There is an extremely worrying article in today’s The Australian titled, “Warning on #MeToo redo: ‘presumption of innocence must stand’”, reported by Ellie Dudley.
Most concerning is the push to move sexual and DV violence from the criminal court to special-purpose civil courts, similar to the Family Law Courts. The impact of such a move on men’s lives will be even more disastrous, if that is possible, than the current application of our feminised laws.
One of the major problems for the Family Court occurred when Julia Gillard, as PM, stealthily included Domestic Violence in the family law act and withdrew punishment for perjury.
Both DV and sexual violence are a criminal offences by today’s definition, as they should be. They are tried by the Criminal Court. However, the insertion of DV into the Family Law Act has enabled allegations of DV to be used by women and lawyers to involve police who serve an AVO on fathers that removes them from their children for a long time while the father fights the allegations in the criminal court. This enables mothers full custody of the children and of course, maximum child support and social services. Both laws should be removed from the Family Law Act. DV so that AVOs, based on allegations and often lies, cannot be used to prevent a father’s access to his children.
Today’s article, however, indicates that feminists are intent on setting up separate civil DV courts. This will enable feminists to devise and interpret their own laws. Some suggestions are that “all women must be believed” and the naming of men as sex offenders before trial should be legalised. Then, imagine a court where the minutiae of men’s lives are legally laid out on the banquet table as the triumphant prize of obscene feasts, devoured piece by piece by feminists, their raucous, high pitched squawks of “kill all men”, filling the hallowed halls of the court, to the cheers of well-known man-hater, Clementine Ford.
Domestic violence and sexual violence , as you say, are criminal offences by todays definition , but to say “ as they should be”, might show that you are missing the point often made by commentators , which is that the definitions of DV and sexual assault have been broadened to such a ridiculous extent that now any trivial impost on another person could be twisted to be regarded as a violent act or a sexual assault .
The old Criminal Code made it clear that an “assault” meant actually touching another person. it clearly separated what was civil law and criminal law , same as for sexual assault.
Now with the feminists dictating what constitutes a crime anything goes, their aim is to convict as many men as possible .
On the Conversation today an article by Kate Fitz-Gibbons and Jasmine McGowan "Men’s behaviour change programs are key to addressing domestic violence. Our new study shows how we can improve them."
Aligns itself strongly with the narrative of male perpetrators and female victims.
The first line is;
<Men’s violence against women in Australia is recognised as a national crisis.>
They then go on to say; " We urgently need to better understand what can be done to prevent it and intervene effectively."
But the research is already there for all to see, I suspect why they don't see that research is because that research challenges their cognitive bias and when a person has built a career blaming only men, it is extremely difficult for them to have an epiphany and change their beliefs.
Since Erin Pizzey 's book "Prone to Violence" was on the banned list for Libraries. Research into DV has often been done for propaganda, to reinforce the narrative.
The feminist Anne Summers is mentioned, she played a part in the early days of the DV bandwagon.
She was a guest on the ABC ‘s. QA program on 22nd of October 2018 and in answer to a question from the audience on DV she said this,
“ Specifically on domestic violence which I agree is one of the most significant issues facing our country, and not just for women but for all of us ,one of the things I report in my book is that when I worked for Paul Keating back in 1992 we did some research asking women around Australia what they thought were the most important issues for women and the 3 chosen were , child care , womens heath and thirdly violence against women.
And I remember being very shocked as I realised that violence was so pervasive in the way it had been reported and we found out the Liberal party was doing the same research and getting the
same results . So there was bipartisan agreement that these were important issues .
We did not have clue what to do ,violence against women was not seen as a being within the purview of the Federal government ,most of the laws related to the states .That was the beginning of the Federal government trying to work out how it could respond and so if you look 2O years later what have we done?
Well we are throwing a lot of money at it , particularly in research and there is a huge amount of research going on but I don’t think we are coming up with any real answers , I don’t think we are really analysing the causes of this violence and we are certainly not being effective in trying to stop it , and so I think we need to take a far more aggressive problem solving approach to it in addition to the research already being done .
And we certainly need to be more vigilant when it comes to law enforcement and we have to have a zero tolerance approach to violence of any kind ,verbal ,online harassment ,stalking ,all the way on the spectrum up to these terrible murders that have been taking place , and I do think the pervasiveness of violence is increasing and I do think it is related to a lot of men resenting women for having economic independence and having freedom, it is something we as a nation just have to deal with”
The host then asked her “ would this be easier to deal with if there were more women in politics , more women running the policy of the country?”
