Here's another injustice and need for reform: Mr. Catelli has his name right out there and he is innocent.
Why isn't his accusers name out in the public too? Like a paedophiles is. She lied , she is abusing innocent men, they are victims , survivors of her sexual abuse surely.
Reading again the story of Marc Catteli , in cases like his the question of compensation is hardly ever addressed. But if he was able to sue the woman and the police for damages , and won a large payout this might deter other false accusers and make the cops think twice about laying charges.
So what’s happened to Mr Cattelli since , typically he would be prevented from legal action by the high risk and extreme costs . And why hasn’t the woman been charged with making a false complaint ,or similar , abuse of process , conspiracy to pervert the course of justice , I’m sure there are enough laws to use against women who have made several false claims .
Police are scared to charge women in cases like this , the feminists would complain , so women get away with crimes just because they are female . This discrimination must stop , police and the justice system must be seen to be impartial, “justice is blind” as the say.
You are right. ‘they’ do say that justice is blind. But all that proves is that ‘they’ is blind for a simple examination of the statistical evidence (and I emphasise statistical because the occasional abuse or mistake is inevitable in anything). It is clear that men are treated far worse under the law, from police to courts to prisons.
Then the fact that there are more men in prison than women is skewed to ‘prove’ that there should be more men in prison!
I find it interesting, correct me if I'm wrong, in how the police will charge someone or take into custody someone they 'suspect' has done something wrong and yet 'false accusers' have actually done something wrong and they are not charged or taken into custody!!
So this case, yes it is in England, a mane was stopped because the 'police' profiled him, saw him as doing something wrong in their eyes and treated him like a full blown criminal.
One comment (to which I responded) mentioned that the bias against men in family court leads to a power-imbalance during the marriage.
One could say the same for workplace "harassment" laws, or any situation where women interact with men. Men know they are vulnerable to false accusations so give in to women's demands in the short term, but are learning to defend themselves in the long term.
It started with MGTOW, but the tide is turning politically. It has turned in the US.
IMO in Australia, the biggest threat to men ever getting anywhere is not the feminists, and it's not even the simps - it's the average Aussie bloke and his aversion to politics, politicians, and "causes" - even after he's been done over in divorce, and know his sons face the same danger. For example, in relation to Dutton's recent comments I've seen men in these groups saying that "Dutton will say anything for a vote". Saying, of politicians, "They are all the same" is a terrible political strategy, but one which is deeply embedded in Australian men.
Peter Dutton is casting around for support ,he wants the working man’s vote and is prepared to say the right things , up to a point. This is just what Scott Morrison did prior to his election win , remember he promised inquiries into the Family Court ,rubbed shoulders with the working men in the pubs and clubs, for the cameras . It seems to have worked ,he won but then failed to deliver and lost to Albenese . Is Dutton on a similar path , will history repeat?.
You are right about the apathy of Aussie men , who would rather do anything than get involved in politics, but this might be changing , the mens rights groups are the new training grounds .
It’s good to see a Magistrate interpret the bad Qld DV laws with commonsense. As with new legislation it is always vague & now the Magistrate has set a precedent where he has applied exceptional circumstances which will be definitely challenged by the Feminists.
Yes, one magistrate shows commonsense and has the courage to go against the trend , but then a different magistrates might do the opposite , that’s the problem, magistrates courts are more about luck than “justice” .
If you are “lucky” you might get a magistrates who shows common sense and has a strong commitment to justice, or you might get a tyrant . There’s a phrase “ magistrate shopping” where a complainant , usually a woman can keep going back to a court hoping to eventually get magistrates to take her side against her husband.
Cops do it , if they want a certain outcome from a hearing they can and do arrange for a magistrate to be “sympathetic “ to their side, this happens often, police officers and magistrates work together , often are fellow “Masons” secret handshakes etc. .
We fool ourselves if we think the justice system is anything but corrupt and dysfunctional.
Ken I agree, I have seen in Brisbane police have taken alleged DV offender from a watch house in the outer suburbs and have them detained in Roma Street watch house because the inner city Woke magistrates give the result the police want. Police excuse is Watch house is full when it is not. They also make arrests on a Friday & hold over bail applications until Monday, then Bail denied. The the inner city Woke magistrates give their pathetic Woke reasons for denying bail. Alleged offender is held on false allegations, no evidence, no presumption of innocence, a denial of a basic Human Right.
I have heard a Magistrate in Brisbane court say, what if he goes and Murders after I let him out, my name will be in the news.
