisabeth Badinter is a Parisian anthropologist with a doctorate in philosophy. Some of her books have been translated into English, including Man/Woman: The One Is the Other, in which she takes an anthropological view of equality, discussing the concept in the context of primitive societies. She writes: “The human diet implies the sharing of tasks and resources. In all known primitive groups, hunting is normally the men’s pursuit, and gathering that of the women. A combination of meat and vegetables is essential to a balanced diet for both sexes. Both, then, exchanged their resources: animal proteins for vegetable proteins.” Badinter sees this as an indication that role differences have historically ensured equality rather than diminished it.

She adds, “When men and women are working to obtain different resources, they establish their mutual dependence. No section of the collectivity can definitely monopolize its wealth. The regular nourishment of its individuals calls for these resources to be pooled, and for everyone to have access to them once they have been collected. Complementarity is objective, since no section of the group can subsist without the other.”

“This mutual dependence is a factor in the consideration of the one for the other and, perhaps more than people think, in equality.”

Nkiru Nzegwu, a professor of African studies at Binghamton University in New York state, makes an almost identical assessment. In a 2001 article for Jenda: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies, she writes of cultures in West Africa, describing them as “dual-sex systems” because men and women aspire to different roles. In such societies, she says, “women and men are equivalent, namely equal, in terms of what they do in the maintenance and survival of the community. This introduction of complementarity as the principle of sex differentiation accords comparable value to the duties, roles and responsibilities of men and women in society. Even though they perform different tasks and function in different roles, men and women are perceived, or have to be perceived, as equal given their respective value to the community.”

Nzegwu explains that Western feminism cannot translate effectively in these communities, because its proponents aspire to the same roles as men. She traces this to the Western idea of individualism, which fails to see men and women as vital but different parts of a whole.

In her view, this is a fundamental flaw that holds Western feminism back: “Although feminism has made important contributions towards redefining gender relations, its individualistic notion of equality in which sex difference is viewed as inconsequential is problematic. Its emphasis on individualism obscures the in-built power imbalance between men and women, and allows gender inequity to be preserved and reinforced. Presented as ‘emancipatory,’ the individualistic conception of equality as equivalence is a non-liberatory concept.”

In a docudrama written by Nzegwu, two women from Onitsha, Nigeria, confront two well-known Western feminist leaders. One of the African women, named Omu, makes a straightforward observation: “It seems that in your society, being a woman, or a daughter, or a mother, or a wife are negative and powerless things and so you are terribly obsessed with sameness. But they need not be. Here, those roles embody power and constitute the basis of important social responsibilities. You have to understand that this state of affairs is possible.”

The second African woman, Onyeamama, interjects: “Your anger is irrational. . . . It is unhealthy and abnormal. . . . We don’t share it.”

“You shouldn’t utilize men’s life as a model of female identity,” Omu continues, “for that perversely presupposes that women are nothing. If you want to state that, do so directly. But don’t go treating women as nothing, by characterizing their life and activities as irrelevant. Better still, ask yourself why you are so male-fixated.”

Onyeamama summarizes their position: “We have no need to define equality in terms of being equal to men or yearning to be men or in eliminating the affirmative differences between us. Here women and men are social complements.”

THE THIRD WAVE

Could Western women identify with these culturally foreign ideals? Apparently the advantages of complementarity have become part of the understanding of at least some Western feminists. Today’s third-wave feminists are as varied in their approaches as the second-wave variety of yesterday, yet a large number of young women today who consider themselves feminists distance themselves from the ideals their mothers espoused.

Authors such as Crittenden have addressed some of their issues. For example, she answers former National Organization of Women president Karen DeCrow’s notion that men should never allow themselves to support their wives (because, DeCrow claims, love can flourish only when everyone pays his or her own way). Crittenden remarks: “The unfortunate discovery of my generation is that economic equality brings us no closer to ‘flourishing love’ than the old sexual division of labor. . . . This is because successful marriage has less to do with reaching equity with our husbands than it does in understanding, and accepting, the different compromises and sacrifices men and women make over the long course of marriage—compromises and sacrifices that arise out of our sexual differences, and thus our different reasons for getting married in the first place.”

Where Western feminist definitions of equality extend to the problem of sexual double standards—a subject fundamental to most branches of feminism—Wendy Shalit, author of A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue, echoes the principles of Badinter and Nzegwu. She argues that women have been uniquely compromised by the sexual revolution, because in trying to become as sexually free as they perceived men to be—in trying to achieve sameness—they’ve given up the most liberating power they held: withholding sex until receiving the long-term commitment they really want.

Shalit does not advocate using this power to manipulate. She sees it as a legitimate complementary role, vital to family and social stability, which women have traded for powers they perceive as more desirable: those that would make them more like men.

“The sexual revolution seems to have failed,” says Shalit, “mostly because it ignored the differences between the sexes. . . . Women’s liberation . . . failed because it. . . held that all differences we observed were the result of oppression. Hence all their ways to restore order, such as through sexual harassment legislation, have been like trying to put a Band-Aid over an amputated limb.”

If, as Shalit says, women in today’s society are reduced to either trying to fit into the same role as a man or “to be feminine in a desperate, victimlike way,” is there a way out? According to Shalit, the sexual complementarity of men and women can be regained: “Many young women today don’t think their lives should be spoiled by their parents’ mistakes, and we would want nothing more than to return, if we could, to the days before all of these experiments. Not only do we think there are differences between the sexes, but we think these differences can have a beautiful meaning—a meaning that isn’t some irrelevant fact about us but one that can inform and guide our lives.”

More specifically, Shalit elucidates, “Our mothers tell us we shouldn’t want to give up all the hard-won ‘gains’ they have bequeathed to us, and we think, what gains? Sexual harassment, date rape, stalking, eating disorders, all these dreary hook-ups? Or perhaps it’s the great gain of divorce you had in mind?”

ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS

While even complementarity may be approached in different ways by today’s feminists, no one has much difficulty understanding the validity of complementary reproductive roles. It is obvious that men and women each contribute a vital part to producing children. But it can be harder to accept complementarity in the roles of parents in bringing up their family, once produced, and in their marriages overall.

Studies such as one produced by the University of Edinburgh in 1998 report that while children need similar things from their fathers and mothers (a role model, quality time, supportive behavior, expressions of love, and physical contact), it was not ideal for one parent alone to provide them. “Children,” notes the report, “need from their fathers and mothers together a balanced, complementary, and stable relationship.”

The complementarity of the sexes that seems so obvious to Elisabeth Badinter and Nkiru Nzegwu may be hard to sell in the modern West, but evidence of it pops up in almost every area of human life. To Badinter, “the lesson to be learnt is twofold: the total abandonment of the characteristics specific to either sex is difficult and risky, for in disregarding this truth one risks death.” She then paraphrases compatriot and fellow anthropologist Georges Balandier: “The relationships established between the sexes seem to conform to extremely ancient and intangible structures and . . . every attempt to undermine this system is a far more corrosive revolution than one that merely aims at the elimination of class relationships. Sexual dualism is the paradigm of all dualisms, the paradigm of the history of the world.”