Summers replied “ when more women are in politics you see womens issue dealt with”
Here we have a bit of an insight into the truth , Summers admits that they did not have a clue about what to do , also that a lot of money is being “thrown” at the problem , that a vast amount of “research” is being done .
She shows her true colours by calling for a more “aggressive approach “. and more “law enforcement “ and the old favourite “ zero tolerance “.
Her attitude is more about attacking and punishing men than trying to understand the causes of DV and she is typical of feminists , nothing will be achieved with women like this running the agenda.
Widespread tribalism - drama triangle (victim, perpetrator and hero) and entitled victim narrative (lead by women and blacks) based on binary cognitively challenged humans is taking steps backwards towards constant tribal warfare and away from human development - e.g. the culture of "the west" https://humanistman.com/
While I'm here-if I hear one more white knight weep and wail about a handful of transgender men ruining the medal chances of a relative handful of women I will throw up. It may well be unfair but this storyline of the horrible men invading female spaces and stealing what is rightfully theirs after they have worked so hard to achieve a dream is vomit worthy when you consider the thousands of men who have been denied what should rightfully be their own careers in workspaces they have dreamed of being in due to the diversity and inclusion laws and affirmative action quotas which see far less qualified women being given preference over far better qualified men.
We see this outrageous injustice being enforced by governments and even the AFL which has announced from next year and on any media outlet covering the footy must cull their white male commentators so the panels have a more diverse look. So once again, merit is of no importance-=just your skin color or genitalia.
So, pardon me for not weeping over a few women missing out on medals due to wokeness gone mad. I can promise you, not one of those women could give a flying frig, about the countless men who have had their dreams dashed by feminism.
It's stunning to know that our society and more specifically men, have been reduced to second class citizens or worse based upon a very deliberate and calculated plan which is built upon a foundation of lies and myths.
Interestingly, while the media and boosters are shrill about men's violence to women, we see the same being applauded at the Olympic games, where men who pretend to be women can get a gong for beating the life out of a woman. Then we've got women boxing each other, in a great show of violence reduced to sport. The feminist lobby can't have it both ways. If women are equal to men and box, MMA and kick-box each other, then clearly they espouse a violent language.
This is not an excuse for gratuitous violence either way between the sexes, but is indicative of a culture of violence being promoted and applauded as 'sport' with surprise that sport provides the language of real life where it is hypocritically derided.
I was thinking how stupid are the academia for getting sucked into and believing all the twisted data and facts and chucking together all these word salad justification stories to reinforce their positions?
I've come to realise that this isn't about the lies themselves, per se, but all about putting it out there to confound the gullible and to accept anything they hear or see as fact and without question. If it comes from their side, then it is true. They will accept any facts and figures they present and decry anything else (including proper official statistics) as falsehoods.
It's a strategy that is working rather well and more and more gullible people are being recruited to their cause. Radical politics at work.
On the other hand however, there has been an ever growing number that are now beginning to ask questions and their little light bulbs are turning on. It would probably explain their doubling down on their silly outputs, which I guess is designed to fire up the faithful ever more and perhaps as a distraction to those who may be beginning to hold doubts.
I was a happy little Scientologist many, many years ago and can see the exact same things happening yet again. Cult procedures 101. Once I saw the light, it was somewhat easy to see how the recruitment turned into a long con. Radical feminism is the same deal. Turn everyone into a loyal minion and destroy those who will not conform. The biggest problem with feminism is that it has government and bureaucratic support, which makes it exponentially more dangerous. The KKK is kiddie stuff compared to them.
Applying Newtons 3rd Law, There will be change, hopefully in my lifetime ….when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction.
On another matter. The Age is again demonstrating how much it is in the grip of the feminist narrative. While even the ABC website has a story on Linda Reynold's defamation suit against Brittany Higgins The Age has buried the story. You have to put in a search for it on the website to find the story written by WAToday reporter Jesinta Burton which also appeared in the SMH.
"The former defence minister was already locked in an almost identical defamation row with Sharaz, [David Sharaz, her now husband] who bowed out after declaring he did not have the financial means to take it to trial and imploring Reynolds to “let Brittany heal”.