Yes I have seen the corruption between police and Magistrates.
Bettina is right when she says “ the madness of the Domestic violence industry” emphasis on “industry”. It’s a money maker for lawyers and their mates in the magistrates courts , as I said the Masonic Lodge plays a role , magistrates and senior cops have historically been Masons , that secret organisation which threatens death to any member who dares to speak publicly about it’s covert operations.
The Brisbane magistrate you refer to who would rather jail a man than risk his own reputation is sadly common. In WA the Law Society is on record as protesting about magistrates giving out violence orders too easily on a “just in case” basis , no evidence necessary , magistrates throw their principles out the window in their zeal to please the feminists, and their overinflated egos make them afraid of any public criticism.
If you remember the Morison government started a senate inquiry into the family court , and included this subject . Many people made submissions myself included I made these points and many more including the WA Supreme Court warning magistrates about careless granting of DV orders . This fell on deaf ears though and new laws since have in fact made the problem worse.
You can read what I wrote if you like it’s still all on the web, there were over a thousand submissions , the reference number is. 828. Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System.
The inquiry has been buried and the reason why is not clear , it’s disappointing that the people involved allowed this to happen.
Understand where you are coming from Ross but the issue for me is that the legislation is available to any woman at any time and most likely to be used when they are angry and/or mentally unwell. If a woman catches her husband cheating, she can use the law as a strategy to be financially rewarded and deliver retribution in the form of removing access to children. If a man catches his wife cheating, his best strategy might just be to walk away so she doesn’t use this law. This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Thanks for the chat Stephen. Nice to know I have a brother in arms in the fight against feminism. It just astounds me how people wilfully ignore the topic.
Thanks Stephen and agree with your comments however I tend to think that there is only 10% or so of the male population and maybe 50% plus of the female population that really understand the legal power women have in relationships. Most do not follow thought leaders like Bettina and Janice Fiamengo. Most have not directly felt that power wielded against them or a family member/friend. I believe this because I am somewhat treated as an outlier and conspiracy theorist by my extended family for trying to raise awareness. Funnily enough most of my extended family have sons whereas I have 2 daughters.
I agree that most men, and their families, get a nasty shock when a woman wields her power against a man. He’s still reeling from the shock of losing her, and is probably trying to “save” the relationship, at least for the kid’s sake, while she is methodically using the law to take everything she can.
Agree, now that you point it out (thanks!) that the percentages of men who know, before the event, is much less than the number of women.
I don’t even discuss these issues with my extended family. They are all dominated by professional women whose political conscience is based on the assumption that women are “oppressed”. Hubbies toe the line.
>> This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to
>> anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Well said!
That "anyone who understands" is 99% of the population. As soon as an argument escalates both know that She can throw a tantrum, threaten anything, be physically abusive, etc., but if He loses his cool in any way she now owns him, and can wipe him out - at a time of her choosing.
She only has to say that she "was afraid" in this incident. He doesn't even have the option of walking out until she calms down - that can be construed as "coercive control" or "domestic violence".
There are several videos describing this. In one, Jewell Drury went to a taxpayer funded "women's service" (no such for men, of course) and posed as a wife seeking a separation. The service coached her to find an incident in the past which could be construed as "dv" and then use it to get a violence order against him. They told her that by the time it came to court, even if it was unsuccessful, that she whould have gained strategic advantage to take the lot.
Bettina also has an interview with a former police officer who describes how, after calling the police to remove a good man from the house FOR NO JUST CAUSE, the woman will go to the lawyers to initiate separation. "They know" he says, that with the violence order they are all set up. "They" being every woman. You may be arguing with a nutcase - but she's no fool.
Yet, our taxpayer funded dv advertising and agencies, and simps like Albo, tell us that dv is about male "power and control".
The trouble for Women here is, if this new so called law is to be over exuberently used as a means by Police to interceed in domestic relationships for fear of poor outcomes, what actually may end up occuring is Men will be forced to use the legislation themselves in order to protect oneself from an abusive spouse instead of trying to manage an overly emotional person inhouse which is now an even more difficult task consideriing this new legislation. Therefore one may have to remain silent and make a complaint themselves in order to avoid the other party acting on hearsay or bias advice from lawyers who may have a vested interests in proceeding to hearing as who actually reads the legislation before going to Police? This could in fact have the opposite effect to that which it is intended and provide Men with protection from an abusive spouse should the same standard be applied being that the alledged offense is Criminal in nature and must be. This could lead to a lot of Women ending up with convictions which a Man wouldn't normally persue but is now forced to.