Must men and women fear being different? Would embracing the concept of different but complementary roles necessarily relegate women to Betty Friedan’s model of the bored suburban housewife? Or could it lead instead to greater liberation than has been experienced in any of history’s previous experiments?

GINA STEPP

Author, Gina Stepp, writes articles on current events, society and culture, religion, and ideology. More information about these and other topics can be found at www.vision.org.

Read more!

Australian women by Australian men (humour)

Recently read that love is entirely a matter of chemistry. That must be why my wife treats me like toxic waste. David Bissonette

When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let him keep her. Sacha Guitry

After marriage, husband and wife become two sides of a coin; they just can't face each other, but still they stay together. Hemant Joshi

By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. Socrates

Woman inspires us to great things, and prevents us from achieving them. Dumas

The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, "What does a woman want? Sigmund Freud

I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me. Anonymous

"Some people ask the secret of our long marriage. We take time to go to a restaurant two times a week. A little candlelight, dinner, soft music and dancing. She goes Tuesdays, I go Fridays." Henry Youngman

"I don't worry about terrorism. I was married for two years." Sam Kinison

"There's a way of transferring funds that is even faster than electronic banking. It's called marriage." James Holt McGavran

"I've had bad luck with both my wives. The first one left me and the second one didn't." Patrick Murray

Two secrets to keep your marriage brimming
1. Whenever you're wrong, admit it,
2. Whenever you're right, shut up.
Nash

The most effective way to remember your wife's birthday is to forget once... Anonymous

You know what I did before I married? Anything I wanted to. Henny Youngman

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met. Rodney Dangerfield

A good wife always forgives her husband when she's wrong. Milton Berle

Marriage is the only war where one sleeps with the enemy. Anonymous

A man inserted an 'ad' in the classifieds: "Wife wanted". Next day he received a hundred letters. They all said the same thing: "You can have mine." Anonymous

First Guy (proudly): "My wife's an angel!" Second Guy "You're lucky, mine's still alive."

Women are like clouds, eventually they piss off and it¢s a nice day.

Read more!

Good show by the Police

The Victorian police did it well.

I've been pretty down on the Victorian cops lately because of my past experiences, but they seem to have handled the GS20 protestors admirably. From all newspaper accounts, a few cops were manhandled and injured, but none of the protestors were harmed in any significant way.
There's not much I can say for these nutcases who think violent protest is the only way.
Angry people roiled to hate do stupid things and then try to justify them out of guilt. In trying to justify their own guilt, people are drawn into doing more stupid ugly things.

Violence only causes others to turn away in disgust, never listening to the issues and concerns of the protestors - valid or not. You'd think after a half-century of successful non-violent protest movements, the organizers of such things would would catch on.

For the cops who were injured, my condolences, respect and appreciation. You did the right thing. I'd hate to think that it was only because there were cameras present, but for whatever reason: Good show!


It saddens me that because of the actions of other police officers, and officers of the court, I cannot give my unqualified appreciation.

There's not much that would make me join in a rally or mob protest. Mobs are not my style. I'm more the walk up and say what I mean type.
About the only thing I can think of would be a Men's Rights rally. I'd stand up to be counted there. You won't find me throwing any bottles or bins at the police though. In fact, I'd probably take the bottles away from any idiot throwing them, and turn them over to the police.

It's not easy holding your principles and training when people are attacking you from all sides, I know.
My experience with the Victorian police was that they joined in the mob mentality, and even encouraged it.

Intervention Orders are supposed to protect everyone. The Orders are meant to go both ways.

They are not a ticket for one side to intimidation and abuse. Yet that is exactly what I was told by one police sergeant on the phone.
A/Sgt Clark in Frankston told me flatly: "They can do anything they want to you - argue, scream, threaten, even assault - and if you do anything in response, I'll send a car out to arrest you." - I even made him repeat it.
He was the desk sergeant at the time, dispatching calls.
I was absolutely flabbergasted (aussie: gob-smacked), yet he delighted my ex and her daughter with his words - and they took them to heart.
They had already come over with a mob to jeer and threaten me from my backyard.
My ex and the other conspirators taught me an ugly lesson about what it means to be Australian: mob rules only. And the sergeant backed them up completely.

I noticed recently that I had no momentoes of that time. I was talking to one of the life guards at the local pool about it, and he asked about my walking stick. He wanted to know if I would keep it to remember how hard it was. And he congratulated me on how hard I had fought to walk again.
I realized that the scum had kept it, along with all the other household goods.
Things like that, coupled with A/Sgt Clark's words, only make me wish the stick ends up somewhere the sun doesn't shine - with either my ex or A/Sgt Clark apprehending.

Read more!

John Murtari update 18 Nov 2006

PRESS RELEASE: Parents' Rights Activist Endures 108 Days Without Food
Posted by: "Teri Stoddard" shared.parenting.works@gmail.com sharedparentingworks
Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:36 pm (PST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Parents' Rights Activist Endures 108 Days Without Eating

Documentary 'Support? System Down' to Include AKidsRight.org Founder John
Murtari

11/16/2006 11:43:00 AM
------------ --------- ---------

Contact: Teri Stoddard of A Kid's Right, 925-628-1206 or
teri@akidsright. org

SYRACUSE, N.Y., Nov. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Angelo Lobo, producer of
"Support? System Down" will be arriving in Syracuse today, Nov. 16, to film
John Murtari, founder of AKidsRight.org, in the Onondaga County Justice
Center, on his 108th day with no solid food.

"John's story is special in that he has taken a stand against a system that
desperately needs reform, on a national level," said Lobo, "He is a voice
for thousands who are being incarcerated against their constitutional
rights."

Murtari, 50, an Air Force Academy graduate, was sentenced to six months
incarceration for willful failure to pay child support, a charge he
disputes. Inspired by Gandhi, Murtari started the parents' organization
AKidsRight.org and has been advocating for a Family Rights Act.

"The child support system is broken; their information is too frequently not
accurate or complete," said Jane Spies of the National Family Justice
Association. "If an honorable man like John can get locked up, anyone can,"
she continued, "How does this help his son? Why does his son have to suffer
the loss of a loving father?"

Murtari urges parents who want change in family law to demonstrate faith,
love and personal sacrifice, and to participate in peaceful protest. He once
climbed the art structure in front of the Federal Building and displayed a
large banner in his quest to get a meeting with Senator Clinton. Murtari
stopped eating July 31, the day he reported to jail. "John is a hero to
parents around the world," said Spies.

Lobo has interviewed parents across the country who have said it's time for
change in family law. "This is the new civil rights movement," said Teri
Stoddard, "Parents are demanding truth, justice and equality. They want
their constitutional rights upheld."

Everyone is encouraged to join the AKidsRight.org mailing list
http://www.akidsrig ht.org/register/ sign-up.php4

Murtari will be released on Dec. 1, and his first priority, is visiting his
son.

-----

For more information on AKidsRight.org visit
http://www.akidsrig ht.org

For more information on AGINELO Productions visit
http://www.aginelo. com

-----


http://releases. usnewswire. com/GetRelease. asp?id=76460


/(c) 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Read more!