As for allowing others to heal:
“I asked Britt ‘ultimately, what do you want out of this?’,” Sharaz says.
“And she goes ‘well, I want Bruce to forever have it difficult getting a job, like it’s going to be difficult for me’.
“And then you [Higgins] said, best-case scenario, Linda Reynolds.”
Evidence was presented in the form of texts between Higgins and her then boyfriend which explains why
And over the next five weeks, Reynolds’ legal team will take to the WA Supreme Court to argue that it marked the beginning of a campaign to get what she claims Higgins set out to: the destruction of Reynolds’ reputation.
From the ABC story:
Ms Higgins said she chose not to make a formal complaint because of her desire at the time to protect the reputation of the Liberal Party, and to maintain her "dream job".
She said she was given the option to work on the May 2019 election campaign in Western Australia — Senator Reynolds's home state — or to go home to the Gold Coast.
According to news.com.au, she said she was told she wouldn't have a job after the election if she went to the Gold Coast.
The statement from the Prime Minister's Office said: "The Government has aimed to provide Ms Higgins with agency, provide support to make decisions in her interests, and to respect her privacy."
Pardon me accidentally hit Post before completing. To continue. From The Guardian story:
[Reynolds' lawyer] Bennett also described the moment when Reynolds first saw the allegations made against her, leading to her calling her former employee a “lying cow”.
Reynolds later apologised for the comment, paying for Higgins’ legal bills and making a donation to a sexual assault charity.
Bennett explained the reaction as “a moment of intense anger hearing you’re being falsely accused of something so contrary to your value system”. The inclusion of “cow” was “unfortunate” but the response was otherwise “entirely defensible” because Higgins was lying, Bennett argued.
Bennett directed the court to a series of communications between Higgins, Sharaz and Canberra press gallery journalists in which Sharaz explained Higgins would go to the police with her rape allegations after Reynolds’ speech so that the senator couldn’t use a “holding line” about ongoing investigations.
Higgins settled a personal injury claim against the government for $2.445m in December 2022.
In June the next year, Reynolds said she would refer the payout to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Reynolds claimed the payment to Higgins was finalised in an “unusually swift” manner, “raising serious questions about how this significant sum of public money was determined and allocated”.
In July, Higgins responded in an Instagram story, urging Reynolds to “stop”.
Reynolds responded by sending a concerns notice against her former staffer, saying “ever since Ms Higgins first made her allegations of rape public, I have been the target of unwarranted criticism and abuse”.
After Higgins published another statement on Twitter/X two weeks later, Reynolds proceeded to take legal action and filed a writ in August.
Court documents show Reynolds alleges that Higgins’ posts were in breach of a settlement and release signed in March 2021. That settlement allegedly contained a non-disparagement clause.
In court on Friday, Bennett ran through a series of text messages, pictures and meeting invitations to show Higgins had misled the commonwealth during her personal injury settlement. Reynolds’ case is seeking to show that Higgins’ claim she was “sequestered” to work in a hotel room months after her alleged rape were not true.
Bennett pulled up a number of pictures of Higgins smiling in campaign pictures in Western Australia, and text exchanges she shared with her then boyfriend, Ben Dillaway.
In messages responding to Dillaway’s questions about her time there, Higgins responded in her first few weeks she had been “out and about” at local campaign events and had been enjoying her downtime “poolside” and “adventuring” around the lake.
Bennett said the exhibits showed a “vivacious” young woman enjoying her job, highlighting the alleged “barefaced falsity” of Higgins’ claims.
Reynolds was also suing Sharaz for defamation. In April, Sharaz said he would not fight the case as he could not afford to pay legal costs to defend himself.
I have just listened to Bettina saying here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f-Y6Dwy6L4 , in relation to coercive control, "This is about locking men up". Several years ago, on a different forum I commented the following in relation to the Age of Consent:-
"My daughter recently confided to me that she was shocked to discover, when she went to college in London, that all of her new friends (girls at the college) had first had sex at the ages of 11 or 12. I wasn't really shocked but I suppose I should have been. We live in a sex obsessed society. Most of what passes for entertainment on the MSM (that includes Net Flix and good old Cosmo) is focused on sex and is aimed at women. Sex sells. Ena Sharples would be shocked at the sex laden drivel in Coronation Street. There's a TV show where a woman presenter leches over naked male and female bodies and women discuss their tastes in cooks. Classy.