In theory, it should work as you describe, ie. men who would prefer to keep the police out of it having to seek a violence order as a defensive legal mechanism. Whether police would actually grant it is another matter. For a start, dv services are "trained" to regard a man reporting dv as the perpetrator.
Hi Steven. Thank you for your comment. To your point, possibly so but the law itself cannot show favor. If one's spouse is behaving aggresively or using coercive control to get their way then regardless of one's gender the legislative ammendment to the Crimes Act cannot and does not allow favour to one gender or ipso facto, would not be according to law. My point is that some Women will automatically assume that it does favor them and proceed based on this belief which is simply not true although the very groups that advocated for this legislative change to begin with will promulgate this concept in order to appear relevant. The Government has given these Groups what they believe they wanted but only within the scope the law allows which cannot show fear nor favor to one party as everyone is equal under the law. The danger this assumption may create, is that it requires Men to engage the law early instead of trying to manage an abusive spose inhouse. If one is exposed as being abusive via any complaint then one should suffer similar repercussions via the law. In the end the underlying objective is always more litigation at a cost but costs awarded to the Man should his complaint be upheld based on evidence of fact will have the reverse effect for a Woman in subseqent divorce proceedings. Yes it will not be common but it is possible should a Man understand the law. Equality is a double edged sword and some will learn the hard way that wolves seek a slice of one's estate regarless of how that is achieved. This is what we the people must learn, legislation is all about legal fees and one should not take this course of action lightly. Being that Women tend to run more on emotion and hearsay than logic, who does one think will consider this conundrum more given what one stands to loose? Time will tell.
Here is the thing about Power (over others), it is very difficult to find middle ground cus Power is all consuming. The Nature of Power is usually an 'all or nothing' scenario. That is to say, now that the Femo's have almost total power in the Fem-mocracy now called Australia, that is to say, Power over Education, Policy making, Law making, Justice system, Police +++, clawing Power back is way difficult as every area needs to be addressed. Total Victory belongs to the Femo machine, the gender war is over, only some mopping up left to do.
Men are sooo weak in the eyes of the Law now, its laughable. And as for respect of men, there is little. Women are laughing at us, and indeed men from other countries who did not allow the slippage to happen know our mistake. Australia internationally is known as a Femo stronghold and a place were men are humiliated daily all in the name of liberty.
For which man in Australia will come out from under a women's skirt to fight their own battles, committing economic and social suicide, for the sake of Men's rights? And in doing so make Mr Trump look like an Angel? Who ?
Fear and no care has gripped the men of Australia, Femos wait on every street corner to accuse us of being pedophiles, rapists, abusers, and more. Oh the Fear I can smell it.
The hierarchy of importance for most Australian women is, 1 The House, 2 themselves and children, 3 her job. 4 the dog and cat, 5 House, 6. Car. 7 her girl friends and associates. 8 Her soccer team mates. 9 other stuff. 10 husband, male partner.
Men handed the ' power of independence ' to women, and look at what happened? Before this, we were kings in our country, most women were depending on their men. So we handed the Baton over to women and continue to do it. See what men have done!
Can men ever make it back to the half way point or beyond under the political system as it stands? In your dreams . No way, it's likely to slide even further down hill.
Goodbye traditional Australia. The other New Australians, Muslims etc will take full advantage of your stupidity in maintaining our population and the fem-mocracy .
We continue to vote in female Polly's who clearly do not represent the men in their electorate. Why do we vote more in? Cus every man believes it's right to do so.
Haha, power to men will never return here. Oh , some small incremental adjustments maybe, that's it.
Universities in Australia have been left wing propaganda havens for decades .Marxist tactics , brainwash the young people and you can control a society. Many of the women at universities were not really suited to an academic or scientific career.
These were traditionally the working class girls who left school early and may have had a brief period of employment before marriage . To the radical feminists this was seen as exploitation by the dreaded “patriarchy” , so the girls were herded into universities by left wing governments , here they where easy prey to feminists anti -male indoctrination. They aim of the feminists was not to ensure the young women got a useful education , only to be feminist crusaders. They were given useless degrees in subjects which where not helpful to employment.
If I had money for every man I heard say after his divorce case, ' I gave her the house and car and walked away ' said with pride, I would have some money now. This is code for Caved in to Asset Rape.