More inadequately trained cops

New BIG Guns

The front page of The Age today has a picture of a Glock 13-shot .40 caliber pistol Bracks wants for the Victorian Police. From my experience with the police, twice I saw senior people red-faced and ready to use their batons before even making contact. That's disturbing.

In 6+ years in Australia, I haven't heard one gunshot. It's one of the biggest positives about Melbourne. There just aren't a lot of people going around shooting each other.
I expect to hear a few gunshots now, from police wanting to try out their new guns; and maybe from the criminals as they raise the armaments ante in response.
A cop who pulls his gun to overpower an unarmed - and possibly innocent - person is only a danger to everyone. These guys could hardly keep their batons in their belts.
Training makes the difference between an officer who is ready, and one who is anxious.

But from my conversations with police officers, they don't seem to understand why they have guns, and that is again disturbing. You have to wonder if the police know that the best officers never pull their guns?
Based on the desk sargeants and acting sargeants I've seen, the training has failed them all, and the public.
The most powerful weapon a police officer has is his mind. An officer can protect him- or herself and the public best by talking a person out of a violent or disturbed situation.


What Bracks is not talking about is additional training for the police. Those shiny, big guns are just going onto the same belts along with the batons. One thing I know the police, courthouse employees, 000 operators, and judges need in Victoria is better training.

Read more!

Are you joking?

Overheard from the bench:

"He's cute when he dissents."

"Shall we torment the barristers?"

"Who am I to judge?"

No, not really. Those quotes are completely ex parte. Really, I just made them up.
But before you think all of this is fantasy, read on..

TEACHERS are being warned to watch what they write and say about students because of the risk of being sued for defamation.

New South Wales schools have also been urged to closely vet student scripts for theatrical performances and postings on school websites, blogs or electronic bulletins.

At least one former Year 12 student complained he had been defamed in the school magazine and threatened to sue everyone involved.

If you've ever wondered why your kids seem to be unable to read but still get high marks, there's your answer.

(from Australia) The Metafilter folks aren't especially impressed with a mother's complaint that her son's rubbing "Magic Eraser" on himself caused a rash and that more warnings are needed on the package:

"Also, don't let your kids drink Round Up. Or put Tide in their eyes."

"It seems to me that if a product is known for scouring markings off of nearly any surface, some degree of it not being like Oil of Olay moisture rich foaming face wash should be assumed."

"I just checked my box of SOS steel wool soap pads and they don't have any warning either! Won't somebody think of the children?"

"The kid didn't rub his face with the eraser, Mom did. She cleaned his face with sandpaper that didn't look like sandpaper to her, and his face got all red, and she freaked out that he was "burned", because she still doesn't believe the erasers are sandpaper. Not a chemical burn. A friction burn. Caused by Mom."

"Things I have learned today on Metafilter: 1. Do not rub your kid's face with a cleaning pad that can take permanent marker off a hard surface with only a couple of mild scrubs."

To the mother's credit, she says she isn't interested in suing.

Australians seem to blame everything on Americans. I noticed the anti-americanism a couple of years ago when a magistrate said in court "the fat American" in one of his responses to the opposing counsel; now even Rupert Murdoch is telling about it in the media.
The reality of anti-americanism is this: Australians pick and choose what they want from America. Commonly you hear the phrase, "We take the best and leave the rest." about things adopted from the US. What they don't bring with them is the background and experience that often set limits to how something affects society - like the Bill of Rights, for example.
That sort of thing goes into the too-hard bin.

I'm amused to find that Murdoch has pressured the Howard government to set up an Institute of American Studies in Sydney. It's no wonder with Bracks-Hulls running Victoria that Melbourne didn't get it. Murdoch will match the government's $25 million to overcome the misunderstandings between the people of the two nations.
This could be almost as good a source of humor as watching Question Time someday.

Australians must resist and reject "the facile, reflexive, unthinking anti-Americanism that has gripped much of Europe", he told a 500-guest, black-tie American Australian Association dinner in Sydney last night.

Prime Minister John Howard also denounced "armchair anti-Americanism", telling the audience that for all its flaws, America was an "irreplaceable force for good in the world".

America is "an irreplaceable force for good in the world", but the concept of "good" is subjective. Supposedly, the two countries share the same values. But when it comes to living up to those values, and making legal commitments to do so, Australia is missing on all cylinders.
America, for all its faults, takes the hammering every time because it fronts the issues.
Australia would do well to learn that one American value and practice. It ain't easy, ask any American. And if it ain't easy, it's not Australian, sadly.

"The courts have the power to force litigants to mediate, but no one has the power to make them compromise." - heard on the Web

Read more!

Get out

It was great to see someone telling Tony Abbott to mind the fizzy drinks around his own house.

I could almost say people don't want Tony Abbot in their fridges any more than they want Michael Flood in their heads.

Read more!

Ruddock opposes Bill of Rights

I am always surprised at two Australian misconceptions, both driven by unreasonable fears and the mockery of the common intelligence that comes from so many politicians. One is the dizzying fear Australians have of firearms. Mention a gun to an Australian, he or she looks like they're facing a salt water crocodile. That must be the same expression on their face.

ATTORNEY-General Philip Ruddock has dismissed growing calls for Australia to adopt a bill of rights.

Concerns about the Federal Government's tough anti-terrorism laws posing threats to civil liberties have sparked calls this year for the introduction of a bill of rights.

But Mr Ruddock today downplayed the concerns, saying the new laws balanced the need to protect human rights with the need to protect Australians from terrorist attacks.

Australia risked lumbering itself with an inflexible set of principles if it followed countries like the United States and Canada by adopting a bill of rights, he said.

“The danger with having a statutory bill of rights is that it is an inflexible set which can frustrate the implementation of necessary policies that are aimed at protecting the safety of the community,” Mr Ruddock told a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) forum.

“Bills of rights are inevitably rooted in time and there is a certain chauvinism in those who believe that rights as we conceive them today are the most appropriate into the future.”

Australia is the only modern western country in the world without a constitutional or statutory bill of rights to protect fundamental human rights and use as a benchmark measure for new laws.

A constitutional Bill of Rights says something very important to the people of a nation. It says the people are more important than the government.
Without a Bill of Rights, the opposite message is repeated with every law, and every time a law is enforced.

I was about 4 years old when my father first showed me a machete. I was fascinated by this half-hatchet, half-knife with its long heavy blade. It was USArmy issue, with a hard rubber handle and a long heavy blade, used by the troops sent into the South Pacific.
He told stories about people in the Carribbean using it to chop down bunches of bananas. And how in South America, the natives used machetes to chop their way through dense forests. My mother told me about when my father had used a machete to chop a man free from an anaconda.
It was years later that the idea it could be used on a man came to me. I thought then it must be some kind of nut who would do something like that.

I was 5 or so when they bought me my first rifle - a .22 single shot. I was shown how to load, unload, and carry it so that no one would be shot by accident, including me!
Then they sent me out into the northern Arizona desert to shoot rabbits.
My father taught me to shoot after I'd spent a couple of boxes of rounds without hitting anything.
He and my mother told me a gun was a tool, not a weapon. That the only place for using a gun as a weapon was in a war.
Lessons run deep when they are based in trust. From those words about guns came my life-long attitude about all forms of violence. There is a time and a place for all things, the Bible is echoed in the famous song by The Doors.