The age of consent has absolutely no impact on the behaviour of young girls and lowering (or raising) it will make no difference. Girls will be girls. They first have sex at 11 or 12 after all.
When it comes out that an underage girl has been engaging in sexual activity the authorities will immediately focus on the age of the male to see if they can bring charges. Raising the age of consent does not protect girls (they will do what they will do) but it enables the imprisonment of boys and men which is what it was intended for in the first place.
Middle class women never tire of telling us that girls mature earlier than boys. There is probably something in this but, as we all know, when it suits girls and women are vulnerable and not responsible for their own actions no matter what their age is. Often they are said to have been groomed. Ha!!
In general teenage boys will court girls a little younger than them and girls will court boys a little older than them. The gap would often be around 2 years e.g. boy 17 girl 15 as I saw often in my youth. If middle class women are correct then the age of consent for girls should be about two years lower than that for boys. Say 14 and 16 respectively but that is not going to happen. The purpose of the age of consent is, after all to imprison boys and men, not girls. Having an age of consent does not protect girls it only criminalises males. Raising it will make no difference. Girls will do what they will do.
One has to bear in mind the anti-male hypocrisy. In effect feminists, and their enablers, will always revert back to the old meme that underage sex is more harming to girls than boys and it's actually okay for an adult woman to be with a boy. Women and girls forever the victims forever double standards. Rank hypocrisy.
Ideally there should be no age of consent. Men and boys should not be criminalised for consensual sexual activities. This would be problematic as men and boys could no longer be sent to jail for consensual activities. Jailing men and boys is the point of the Age of Consent. Also of course the girl could decide after the event that it was not consensual, as often happens.
I don't actually believe there should be no age of consent but it is all very nuanced and in this sex obsessed age the lines are fuzzy. The last thing we should be doing is letting "Alice" and her ilk drive the agenda."
For the DV industry, it's not about reducing the incidence of DV and never has been. It's about increasing the power of women over men, hence their dogged opposition to basic due process rights and of course the facts of the matter about DV. For them, it's a wonderful system. Taxpayers fork over huge piles of money to their organizations whose approach to DV misconceives the problem and the solutions. The result being that the incidence of DV remains largely unchanged, necessitating more money for the organizations that are incompetent to and uninterested in solving the problem. So it goes.
' It's about increasing the power of women over men,'
Mostly agree to your comment but not sure about this part. The DV industry is indeed not trying to solve the problem and rendering themselves obsolete but instead increasing the problem and artificially increasing numbers to gain more funding and power. And yes, as society cares more about women and girls, designating the women and girls as primary victims is definitively a budget booster. The result is 'increasing the power of women over men' as you write, but I think it is rather a consequence than the primary goal. Feminists like that of course.
"designating the women and girls as primary victims is definitively a budget booster"
Years ago I was chatting to a fundraiser from a big Aussie charity dealing with child abuse. According to him there was no point mentioning boys as victims. He was in tears as he spoke of potential donors eyes glazing over and the subsequent disappearance of any interest.
When you are pondering why so many men, and women, buy into the DV myth have a look at the findings of research into "In Group Bias". Women have a very strong In Group bias when that group is Women. Men on the other hand have a weak In Group Bias and are in fact (generally) much more positive about women than they are about men.
Erin Pizzey wrote all about this, including that feminism would become the scourge of society..
As for the DV cause, she said it was a multi billion dollar industry which was all about jobs for the girls. I would suggest power was another one to add to the list.
I've had comments from a couple of ladies that work in DV shelters that their biggest problem is actually getting enough money to actually function, whilst those in the activist organizations give very little to them. Pigs at the trough at the top.
Money for politics, a kick in the butt for those at the coalface.
Leyonhjelm was onto this ahead of his time. He never got answers to his questions.
I suspect other politicians are aware this is a rort and doing nothing useful. Unfortunately any politician who calls this out gets mobbed and cancelled. Even academicsb and reporters that provide basic data are cancelled and excluded.
Yeah don’t drink bullshit and bulldust
Could be some confusion between Salter and Slater.
There is an extremely worrying article in today’s The Australian titled, “Warning on #MeToo redo: ‘presumption of innocence must stand’”, reported by Ellie Dudley.