If a woman claims to have been sexually assaulted and has done it before on several occasions then police should have the records and should decide not to charge the accused. This is what should happen , but feminist pressure of “zero tolerance” for sexual assault has forced police to go ahead with cases which in past years would have been dropped.
Then it would be irrelevant that such information was withheld from a jury.
This is the issue , political pressure put on police forces to give one section of the community an advantage , police forces should be protected from political interference , there’s work needed there too it seems , what a mess Australia’s justice system is in, who allowed it to get so bad?
Sexual history is history. It has bearing on who a person is. We disclose our race, gender, married status, age, political affiliation, voting record, if we're mothers or fathers and our employment. It's tells who we are. Which is why you get to confront your accuser. So you can say who they are. In a sexual assault case, I'm to believe there isn't a difference between a virgin and a prostitute. The facts of a case are relevant to a case. If we can ignore sexual history of women and say it's not relevant, can we say the past rapes of a rapist are relevant? Isn't that the rapist's past sexual history? It isn't relevant?
If 58% of interpersonal violence is bi-directional and 14% was uni-dimensional male to female? Wouldn't that make 28% uni-demensional female to male? Or maybe these numbers aren't heterosexual only?
I see that Alistair P D Bain has responded to you but I can assure you that as a gay man I've encountered aggressive Lesbians (December 2024 was the last time) and an ex female, straight, psychotherapist (I think it was in 2003, Sydney) once told me that 'she had a few lesbian patients who were notably abusive in their same sex partnerships'. I was shocked about this.
Nothing wrong with making provocative statements , it’s a good way of sparking debate on a subject .and the subject of the bias against men in our courts is a subject which should be discussed ,if only more politicians had the courage.
The way I read this is that the law preventing the tendering of the fabrication history relates to it in a court of law. What prevents the information being released to the media?
Well, the complainant can't be named, obviously, nor any details published which could identify her. But the other problem is the media isn't interested.
Here's another injustice and need for reform: Mr. Catelli has his name right out there and he is innocent.
Why isn't his accusers name out in the public too? Like a paedophiles is. She lied , she is abusing innocent men, they are victims , survivors of her sexual abuse surely.
Reading again the story of Marc Catteli , in cases like his the question of compensation is hardly ever addressed. But if he was able to sue the woman and the police for damages , and won a large payout this might deter other false accusers and make the cops think twice about laying charges.
So what’s happened to Mr Cattelli since , typically he would be prevented from legal action by the high risk and extreme costs . And why hasn’t the woman been charged with making a false complaint ,or similar , abuse of process , conspiracy to pervert the course of justice , I’m sure there are enough laws to use against women who have made several false claims .
Police are scared to charge women in cases like this , the feminists would complain , so women get away with crimes just because they are female . This discrimination must stop , police and the justice system must be seen to be impartial, “justice is blind” as the say.
You are right. ‘they’ do say that justice is blind. But all that proves is that ‘they’ is blind for a simple examination of the statistical evidence (and I emphasise statistical because the occasional abuse or mistake is inevitable in anything). It is clear that men are treated far worse under the law, from police to courts to prisons.
Then the fact that there are more men in prison than women is skewed to ‘prove’ that there should be more men in prison!
I find it interesting, correct me if I'm wrong, in how the police will charge someone or take into custody someone they 'suspect' has done something wrong and yet 'false accusers' have actually done something wrong and they are not charged or taken into custody!!
I follow Iain Gould in England : https://iaingould.co.uk/2025/03/03/black-male-with-weapons-another-unlawful-stop-and-search/
So this case, yes it is in England, a mane was stopped because the 'police' profiled him, saw him as doing something wrong in their eyes and treated him like a full blown criminal.
History of false accusations - 'The Wigs' covered this in 2023:
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-wigs/in-nsw-prior-false-claims-of-VSLJsW8Xl9B/
One comment (to which I responded) mentioned that the bias against men in family court leads to a power-imbalance during the marriage.
One could say the same for workplace "harassment" laws, or any situation where women interact with men. Men know they are vulnerable to false accusations so give in to women's demands in the short term, but are learning to defend themselves in the long term.
It started with MGTOW, but the tide is turning politically. It has turned in the US.
IMO in Australia, the biggest threat to men ever getting anywhere is not the feminists, and it's not even the simps - it's the average Aussie bloke and his aversion to politics, politicians, and "causes" - even after he's been done over in divorce, and know his sons face the same danger. For example, in relation to Dutton's recent comments I've seen men in these groups saying that "Dutton will say anything for a vote". Saying, of politicians, "They are all the same" is a terrible political strategy, but one which is deeply embedded in Australian men.