What does that have to do with a Bill of Rights?

Because law is a weapon as brutal as a two-handed machete. If you expect a person to wield any tool or weapon responsibly, you have to give them trust and respect. It is that trust and respect that will stay their hand, not the threat of punishment or death.
A Bill of Rights tells the citizens of a country that they are trusted and respected; that they must wield these laws as responsibly as the government will wield other laws. Without a Bill of Rights, the citizens of a country, like Australia, know that they are the least important part of the country. Sarcastically, the bottom of the heap - and we all know what flows downhill. - The message comes across loud and clear without ever being spoken.
Are there those who abuse and misuse their rights? Of course.
There are those who abuse machetes, too; and guns. That is part of the cost of freedom: to allow people to make mistakes and have the courage to stand by your principles even when they threaten you. Even when those who abuse their freedom may kill you.
Freedom is not cheap, or easy. Ask the millions who have died fighting for it, or the millions more who risk their lives to find it.

Freedom without respect and responsibility is a lie a drug. It is a promise constantly forgotten. The repeated promise of freedom is used like a narcotic to quell the need for common respect, and trust.

Any fifth grader in Civics class will tell you, Mr Ruddock, that the Bill of Rights is not absolute. Freedom of Speech does not mean you can yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
And most of those fifth graders will tell you that rights are constantly being redefined, and adapting to the necessities of the times. Adaptation is a constant dialogue between the fears of those who would abuse rights, and the courage of those who would rather die than live without them.
It is that dialogue that keeps the government in check; the law in balance. If a government goes too far, the citizens can force the abusive laws to be rescinded. The courts will enforce the rights of the citizens.

There is no such dialogue in Australia. The Australian government can pass and execute any law it chooses at any time. It is one of the main reasons the Australian democracy remains immature.
The right of a government to write any law is an act of terror. Government does not have to rule by fear, Mr Ruddock.

Some of those fifth graders will someday die because of their love for those rights, and the ideals of freedom - based on trust and respect - they represent.

Read more!

Not all women

(reproduced here with permission from the fathers4equality Australia Yahoo list)
Not all women support what is happening in the political and legal arenas. In fact, 76% of women do not support anything labelled 'feminism' because of the how the radical feminists public rants, according to The Age.
Over 1/3 of women, 35%, actively oppose feminism in all forms.
That does not prevent many women, once in the court system, from co-opting the prejudices the radical and victim feminists have produced in those courts though.

----- Original Message -----
From: PartTimeParent
To: fathers4equality@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: [fathers4equality] contravention of orders ----don't fall into the men vs. women trap.

Andrew,
This isn't a war between the sexes... there are bitches and I'm sure you must admit that there are bastards too.

War between those who love their children and the "nasty feminists", the FemiNasties" who hate men more than they like children, honesty of equality.

I am saddened that you can fall into the 'men-vs.-women' trap that the FemiNasties have laid for us.

MOST women are good people. Yes, MOST women are good.
Many are spoilt by advertising that pampers to women's taste and teachers who teach using girl-friendly curricular and teaching methods... But most are good inside.

Many however take advantage of unjust laws and evil administration of those laws, and a sad few are true FemiNasty man-haters.

These evil few are like the suicide bombers... there is no reasoning with them, they are just full of hate and greed. BUT THEY ARE FEW IN NUMBER.
they are at the height of their careers as professional feminists and they are very powerful...

Andrew, don't fall into the men vs. women trap.

And Andrew, Debbie is a good one

(Hi Deb!)

James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)
Media - www.Fathers4equalit y-Australia. org
mailto: PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Ph 0417 258 364 Sydney, Australia

"The greatest love of all,
is a parent's love for their child!
Family Law betrays that love"

Please feel free to re-publish anything in this email.
Attributing it to Fathers4Equality or myself would be appreciated :-)

Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:50 am (PST)
James,

I couldn't help but notice your metaphor of the suicide bomber in regards of feminasty behaviour.

Just today this exact same metaphor came to me, really!

Recently I received a favourable Family Report suggesting our two children sahould come into my care full time. BUT..... thier mother has threatened to delay the process of the judge being able to impliment this report as Orders, i.e. she has taunted that she can throw in "x factors" to complicate the magistrate's ability to make a decision. She claims she can keep this going for years without resolution.. .. even with the Family Report.

Add to this my ex is hopelessly brtainwashed by feminasty-ism, and that she is from middle-eastern stock..... and add to that the claim of early feminists about "we must destroy families" in order to liberate women, and one can see where the suicide bomber came from. Unfortunately the two "Trade Towers" being bombed are my two children.

Jason

Read more!

New link: Paternity Fraud Australia

I'll let the site speak for itself. To date, it is the story of two men, Liam McGill and Rodney MacDonald, and their struggle to have the paternity of their children recognized as legal liability, or not.
It is astounding in the age of DNA testing used to convict murderers and rapists, that DNA testing is not recognized by the courts as proof of paternity. The most common excuse is "there is much more to being a parent than genetitics", which is certainly true.
However, when Paternity Fraud is involved, the goal is simply fraud, which reduces parenting to payments. Is it so hard to say, "There is much more to parenting than payments"?

The outcomes from these cases may represent international landmarks.
Evidence is increasing to show possibly 3 out of 10 children in marriage are not biologically from the father. Why should a man be forced to pay for someone else's children?
Contrary to the furor over 'deadbeat dads', many men will choose to pay for other men's children, but only out of the kindness and generosity - the love they feel - inside themselves.
It is not up to the courts, and certainly not some mindless bureaucracy, to order such payments. If anything, the courts and bureaucrats should seek the biological fathers and force payments from them. - But then, that would be expensive, wouldn't it?
It's just too easy to make a mockery of justice and fact.

A World Landmark Paternity Fraud Case
- Husband wins $70,000

In March 2000, Liam Magill of Melbourne, Australia, discovered that 2 of the 3 children born during his marriage were not his biological offspring.

In 2001, DNA paternity testing proved that a trusted family friend, Derek John Rowe, was actually the biological father of the 2 youngest children. Evidence later proved that Derek John Rowe and Liam's ex-wife had a 6 year affair, 4 of which were during her marriage to Liam and started shortly after she married Liam. Liam was awarded damages of $70,000.

More information:

Judgment-Victorian County Court CI-05-01722 31st October 2006 Magill v CSA Liam's Judgement County Court Awards $70,000 damages Arson Attack on Liam News Articles about Liam's case Judgement from Appeal Court Our Legal team High Court of Australia Transcript 7th April 2006 AFFIDAVIT Dads Lost in Cloud Cuckold Land (Article by Babette Francis - Appeared in Herald Sun)

And mother-of-three, Kellie Gray, of Pinjarra, was negligent in not having a paternity test done as soon as her son was born, Judge John Wisbey said in his judgement in a damages action by a father who turned out not to be the father.


Rodney Macdonald, of Kewdale, claimed damages of about $70,000AUD from Ms Gray on the grounds that he was tricked into believing he was the father of her son. He gave up a well paid mining job to move to Perth to be nearer the child.
But, a court ordered paternity test proved that Mr. Macdonald was not the boy's father and he stepped out of the child's life.