Most concerning is the push to move sexual and DV violence from the criminal court to special-purpose civil courts, similar to the Family Law Courts. The impact of such a move on men’s lives will be even more disastrous, if that is possible, than the current application of our feminised laws.
One of the major problems for the Family Court occurred when Julia Gillard, as PM, stealthily included Domestic Violence in the family law act and withdrew punishment for perjury.
Both DV and sexual violence are a criminal offences by today’s definition, as they should be. They are tried by the Criminal Court. However, the insertion of DV into the Family Law Act has enabled allegations of DV to be used by women and lawyers to involve police who serve an AVO on fathers that removes them from their children for a long time while the father fights the allegations in the criminal court. This enables mothers full custody of the children and of course, maximum child support and social services. Both laws should be removed from the Family Law Act. DV so that AVOs, based on allegations and often lies, cannot be used to prevent a father’s access to his children.
Today’s article, however, indicates that feminists are intent on setting up separate civil DV courts. This will enable feminists to devise and interpret their own laws. Some suggestions are that “all women must be believed” and the naming of men as sex offenders before trial should be legalised. Then, imagine a court where the minutiae of men’s lives are legally laid out on the banquet table as the triumphant prize of obscene feasts, devoured piece by piece by feminists, their raucous, high pitched squawks of “kill all men”, filling the hallowed halls of the court, to the cheers of well-known man-hater, Clementine Ford.
Domestic violence and sexual violence , as you say, are criminal offences by todays definition , but to say “ as they should be”, might show that you are missing the point often made by commentators , which is that the definitions of DV and sexual assault have been broadened to such a ridiculous extent that now any trivial impost on another person could be twisted to be regarded as a violent act or a sexual assault .
The old Criminal Code made it clear that an “assault” meant actually touching another person. it clearly separated what was civil law and criminal law , same as for sexual assault.
Now with the feminists dictating what constitutes a crime anything goes, their aim is to convict as many men as possible .
On the Conversation today an article by Kate Fitz-Gibbons and Jasmine McGowan "Men’s behaviour change programs are key to addressing domestic violence. Our new study shows how we can improve them."
Aligns itself strongly with the narrative of male perpetrators and female victims.
The first line is;
<Men’s violence against women in Australia is recognised as a national crisis.>
They then go on to say; " We urgently need to better understand what can be done to prevent it and intervene effectively."
But the research is already there for all to see, I suspect why they don't see that research is because that research challenges their cognitive bias and when a person has built a career blaming only men, it is extremely difficult for them to have an epiphany and change their beliefs.
Since Erin Pizzey 's book "Prone to Violence" was on the banned list for Libraries. Research into DV has often been done for propaganda, to reinforce the narrative.
The feminist Anne Summers is mentioned, she played a part in the early days of the DV bandwagon.
She was a guest on the ABC ‘s. QA program on 22nd of October 2018 and in answer to a question from the audience on DV she said this,
“ Specifically on domestic violence which I agree is one of the most significant issues facing our country, and not just for women but for all of us ,one of the things I report in my book is that when I worked for Paul Keating back in 1992 we did some research asking women around Australia what they thought were the most important issues for women and the 3 chosen were , child care , womens heath and thirdly violence against women.
And I remember being very shocked as I realised that violence was so pervasive in the way it had been reported and we found out the Liberal party was doing the same research and getting the
same results . So there was bipartisan agreement that these were important issues .
We did not have clue what to do ,violence against women was not seen as a being within the purview of the Federal government ,most of the laws related to the states .That was the beginning of the Federal government trying to work out how it could respond and so if you look 2O years later what have we done?
Well we are throwing a lot of money at it , particularly in research and there is a huge amount of research going on but I don’t think we are coming up with any real answers , I don’t think we are really analysing the causes of this violence and we are certainly not being effective in trying to stop it , and so I think we need to take a far more aggressive problem solving approach to it in addition to the research already being done .
And we certainly need to be more vigilant when it comes to law enforcement and we have to have a zero tolerance approach to violence of any kind ,verbal ,online harassment ,stalking ,all the way on the spectrum up to these terrible murders that have been taking place , and I do think the pervasiveness of violence is increasing and I do think it is related to a lot of men resenting women for having economic independence and having freedom, it is something we as a nation just have to deal with”
The host then asked her “ would this be easier to deal with if there were more women in politics , more women running the policy of the country?”
