A DV order can ban a person [usually men} from entering or even passing by their own house even if this person is the sole owner. A case in WA is worth a mention, a man in suburban Perth divided his big house into two dwellings and rented one to a woman . She got way behind in her rent and was avoiding facing her landlord , who had tried…
A DV order can ban a person [usually men} from entering or even passing by their own house even if this person is the sole owner.
A case in WA is worth a mention, a man in suburban Perth divided his big house into two dwellings and rented one to a woman . She got way behind in her rent and was avoiding facing her landlord , who had tried knocking on the door with no success.
On one occasion the man looked through the window of her side to ascertain if she was there .
The woman then used this fact to obtain a restraining order against the owner , the local magistrate saying that the act of looking through the window was "emotional abuse" which was at the time newly legislated grounds for AVO's or VRO's .{ since then coersive control has been included}
This man was then forced by police to leave his home immediately, his son went with him, they lived in a caravan until the court case, in the mean time the woman and accomplices ransacked and vandalized the building including the owner's half and stole a quadbike.
The owner was left with a repair bill of thousands of dollars. The woman vanished and many people myself included thought that the magistrate should be forced to pay for the damage and losses of this man, but no, magistrates have "immunity".
We need a bill of rights or something to guarantee the unalienable right to possession of property.
I've heard too many similar stories of the abuse of the legal system by (nearly always) women and those on the bench.
IMO that each state, territory and the Cth governments each have their own constitutions and laws that aren't being complied with /enforced by the police, public prosecutors, the judiciary and politicians, I don't see how having a "bill of rights" will make any precieviable difference, other than providing another avenue for lawyers to enrich themselves, to entrench more power with our governments to control /manipulate us and to erode what rights we have left
A defeatist attitude like that is partly the reason nothing changes, you are right it probably won't make any difference but that doesn't mean it should not be done, we are in a war here and all avenues should be considered.
The important thing is that the people in power who would rather we all just gave up , come to see that there are a good number who are willing to continue the fight, like Bettina and all her supporters.
Winston Churchill at the darkest hour said " if you are going through hell, keep going"
What's defeatists about not wanting to expend time and energy on something that (given the paradigms operating in politics, media, policing, domestic violence and family law industrial complexes) will have very little measurable impact, especially as our constitutional and legal rights are being eroded by legislation, practice or just ignored? The energy would be best used to produce measurable impact and change.
If a “bill of rights” was part of Australia becoming a republic, then I might consider it.
A DV order can ban a person [usually men} from entering or even passing by their own house even if this person is the sole owner.
A case in WA is worth a mention, a man in suburban Perth divided his big house into two dwellings and rented one to a woman . She got way behind in her rent and was avoiding facing her landlord , who had tried knocking on the door with no success.
On one occasion the man looked through the window of her side to ascertain if she was there .
The woman then used this fact to obtain a restraining order against the owner , the local magistrate saying that the act of looking through the window was "emotional abuse" which was at the time newly legislated grounds for AVO's or VRO's .{ since then coersive control has been included}
This man was then forced by police to leave his home immediately, his son went with him, they lived in a caravan until the court case, in the mean time the woman and accomplices ransacked and vandalized the building including the owner's half and stole a quadbike.
The owner was left with a repair bill of thousands of dollars. The woman vanished and many people myself included thought that the magistrate should be forced to pay for the damage and losses of this man, but no, magistrates have "immunity".
We need a bill of rights or something to guarantee the unalienable right to possession of property.
I've heard too many similar stories of the abuse of the legal system by (nearly always) women and those on the bench.
IMO that each state, territory and the Cth governments each have their own constitutions and laws that aren't being complied with /enforced by the police, public prosecutors, the judiciary and politicians, I don't see how having a "bill of rights" will make any precieviable difference, other than providing another avenue for lawyers to enrich themselves, to entrench more power with our governments to control /manipulate us and to erode what rights we have left
A defeatist attitude like that is partly the reason nothing changes, you are right it probably won't make any difference but that doesn't mean it should not be done, we are in a war here and all avenues should be considered.
The important thing is that the people in power who would rather we all just gave up , come to see that there are a good number who are willing to continue the fight, like Bettina and all her supporters.
Winston Churchill at the darkest hour said " if you are going through hell, keep going"
What's defeatists about not wanting to expend time and energy on something that (given the paradigms operating in politics, media, policing, domestic violence and family law industrial complexes) will have very little measurable impact, especially as our constitutional and legal rights are being eroded by legislation, practice or just ignored? The energy would be best used to produce measurable impact and change.
If a “bill of rights” was part of Australia becoming a republic, then I might consider it.
I agree Australia should be a republic or at least more independent of the old British empire and more recently the US "empire"
Some say that a republic can lead to a dictatorship and this may be a risk, but worth taking I think.'
What is the long term future for Australia? to be forever a lapdog of globalist imperilism it seems.