Read more!

Home Truths - the full story

Reading the contents of this site, Home Truths, is like reading '1984' for the first time.
You can imagine the feelings that move you are the same as for the Americans and Western Europeans when, in 1951, they first saw Mao's 'Little Red Book, then realized that it had delivered the whole of China into his hands in 1949.
Or what western scholars felt when they realized that the 'Little Red Book' had been used to form the strategy that removed the French from Indochina in 1956.

This site is a public exposition of strategy, goals, and tactics for subverting the whole of Australian law, national character, and even individual personalities - even to point of genetically altering the make up of the Australian population based on sex. There are three papers here which discuss how to eliminate 7-8 million male Australians.
It is a bold statement of intention, ironically fully funded by the governments the writers and presenters intend to destroy. You can only guess the authors assume the very boldness is the best means to obscure their intentions.
It is hate-mongering in a bold, attractive - verbose - wrapper.

For a full examination of the breadth and depth of intellectual conspiracy to provide disinformation to the Australian public and influence political action, look to the government sponsored 'Home Truths' conference, held in Sept 2004 at the prestigious Sheraton Towers Southgate.
This gathering of intelligentsia could easily be misconstrued as an in-depth study of domestic violence and abuse, but the overall statement of nearly every presentation is clear: Domestic violence is to be equated with abuse; and all abuse is done by males in Australia.


A good example of the misleading tokenism is in Dr Michael Flood's paper, "Changing Men: Best practice in violence prevention work with men". After a token nod to the a balanced perspective in the Introduction:

..Most men are not violent and most practise consent in their sexual relations with women. ..

Dr Flood goes on to expand upon strategies to change the attitudes and even the personalities of millions of men in Australia, clearly assuming the opposite of that one tangential comment.
A noticeable exception to the rising tide of anti-male hysteria evident in these papers is from Ms Lee FitzRoy, BSW, MA. PhD candidate RMIT University, Melbourne.

I hope the paper will contribute to current debates and assist us in making sense of and responding to women who hurt their children. The challenge for us is not to pathologise and blame women, but to take action in relation to their violence, respond appropriately to protect vulnerable children and to incorporate understandings of ‘difficult’ women, who may be both victims and perpetrators of violence, in our theoretical frameworks and practice strategies.
...
Australia is a signatory to international covenants which define violence against children as a violation of basic human rights . In addition Victorian State legislation defines physical assaults on children as criminal.
...
The statistical evidence of women’s violence against their children is contested territory but there are some statistics that are generally acknowledged, if not discussed widely, within the child protection, family violence and sexual assault fields. Women commit between thirty-one – fifty percent of physical assaults on children (ABS, 2001; Motz, 2001; AIC, 2001). Mothers commit almost fifty percent of the recorded infanticide (Morris and Wilczynski, 1993) and women perpetrate between two – seven percent of sexual assaults against children (Finkelhor, 1986; ABS, 1996, 2001; Motz, 2001; AIC, 2001).It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, sixty-nine percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining thirty-one percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used,.. (emphasis added)

It is a wonder that in a conference where three papers discuss the efficacy of reducing the male population of Australia to 10% or less that Ms Fitzroy's presentation was even allowed.
I doubt her presentation was well attended though.

One paper about this genocidal proposal even goes on to label pro-feminist men, such as Dr Flood, as frightened hangers-on who want to be a part of the remaining male population, after the genocidal policies have been enforced.

In 1996, the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare first published figures on the gender and biological relationship of the perpetrators of abuse against a child victim: 968 men and 1138 women.

In a critique of comments made by Messrs Holding and Hulls in September on this blog, I questioned the Ministers' training in critical thinking - because the report they ited clearly was a misappropriation of taxpayers' funds. The paper's title indicated the report was about the cost of violence for all Australians, but in the Preface stated clearly that no data had been gathered about males.
I doubt now that they ever bothered to read the report, but were attendees at the Home Truths conference. The most significant disinformation, cited by Hulls and Holding in September, was in a nicely-done Powerpoint presentation - which did not include the fact that the report was misnamed and intentional disinformation.
The same disinformational publication was subsequently cited by other representatives of the Bracks' government in the following few days a few times.

You have to wonder why the people responsible for such decisions don't put in the time to know the facts?

Contrary to most of the conclusions, strategies and plans of the Home Truths conference, a growing body of knowledge is emerging around the globe. Because of the influence of radical feminists and their pro-feminist hangers on, Men's groups are becoming the only source for such information to be disseminated.
For example, a recent article posted on Mens News Daily by Teri Stoddard:

MISANDRY
American Heritage Dictionary
mi·san·dry
n.
Hatred of men.

I’m a woman and I used to believe what the media said about men. Now I know better.

The media constantly exposes us to inaccurate, negative impressions of and statements about men. In looking for the root of the problem I found a network of people who benefit from misandry. Many of these people work for or with the family courts or domestic violence services, often both. I wonder if the Violence Against Women Act funds misandry. As I wrote in It’s Not Your Mother’s Fathers Movement Anymore, I watched as representatives from domestic violence and feminist organizations slandered fathers to defeat California’s 2005 Shared Parenting bill:

“Fathers who seek custody, they’re not all great fathers.” That was the truth according to Mira Fox, who runs Child Abuse Solutions, Inc…Fox said, “Children are often given into the custody of abusive fathers”…

Fox’s organization, by her own testimony that day, trains people in the family court system how to litigate and adjudicate child sexual abuse cases. Is Fox guilty of misandry or ignorance? The January 2005 Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment states:

…fathers are, “less likely than other male perpetrators to be involved in sexual abuse.”

The Administration for Children and Families says:

In 2004, 45.6% of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone or with other and only 19.5 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone or with other.

Last week I came across a pamplet by the California Women’s Law Center called Teen Dating Violence. Teen dating violence is indeed a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Is it acceptable that their brochure is only about males who abuse and female victims? Is this misandry? Studies show not only are female teens increasingly violent, girls are more likely to victimize their partner than boys are.

The plan is already in place and working. You can read the details and follow it in the media from the papers on the 'Home Truths' site. I feel like I'm watching a revolution; a country so concerned and full of itself that it is ignoring the real threat to its existence almost standing next to itself.
The government has filled the nation with fears of Islamic Terrorism. It is pre-occupied with the drought. While the proponents of White Ribbon Day use a career criminal and convicted murderer for a spokesperson; then openly state their intentions to reduce the male population to 10% of Australia, with impunity.
No one would dare question their self-righteous zeal.

Where is the responsible media?
Didn't anyone allow themselves to understand what they were reading?

Even more, where are the Men's and Family Rights' groups and organizations?
Wouldn't they be the first to recognize and oppose such publications and their publicly stated goals?

Read more!

Looking In

As an American who's lived in Australia for more than 6 years, a comparison of the two systems makes me appreciate are some aspects of my homeland as never before.
One is the Bill of Rights. For all the courtroom furor that this document causes at all levels of law enforcement and jurisprudence, it is deep sense of reassurance to know that these rights belong to every American. Give me the madness of the conflicts which for rights to mature and define themselves constantly in the American system. It is far better than the sad pretense Australians must live under. The mind-numbing consciousness that no person in Australia has even the most rudimentary rights, other than those properly executed under the law.
And the average Australian has no right to question if a law is properly executed. It costs too much, and they endanger their lives and property to do so.