Peter Dutton is casting around for support ,he wants the working man’s vote and is prepared to say the right things , up to a point. This is just what Scott Morrison did prior to his election win , remember he promised inquiries into the Family Court ,rubbed shoulders with the working men in the pubs and clubs, for the cameras . It seems to have worked ,he won but then failed to deliver and lost to Albenese . Is Dutton on a similar path , will history repeat?.
You are right about the apathy of Aussie men , who would rather do anything than get involved in politics, but this might be changing , the mens rights groups are the new training grounds .
It’s good to see a Magistrate interpret the bad Qld DV laws with commonsense. As with new legislation it is always vague & now the Magistrate has set a precedent where he has applied exceptional circumstances which will be definitely challenged by the Feminists.
Yes, one magistrate shows commonsense and has the courage to go against the trend , but then a different magistrates might do the opposite , that’s the problem, magistrates courts are more about luck than “justice” .
If you are “lucky” you might get a magistrates who shows common sense and has a strong commitment to justice, or you might get a tyrant . There’s a phrase “ magistrate shopping” where a complainant , usually a woman can keep going back to a court hoping to eventually get magistrates to take her side against her husband.
Cops do it , if they want a certain outcome from a hearing they can and do arrange for a magistrate to be “sympathetic “ to their side, this happens often, police officers and magistrates work together , often are fellow “Masons” secret handshakes etc. .
We fool ourselves if we think the justice system is anything but corrupt and dysfunctional.
Ken I agree, I have seen in Brisbane police have taken alleged DV offender from a watch house in the outer suburbs and have them detained in Roma Street watch house because the inner city Woke magistrates give the result the police want. Police excuse is Watch house is full when it is not. They also make arrests on a Friday & hold over bail applications until Monday, then Bail denied. The the inner city Woke magistrates give their pathetic Woke reasons for denying bail. Alleged offender is held on false allegations, no evidence, no presumption of innocence, a denial of a basic Human Right.
I have heard a Magistrate in Brisbane court say, what if he goes and Murders after I let him out, my name will be in the news.
Yes I have seen the corruption between police and Magistrates.
Bettina is right when she says “ the madness of the Domestic violence industry” emphasis on “industry”. It’s a money maker for lawyers and their mates in the magistrates courts , as I said the Masonic Lodge plays a role , magistrates and senior cops have historically been Masons , that secret organisation which threatens death to any member who dares to speak publicly about it’s covert operations.
The Brisbane magistrate you refer to who would rather jail a man than risk his own reputation is sadly common. In WA the Law Society is on record as protesting about magistrates giving out violence orders too easily on a “just in case” basis , no evidence necessary , magistrates throw their principles out the window in their zeal to please the feminists, and their overinflated egos make them afraid of any public criticism.
If you remember the Morison government started a senate inquiry into the family court , and included this subject . Many people made submissions myself included I made these points and many more including the WA Supreme Court warning magistrates about careless granting of DV orders . This fell on deaf ears though and new laws since have in fact made the problem worse.
You can read what I wrote if you like it’s still all on the web, there were over a thousand submissions , the reference number is. 828. Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System.
The inquiry has been buried and the reason why is not clear , it’s disappointing that the people involved allowed this to happen.
Understand where you are coming from Ross but the issue for me is that the legislation is available to any woman at any time and most likely to be used when they are angry and/or mentally unwell. If a woman catches her husband cheating, she can use the law as a strategy to be financially rewarded and deliver retribution in the form of removing access to children. If a man catches his wife cheating, his best strategy might just be to walk away so she doesn’t use this law. This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Thanks for the chat Stephen. Nice to know I have a brother in arms in the fight against feminism. It just astounds me how people wilfully ignore the topic.
Thanks Stephen and agree with your comments however I tend to think that there is only 10% or so of the male population and maybe 50% plus of the female population that really understand the legal power women have in relationships. Most do not follow thought leaders like Bettina and Janice Fiamengo. Most have not directly felt that power wielded against them or a family member/friend. I believe this because I am somewhat treated as an outlier and conspiracy theorist by my extended family for trying to raise awareness. Funnily enough most of my extended family have sons whereas I have 2 daughters.
Thanks for the informative and interesting reply!