Summers replied “ when more women are in politics you see womens issue dealt with”
Here we have a bit of an insight into the truth , Summers admits that they did not have a clue about what to do , also that a lot of money is being “thrown” at the problem , that a vast amount of “research” is being done .
She shows her true colours by calling for a more “aggressive approach “. and more “law enforcement “ and the old favourite “ zero tolerance “.
Her attitude is more about attacking and punishing men than trying to understand the causes of DV and she is typical of feminists , nothing will be achieved with women like this running the agenda.
Thank you. Very relevant.
Widespread tribalism - drama triangle (victim, perpetrator and hero) and entitled victim narrative (lead by women and blacks) based on binary cognitively challenged humans is taking steps backwards towards constant tribal warfare and away from human development - e.g. the culture of "the west" https://humanistman.com/
While I'm here-if I hear one more white knight weep and wail about a handful of transgender men ruining the medal chances of a relative handful of women I will throw up. It may well be unfair but this storyline of the horrible men invading female spaces and stealing what is rightfully theirs after they have worked so hard to achieve a dream is vomit worthy when you consider the thousands of men who have been denied what should rightfully be their own careers in workspaces they have dreamed of being in due to the diversity and inclusion laws and affirmative action quotas which see far less qualified women being given preference over far better qualified men.
We see this outrageous injustice being enforced by governments and even the AFL which has announced from next year and on any media outlet covering the footy must cull their white male commentators so the panels have a more diverse look. So once again, merit is of no importance-=just your skin color or genitalia.
So, pardon me for not weeping over a few women missing out on medals due to wokeness gone mad. I can promise you, not one of those women could give a flying frig, about the countless men who have had their dreams dashed by feminism.
It's stunning to know that our society and more specifically men, have been reduced to second class citizens or worse based upon a very deliberate and calculated plan which is built upon a foundation of lies and myths.
Interestingly, while the media and boosters are shrill about men's violence to women, we see the same being applauded at the Olympic games, where men who pretend to be women can get a gong for beating the life out of a woman. Then we've got women boxing each other, in a great show of violence reduced to sport. The feminist lobby can't have it both ways. If women are equal to men and box, MMA and kick-box each other, then clearly they espouse a violent language.
This is not an excuse for gratuitous violence either way between the sexes, but is indicative of a culture of violence being promoted and applauded as 'sport' with surprise that sport provides the language of real life where it is hypocritically derided.
I was thinking how stupid are the academia for getting sucked into and believing all the twisted data and facts and chucking together all these word salad justification stories to reinforce their positions?
I've come to realise that this isn't about the lies themselves, per se, but all about putting it out there to confound the gullible and to accept anything they hear or see as fact and without question. If it comes from their side, then it is true. They will accept any facts and figures they present and decry anything else (including proper official statistics) as falsehoods.
It's a strategy that is working rather well and more and more gullible people are being recruited to their cause. Radical politics at work.
On the other hand however, there has been an ever growing number that are now beginning to ask questions and their little light bulbs are turning on. It would probably explain their doubling down on their silly outputs, which I guess is designed to fire up the faithful ever more and perhaps as a distraction to those who may be beginning to hold doubts.
I was a happy little Scientologist many, many years ago and can see the exact same things happening yet again. Cult procedures 101. Once I saw the light, it was somewhat easy to see how the recruitment turned into a long con. Radical feminism is the same deal. Turn everyone into a loyal minion and destroy those who will not conform. The biggest problem with feminism is that it has government and bureaucratic support, which makes it exponentially more dangerous. The KKK is kiddie stuff compared to them.
Applying Newtons 3rd Law, There will be change, hopefully in my lifetime ….when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction.
On another matter. The Age is again demonstrating how much it is in the grip of the feminist narrative. While even the ABC website has a story on Linda Reynold's defamation suit against Brittany Higgins The Age has buried the story. You have to put in a search for it on the website to find the story written by WAToday reporter Jesinta Burton which also appeared in the SMH.
"The former defence minister was already locked in an almost identical defamation row with Sharaz, [David Sharaz, her now husband] who bowed out after declaring he did not have the financial means to take it to trial and imploring Reynolds to “let Brittany heal”.
As for allowing others to heal:
“I asked Britt ‘ultimately, what do you want out of this?’,” Sharaz says.
“And she goes ‘well, I want Bruce to forever have it difficult getting a job, like it’s going to be difficult for me’.