Australia is a nascent democracy. Its people cannot be condemned for their distrust and misunderstandings about the functions of a democratic state. The government itself is sloppily formed and politicians revel in condescending dismissals of popular perceptions of injustice. The people are told they just don't understand the system. The fact is neither do the people running the system. The system is so poorly formed as to defy understanding.
Iraq may soon have a more mature democratic structure when it comes out from under the lingering influence of Saddam. The lack of an operational Blll of Rights is only one glaring example.

The second is the lack of a true Executive branch of government.
And the third is the conflicting role of the judiciary, which is often resolved by conveniently ignoring the second key role defined in the weak Australian Constitution.

In the American system, there are three distinct branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each serves as a check and balance against the abuse of the powers of the other two. Legislators and Executive branch officers are elected separately. At any level of government, a party may have a majority in one or the other of two legislative houses, or both. And the Executive officer is elected individually. He or she may or may not have earned their election by following party lines or policies.
Although they may or may not be from the same party, their roles in government are different.

In the Australian system, there are effectively two branches of government: the Legislative-Executive and the Judiciary.
Australians form a government from the elected legislative representatives. That weakens the Executive branch because its officers are also the leaders of the majority party.
Indeed, it is not unusual to see one minister having conflicting duties: to their own electorate, and to one or more portfolios.
Since the role of Cabinet Minister is more prestigious, the electorate is under-represented or simply not given any consideration. The result is a Minister of a Portfolio is considered to be only a token or titular head of a ministry, even by the Minister himself.
The most important role for a Minister is to ensure that his or her party is re-elected, not representing the electorate or even the priorities of the Ministry.

The judiciary in both systems is ostensibly independent, but only in the Australian system is there no oversight. Judges at various levels in the American system are elected, or subjected to judicial reviews which govern their performance according to published standards.

It is truly laughable, - in the most darkly cynical way -, that a law may be written to not be enforced by the Australian judiciary, for example, the recent Victorian Charter of Rights. This removes the primary purpose of law: to be available for the protection of all citizens.
The weak Australian Constitution allows Australia to ratify and sign onto any international treaty or resolution without requiring the terms of the Agreement to have effect inside Australia. It is a grand hypocrisy that Australia constantly rants onto the international stage about high morals, human and civil rights violations, yet has no legal mandate to enforce any such agreements for anyone within its own boundaries. - And, indeed, it does not, as evidenced by the many human and civil rights violations within Australia which force unending demonstrations and civil disobedience from its citizens.

Under the weak Executive, confusion allows inordinate power to be held by other agencies.
Ted Baillieu and Steve Bracks, for example, have promised increased numbers of police across Victoria in the current election. Baillieu though made the mistake of saying he would assign 25 new police members to Ballarat and 76 to Geelong.
The Police Association quickly responded publicly that even if Mr Baillieu were elected Premier of Victoria, he would not tell the police where and how to assign police.
If the Premier of Victoria, elected on a majority of voters across the state with his party, does not control where the police are assigned, then what is the point of the pretense of representative government?

The confused roles of the Executive branch has allowed the police to become a law unto themselves, - a state within a state - with their own laws and interpretations of the law. Tim Holding, the ostensible Minister of Police, and Rob Hulls, the Interior Minister, are far too concerned with kowtowing to percieved voting blocks to do their jobs, which would include administration of police.
Both Hulls and Holding know the police are considered the protectors by the average citizen, and that they control a sizeable voting block. Hulls and Holding know very well which side butters their political bread.
The Police Association is signaling to its members and supporters in its response to Baillieu.
Any complaints to these ministers about the actions of police are quickly dismissed as beyond their jurisdiction. It is, of course, precisely their jurisdiction, - their duty in fact -, to represent the authority of the citizens over the police.

Where it is constitutionally reasonable to maintain the judiciary as independent, it is constitutionally dangerous to allow the police to govern themselves. The police union and police are jealous of this constitutional independence.
Innumerable banana republics around the world have found this out the hard way. There is little to indicate that Australia will not suffer the same indignities.
It is no wonder that even after Christine Nixon was assigned to clean up corruption in Victoria, - so visible that it has been taken as part of the character of the state for decades - she has yet to accomplish one successful conviction.

Read more!

Dispossession

The purpose of the Intervention Order in Australian Family Law is simply dispossession.
As has been shown many times, the purpose is not to allow couples to work out their differences as reasonable people. If that were true, then the lawyer would not tell the woman not to discuss the Intervention Order with the man. If that were true, then the lawyer would encourage the couple to talk through their differences and come to a resolution.
Because the lawyers, along with legal and social support agencies, coach the woman on what to say to the court to obtain an Intervention Order, there is little chance for justice or truth to be involved. The court is looking for specific terms and statements, the woman gives those statements, and the force of law in put into effect. Since these statements are most often made ex parte - meaning the woman makes the statements to a magistrate in private - the force of law is put into play without the usual procedures to protect the rights of all involved.
There is no one who denies that ex parte Intervention Orders ignore the legal precept of innocent until proven guilty. Even police officers recognize that Intervention Orders in Australia are a breach of common law and internationally-accepted human and civil rights, yet have no choice in carrying out the orders of the magistrate.

Because Intervention Orders are intuitively illegal, they cause more problems in relationships than they resolve.
However, this fact is twisted in the statistics resulting in ridiculous figures that are self-propogating. For example, it is ludicrous to believe that 8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive, yet that is the statistic that has been created. It is taught to all lawyers, social workers and volunteers, and to students.
That this statistic paints a picture of a sick society is hardly questioned. By presenting it as part of the training for these professionals, semi-professionals and volunteers twists the spirit of community and patriotism into a tool for destroying lives and families, yet no political leader will take this stand publicly - the standard of political correctness and the threats from radical women's groups - often well-funded with government funds - prevent leadership from dealing with the facts.

The police in Victoria are under new policy guidelines which illustrate the desperation of these groups to maintain their political influence, and the arrogance of their ability to influence policy makers. Victorian police are ordered to issue Intervention Orders themselves to the man when any evidence of conflict is apparent, even if neither the man nor the woman - or indeed anyone else involved - wants the order.
This amounts to a make-criminal law. From what is usually nothing more than a disagreement that got out of hand, the police have now effectively created a criminal, tried and convicted him of what may be nothing more than taking up police time, and punished him by dispossessing him from his home and family.
The Victorian police have further orders that is the man disagrees with the order - and there is little reason he should agree given the policy - he is to be removed from the premises.
This is not equal protection under the law for many reasons. Legal scholars in Australia have recently confirmed this fact.
Most glaringly, it is because the policy is blatantly discriminatory: it removes the man from his home. Second, it removes him from his home and possessions for no more reason than being difficult with the police. This policy could be called the police annoyance policy. Annoy the police, and you lose your home and possessions.
It is a policy that would do Saddam proud. You cannot help but wonder how Australia can be so concerned that other nations respect human and civil rights?

Habeus corpus is denigrated to nothing more than hearsay and the actions of impatient police.
Equality before the law is ridiculed.
Innocent before proven guilty is now only a catch phrase to be applied as an excuse for the court hearing.

The excuse given for ignoring these principles of common law and international convention is that these hearings are civil matters, and the orders are civil orders. However, the punishments given are more severe than many of the worst criminals in Australian society - or, indeed, around the world - receive.
The man is under threat of police action if he returns to his home or tries to obtain his possessions. In many cases, he has been denied the means to support himself - if his business is in his home. The procedure calls for the police to attend while a man takes his things from a home, but this procedure is simply a joke.

I can speak for myself here, although the experience is shared by many who face similar circumstances.
The police only attend such instances when they get around to it. In my experience in Victoria, the police waited three days to finally attend, then gave less than 10 minutes notice. The notice was inadequate for all concerned.
A second three-day attempt only resulted in the police informing me that they would not attend.
Although the most of the reason for the police not attending was my ex making herself unavailable,the police treat the man as a criminal and constantly seek reason to assault and abuse him verbally.
She had planned with her lawyer to use the prejudices in the Intervention Order process as a means for extortion. The police, Victorian Legal Aid and the court were informed of this fact, but never acted upon it. Even reports to the Attorney-General were pointless.
Such attendance to allow the man a chance to recover some of his possessions is written into the Intervention Order, which should mean the police and courts must enforce it. But that is not the case. The police and courts support the use of Intervention Orders as a means of extortion, with support - if not explicit orders - from higher officials in Victoria.

Criminal punishments curtail the civil and human rights of an individual after a conviction. That is the purpose of law, to ensure that the same rights are protected and available for all, enforced by the courts, police and other agencies. When those civil and human rights are curtailed and limited on nothing more than arbitrary orders and hearsay, without the assumption of innocence and the opportunity to fairly confront the accusers, there is no valid application of the law.
These are precedents which must be overturned and rejected. These are actions which should be prevented. Fair reparations would have to be paid to many men. But the liability of the government if such indecency and inhumanity, discrimination and abuse, were to be admitted is enough to frighten the agents of government away from doing what they know is right.
More than any pretense of broader vision, it is the cost of making right so many years of injustice that prevents the end to such injustice.
(see A View for further discussion of these issues)

Once accused, with nothing more than allegation and no need for substantial proof, the man is faced with institutionalized prejudice and all his civil and human rights removed from him effectively. If there is no means to defend those rights, then he has no rights.
The Australian pronouncements and demands for human and civil rights are at best hypocritical, if not intentionally obscuring the injustices within the country itself.
He is dispossessed as surely, and often with the same procedures, which anyone in a police state could expect - under Saddam.

Read more!

A Hug in Crime

A father reports his lawyer forbids him to say he loves his child in a court.
Victorian schools have not only banned fatty foods on their campuses, but are moving to ban any display of affection between students, especially hugs.
The Royal Children's Hospital is under pressure to end the contract with MacDonald's, and remove the restaurant from the hospital lobby.

We used to kid about this stuff. I remember when the talk first turned to banning smoking, someone would start trying to imagine other things - then considered normal social behavior - that would be banned.
No one thought MacDonald's would be banned from anywhere. It was too popular, and besides, the kids loved it.
And then there are the millions MacDonald's contributes to kids and hospitals every year all over the globe. They're one of the primary sponsors of the Royal Children's Hospital. Last year McDonald's was heralded for funding a whole specialty ward.

When the talk turned to hugging or kissing, no one really thought a ban even on school grounds was appropriate. Maybe a closer watch by more school officials and teachers, the withering stares of disapproval and stern looks, might be called for - or even a teacher assigned to watch certain areas of the school grounds, but no one thought it made sense to pass a law or even a school rule about it.

Do we need statistics to determine how many hugs on a schoolyard are 'inappropriate' and how many are socially acceptable? How many studies will it take? And .. well depending on who does the study, won't the results be different? Then there's always the folks who seem to see the same figures and come up with different answers (or just ignore the numbers that don't support their views.)


Leo Buscaglia, the 'Hug Doctor' of the 1970s, once announced that everyone needed 10 hugs a day just to maintain a stable mind.
We used to laugh at the idea, then hugged each other (just to be sure) and went back to work.

The success of Buscaglia's books though, kept the idea in conversation for a couple of years, and we would search for situations when a hug was inappropriate. You can't just walk into a room full of strangers and hug them, for instance. It's a kind gesture, but too familiar.
Hugging other people's kids will make them look at you funny - and maybe for good reason.
The question of kids hugging one another was controversial. For school friends, it never seemed wrong. Girls hugged each other when they parted, not just for a trip but often just for the day.
Boys would hug each other too, but not as often. Members of a football team would do a mass group hug after an important victory. That was considered part of the game really.
And certain male personalities seemed more inclined to hug. More a matter of personal choice or expression, and it was encouraged as Buscaglia's ideas become popular. Some very masculine types would joke, "I'm Californian. I hug everything." - joking a little about the nascent environmental movement, a 'tree hugger.'
It was a little disconcerting though to see two big hairy guys in black leathers grunting and hugging though.
Was it just the naivete of the day that prevented us from accepting the possible dark side to such things?
Or was it just that there really was no dark side to see?

The law seems ready to outlaw any politically expendable idea or section of society. So what makes these people politically expendible?

How does it come to the point that kids cannot hug each other, or even their parents, in public?
How far does it go? We're on the verge of outlawing some kinds of foods, along with the businesses that make them.
You don't see much of a move to outlaw booze though, or gambling. Those two activities are not politically expendable, obviously, but .. because they produce too many taxes? or fund too many political campaigns? - or is booze the only way even the politicians can deal daily life?
That may be it! - No wonder I'm crazy. I don't drink.
And all those hugs down through the years must've left me damaged somehow...

Read more!

Sheik al HIlaly and Pru Goward

While it is legal in Australia to abuse the elderly and disabled of any age or sex -- Such actions are protected by a web of IR laws, odd quirks of the definition of civil law because of the timidity to define such actions as crimes, and social prejudices. -- the abuse of women has become a cause celebre.

Sheik Hilaly has opened the debate across the nation by his comments earlier this week:

The Sheik alluded to rapes in 2000 in which four women were separately gang-raped by young Muslim men, including Bilal Skaf, who received a 55-year jail sentence, later reduced.

He said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and inappropriate clothes, "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", The Australian reported.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," the sheik asked.

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (head scarf), no problem would have occurred."

Without putting the belief in free speech aside, this was at best an unfortunate choice of words for the 'Mufti of Australia.'

Before leaping onto the wave of condemnation, the Sheik must realize he just assigned the behaviour of those men to the moral level of undomesticated animals. Even a house cat learns not steal meat off a table. Perhaps we should give him credit where it is due.

Pru Goward has no right to demand his deportation. The Sheik is a citizen of Australia. He has every right to speak within a place of worship the tenets of his faith. Ms Goward is only illustrating again why she was a poor choice to for the post of Sexual Discrimination Commissioner.

This is just bandwagon racism, and we should expect better from any national leader.
Anyone who has attended church in the last 50-60 years has heard the same or worse in sermons in any number of denominations. No, it's not well said. Blaming the victim for rape is idiotic.