“And then you [Higgins] said, best-case scenario, Linda Reynolds.”
Evidence was presented in the form of texts between Higgins and her then boyfriend which explains why
And over the next five weeks, Reynolds’ legal team will take to the WA Supreme Court to argue that it marked the beginning of a campaign to get what she claims Higgins set out to: the destruction of Reynolds’ reputation.
From the ABC story:
Ms Higgins said she chose not to make a formal complaint because of her desire at the time to protect the reputation of the Liberal Party, and to maintain her "dream job".
She said she was given the option to work on the May 2019 election campaign in Western Australia — Senator Reynolds's home state — or to go home to the Gold Coast.
According to news.com.au, she said she was told she wouldn't have a job after the election if she went to the Gold Coast.
The statement from the Prime Minister's Office said: "The Government has aimed to provide Ms Higgins with agency, provide support to make decisions in her interests, and to respect her privacy."
Sharaz does not want any further opportunity for uncovering his role in all of this.
Pardon me accidentally hit Post before completing. To continue. From The Guardian story:
[Reynolds' lawyer] Bennett also described the moment when Reynolds first saw the allegations made against her, leading to her calling her former employee a “lying cow”.
Reynolds later apologised for the comment, paying for Higgins’ legal bills and making a donation to a sexual assault charity.
Bennett explained the reaction as “a moment of intense anger hearing you’re being falsely accused of something so contrary to your value system”. The inclusion of “cow” was “unfortunate” but the response was otherwise “entirely defensible” because Higgins was lying, Bennett argued.
Bennett directed the court to a series of communications between Higgins, Sharaz and Canberra press gallery journalists in which Sharaz explained Higgins would go to the police with her rape allegations after Reynolds’ speech so that the senator couldn’t use a “holding line” about ongoing investigations.
Higgins settled a personal injury claim against the government for $2.445m in December 2022.
In June the next year, Reynolds said she would refer the payout to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Reynolds claimed the payment to Higgins was finalised in an “unusually swift” manner, “raising serious questions about how this significant sum of public money was determined and allocated”.
In July, Higgins responded in an Instagram story, urging Reynolds to “stop”.
Reynolds responded by sending a concerns notice against her former staffer, saying “ever since Ms Higgins first made her allegations of rape public, I have been the target of unwarranted criticism and abuse”.
After Higgins published another statement on Twitter/X two weeks later, Reynolds proceeded to take legal action and filed a writ in August.
Court documents show Reynolds alleges that Higgins’ posts were in breach of a settlement and release signed in March 2021. That settlement allegedly contained a non-disparagement clause.
In court on Friday, Bennett ran through a series of text messages, pictures and meeting invitations to show Higgins had misled the commonwealth during her personal injury settlement. Reynolds’ case is seeking to show that Higgins’ claim she was “sequestered” to work in a hotel room months after her alleged rape were not true.
Bennett pulled up a number of pictures of Higgins smiling in campaign pictures in Western Australia, and text exchanges she shared with her then boyfriend, Ben Dillaway.
In messages responding to Dillaway’s questions about her time there, Higgins responded in her first few weeks she had been “out and about” at local campaign events and had been enjoying her downtime “poolside” and “adventuring” around the lake.
Bennett said the exhibits showed a “vivacious” young woman enjoying her job, highlighting the alleged “barefaced falsity” of Higgins’ claims.
Reynolds was also suing Sharaz for defamation. In April, Sharaz said he would not fight the case as he could not afford to pay legal costs to defend himself.
I have just listened to Bettina saying here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f-Y6Dwy6L4 , in relation to coercive control, "This is about locking men up". Several years ago, on a different forum I commented the following in relation to the Age of Consent:-
"My daughter recently confided to me that she was shocked to discover, when she went to college in London, that all of her new friends (girls at the college) had first had sex at the ages of 11 or 12. I wasn't really shocked but I suppose I should have been. We live in a sex obsessed society. Most of what passes for entertainment on the MSM (that includes Net Flix and good old Cosmo) is focused on sex and is aimed at women. Sex sells. Ena Sharples would be shocked at the sex laden drivel in Coronation Street. There's a TV show where a woman presenter leches over naked male and female bodies and women discuss their tastes in cooks. Classy.