But wanting to deport a religious leader for emphatically stating a position on morality is, from a national leader, even less. Freedom is not something that you have when it's convenient. It's something you believe in and defend no matter how someone abuses it. Otherwise, it's not freedom. It's a lie.

Ms Goward seems to have taken her commission to fill Australia with as much sexual discrimination as possible; along with a fair amount of racial and ethnic discrimination and slurs. What sane government would make this prejudiced woman Sexual Discrimination Commissioner? -- And people wonder why there are so few political jokes in Australia. It's simple: It would be hard to beat the government for making a joke of itself.

And then, who has not thought that dressing children in sexy clothes is improper?
Sexy clothes turn both men and women's heads in public. It's a matter of taste to be sexy, not just skin.
Is there a limit to what has to be 'cute'?

The Sheik speaks out at a very unstable time in western history, about a volatile subject: rape.

On page 8 of the Insight sections (The Age, today), Elizabeth G from Ferntree Gully course called, "Crime and Gender" - part of her law degree,

"It taught me that most people in Australia agree with you about rape. Even 'free' Western democracies blame the victims for the attacks. This is evident in the statistics (only one in 10 rapes are reported, only 2 percent of reported rapes result in conviction). .."

This factoid has been bandied about for years. When I first heard it in the 1970s, it was one in three rapes were reported; then one in four. Like most gossip, the story only got better. One in five, and now it's one in ten.
When and where do people use their heads and question such figures?

A little critical thinking is necessary to be a lawyer, Ms G. Did you happen to check some of the supporting statistics?
From the Australian Institute of Criminology report, figures provided by an arguably biased source - the Australian Women's Safety Survey - all sexual assaults in the last 12 months total 142,900.
If only one in 10 were reported, then that would mean 1,429,000 rapes occurred in Australia in the last 12 months alone - which would be more than the total of all sexual assaults reported in the last 20 years: 774,100 (and these figures count multiple rape as a single instance.)

Extrapolating, it would mean that 7,741,000 rapes were committed in Australia over the past 20 years.
Considering quickly the fact that the population only reached 20 million last year, with an almost perfect split of males and females (.95 to 1.05), it would be possible to conclude that nearly every woman in Australia has been raped (-- unless they are tucked inside a room and only go out in a hajib ..?)
When will reason (critical thinking or common sense?) be realized?

Training
The most striking fact is that Ms G is a lawyer in training. She is dependent on her teachers to convey facts responsibly to her to fulfill her future duties as an officer of the court. Her duty will be to aid the court in obtaining a fair unbiased judgment. How can she possibly do that?
The answer is she can't. She has been trained to fear, gossip and prejudice. She will stand before the bar and act on the information she has been given to the best of her ability. Reading the rest of her comments, she has been given "statistics" to support her fear and prejudice.

Which is the greater crime?
For a man to speak inside his place of worship about the beliefs of his religion?
Or for someone who must act professionally to defend equality before the law and free speech to be trained to prejudice?

The Mufti's remarks incite fear, and from that perhaps violence, hatred, and greater prejudice from all sides. Ms G's comments accomplish the same thing. The differing quality may be whether one or the other is accountable to their own beliefs.
The Mufti's immoderate words encourage women to dress modestly, according to the traditions of the religion they choose to follow. He has also encouraged women to take advantage of education and other advantages of a free society.

Ms G will step forward into Australian society armed with statistics from one-sided studies like the "Controlling behaviours of male partners", -- with no equivalent study for the controlling behaviours of female partners. From her description of the 'Crime and Gender' course, she has already found her cause.
Will the prejudice she has been taught serve the same role as religion for the Mufti? Will it define a financially successful career? There is no question such a career path exists.
Why should anyone expect her to find the moral courage to seek reality when prejudice offers such a profitable future?
After all, justice is in the eyes of a patronized magistrate...

Read more!

The Growing Realization

Howard's attitude towards the mentally ill: "We always thought of it as just weakness." is reflected throughout Australian society.
"Let them eat cake!" - Marie Antoinnette

Part of the garbled and rushed legislation takes effect this week, in fact, partially subsidized by state governments also startled into action.

Australians with mental health problems will be able to access help at a lower cost when new Medicare rebates come into effect on Wednesday.

Patients can claim up to 12 psychological consultations each year on referral from their GP, who must review them after the first six sessions.

The program covers a range of psychological conditions including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, attention deficit disorder and schizophrenia.

About 35,000 consultations each year are expected under the program.

The five-year, $538 million plan - unveiled earlier this month - is the first instalment of the federal government's $1.9 billion commitment announced in April as part of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) mental health package.

The package also includes new training places for mental health nurses and clinical psychologists, 900 new personal helpers and mentors ...

A remarkable plan! A first for the Australian nation! New vision!
Ted Baillieu, Liberal candidate for Premier in Victoria, even mentioned mental illness as one of the areas the present Labor government had neglected. (Steve Bracks spent all his space in today's Herald Sun telling everyone how nice he is...)

Jason Bond suffered from a depressive illness. He was 20 years old when he killed himself after being discharged from a Melbourne hospital. Here, Graeme Bond recalls the events leading up to his son's death, a death which he blames partly on the poor state of mental health care in Victoria.

Now who is going to tell these men and women that you can't solve problems like this by just throwing money at them? It takes leadership by example, and understanding.
The sort of thing that is not reflected in the advertisements for feminists' White Ribbon Day.

A MACABRE television advertisement that depicts a father harming himself and committing suicide has been condemned as grossly disturbing.

The campaign, which also includes print and radio ads, was created by agency Saatchi and Saatchi for White Ribbon Day — the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25.

The television ad shows a man abandoning his young daughter to step in front of a bus, swim in shark-infested waters, crawl over broken glass and have his arm amputated.

One of the accompanying print ads has the headline "self-amputation seminar" and shows a bloody knife, saying in small print below that men prepared to give their right arm for their daughters should start by wearing a white ribbon.

Mental-health charity SANE Australia executive director Barbara Hocking described the campaign as "grossly disturbing". She was particularly alarmed by a link on the White Ribbon Day website that allows people to "show their support" for the cause by emailing a grisly image of an amputated arm, with their name attached, to friends and family. "It is sick, it's not helping the cause in any way," Ms Hocking said. "It is indefensible. The ambassadors haven't a clue what is going on in their name."

UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) Australia executive officer Louisa Graham said she made no apologies for the attention-grabbing campaign. "(It's about capturing) the viewer at home that is completely inundated with media messages, to get them to actually pay attention to this issue," she said.

But Ms Hocking said those behind the national advertising campaign had "completely lost sight of the issue". She said the television ad's graphic depiction of a man walking in front of a bus, and voluntarily harming himself in other ways, placed vulnerable people at risk.

First the organizers of White Ribbon Day had Chopper Reid as their spokesperson on national TV, and now an aggrandizement of self mutilation in front of children? I think these folks are letting too much of their dirty laundry -- the ongoing hate campaign against males -- show.

And what shows ain't purty... about White Ribbon Day in particular, and what is un-Australian. Or is it?

Read more!