The age of consent has absolutely no impact on the behaviour of young girls and lowering (or raising) it will make no difference. Girls will be girls. They first have sex at 11 or 12 after all.
When it comes out that an underage girl has been engaging in sexual activity the authorities will immediately focus on the age of the male to see if they can bring charges. Raising the age of consent does not protect girls (they will do what they will do) but it enables the imprisonment of boys and men which is what it was intended for in the first place.
Middle class women never tire of telling us that girls mature earlier than boys. There is probably something in this but, as we all know, when it suits girls and women are vulnerable and not responsible for their own actions no matter what their age is. Often they are said to have been groomed. Ha!!
In general teenage boys will court girls a little younger than them and girls will court boys a little older than them. The gap would often be around 2 years e.g. boy 17 girl 15 as I saw often in my youth. If middle class women are correct then the age of consent for girls should be about two years lower than that for boys. Say 14 and 16 respectively but that is not going to happen. The purpose of the age of consent is, after all to imprison boys and men, not girls. Having an age of consent does not protect girls it only criminalises males. Raising it will make no difference. Girls will do what they will do.
One has to bear in mind the anti-male hypocrisy. In effect feminists, and their enablers, will always revert back to the old meme that underage sex is more harming to girls than boys and it's actually okay for an adult woman to be with a boy. Women and girls forever the victims forever double standards. Rank hypocrisy.
Ideally there should be no age of consent. Men and boys should not be criminalised for consensual sexual activities. This would be problematic as men and boys could no longer be sent to jail for consensual activities. Jailing men and boys is the point of the Age of Consent. Also of course the girl could decide after the event that it was not consensual, as often happens.
I don't actually believe there should be no age of consent but it is all very nuanced and in this sex obsessed age the lines are fuzzy. The last thing we should be doing is letting "Alice" and her ilk drive the agenda."
For the DV industry, it's not about reducing the incidence of DV and never has been. It's about increasing the power of women over men, hence their dogged opposition to basic due process rights and of course the facts of the matter about DV. For them, it's a wonderful system. Taxpayers fork over huge piles of money to their organizations whose approach to DV misconceives the problem and the solutions. The result being that the incidence of DV remains largely unchanged, necessitating more money for the organizations that are incompetent to and uninterested in solving the problem. So it goes.
' It's about increasing the power of women over men,'
Mostly agree to your comment but not sure about this part. The DV industry is indeed not trying to solve the problem and rendering themselves obsolete but instead increasing the problem and artificially increasing numbers to gain more funding and power. And yes, as society cares more about women and girls, designating the women and girls as primary victims is definitively a budget booster. The result is 'increasing the power of women over men' as you write, but I think it is rather a consequence than the primary goal. Feminists like that of course.
"designating the women and girls as primary victims is definitively a budget booster"
Years ago I was chatting to a fundraiser from a big Aussie charity dealing with child abuse. According to him there was no point mentioning boys as victims. He was in tears as he spoke of potential donors eyes glazing over and the subsequent disappearance of any interest.
When you are pondering why so many men, and women, buy into the DV myth have a look at the findings of research into "In Group Bias". Women have a very strong In Group bias when that group is Women. Men on the other hand have a weak In Group Bias and are in fact (generally) much more positive about women than they are about men.
So from whence all this talk about Misogyny?
The key factors for domestic has been established long time ago. Aussies already had intelligent senators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DLZa37LJTg&pp=ygUSc2VuYXRvciBsZXlvbmhqZWxt
issues are poverty, alcohol and drug abuse, psychological issues, mental illness, infidelity, and so on.
Erin Pizzey wrote all about this, including that feminism would become the scourge of society..
As for the DV cause, she said it was a multi billion dollar industry which was all about jobs for the girls. I would suggest power was another one to add to the list.
I've had comments from a couple of ladies that work in DV shelters that their biggest problem is actually getting enough money to actually function, whilst those in the activist organizations give very little to them. Pigs at the trough at the top.
Money for politics, a kick in the butt for those at the coalface.
Leyonhjelm was onto this ahead of his time. He never got answers to his questions.
I suspect other politicians are aware this is a rort and doing nothing useful. Unfortunately any politician who calls this out gets mobbed and cancelled. Even academicsb and reporters that provide basic data are cancelled and excluded.
Yes, Leyonhjelm was a good guy. He was smart and could see through the bs. He did what a senator should do.
What is he doing now?