I agree that most men, and their families, get a nasty shock when a woman wields her power against a man. He’s still reeling from the shock of losing her, and is probably trying to “save” the relationship, at least for the kid’s sake, while she is methodically using the law to take everything she can.
Agree, now that you point it out (thanks!) that the percentages of men who know, before the event, is much less than the number of women.
I don’t even discuss these issues with my extended family. They are all dominated by professional women whose political conscience is based on the assumption that women are “oppressed”. Hubbies toe the line.
>> This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to
>> anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Well said!
That "anyone who understands" is 99% of the population. As soon as an argument escalates both know that She can throw a tantrum, threaten anything, be physically abusive, etc., but if He loses his cool in any way she now owns him, and can wipe him out - at a time of her choosing.
She only has to say that she "was afraid" in this incident. He doesn't even have the option of walking out until she calms down - that can be construed as "coercive control" or "domestic violence".
There are several videos describing this. In one, Jewell Drury went to a taxpayer funded "women's service" (no such for men, of course) and posed as a wife seeking a separation. The service coached her to find an incident in the past which could be construed as "dv" and then use it to get a violence order against him. They told her that by the time it came to court, even if it was unsuccessful, that she whould have gained strategic advantage to take the lot.
Bettina also has an interview with a former police officer who describes how, after calling the police to remove a good man from the house FOR NO JUST CAUSE, the woman will go to the lawyers to initiate separation. "They know" he says, that with the violence order they are all set up. "They" being every woman. You may be arguing with a nutcase - but she's no fool.
Yet, our taxpayer funded dv advertising and agencies, and simps like Albo, tell us that dv is about male "power and control".
The trouble for Women here is, if this new so called law is to be over exuberently used as a means by Police to interceed in domestic relationships for fear of poor outcomes, what actually may end up occuring is Men will be forced to use the legislation themselves in order to protect oneself from an abusive spouse instead of trying to manage an overly emotional person inhouse which is now an even more difficult task consideriing this new legislation. Therefore one may have to remain silent and make a complaint themselves in order to avoid the other party acting on hearsay or bias advice from lawyers who may have a vested interests in proceeding to hearing as who actually reads the legislation before going to Police? This could in fact have the opposite effect to that which it is intended and provide Men with protection from an abusive spouse should the same standard be applied being that the alledged offense is Criminal in nature and must be. This could lead to a lot of Women ending up with convictions which a Man wouldn't normally persue but is now forced to.
In theory, it should work as you describe, ie. men who would prefer to keep the police out of it having to seek a violence order as a defensive legal mechanism. Whether police would actually grant it is another matter. For a start, dv services are "trained" to regard a man reporting dv as the perpetrator.
Watch this space!
Hi Steven. Thank you for your comment. To your point, possibly so but the law itself cannot show favor. If one's spouse is behaving aggresively or using coercive control to get their way then regardless of one's gender the legislative ammendment to the Crimes Act cannot and does not allow favour to one gender or ipso facto, would not be according to law. My point is that some Women will automatically assume that it does favor them and proceed based on this belief which is simply not true although the very groups that advocated for this legislative change to begin with will promulgate this concept in order to appear relevant. The Government has given these Groups what they believe they wanted but only within the scope the law allows which cannot show fear nor favor to one party as everyone is equal under the law. The danger this assumption may create, is that it requires Men to engage the law early instead of trying to manage an abusive spose inhouse. If one is exposed as being abusive via any complaint then one should suffer similar repercussions via the law. In the end the underlying objective is always more litigation at a cost but costs awarded to the Man should his complaint be upheld based on evidence of fact will have the reverse effect for a Woman in subseqent divorce proceedings. Yes it will not be common but it is possible should a Man understand the law. Equality is a double edged sword and some will learn the hard way that wolves seek a slice of one's estate regarless of how that is achieved. This is what we the people must learn, legislation is all about legal fees and one should not take this course of action lightly. Being that Women tend to run more on emotion and hearsay than logic, who does one think will consider this conundrum more given what one stands to loose? Time will tell.
Two things always return, night and the ALP. How many terms will Dutton need to help sort this mess out.
Here is the thing about Power (over others), it is very difficult to find middle ground cus Power is all consuming. The Nature of Power is usually an 'all or nothing' scenario. That is to say, now that the Femo's have almost total power in the Fem-mocracy now called Australia, that is to say, Power over Education, Policy making, Law making, Justice system, Police +++, clawing Power back is way difficult as every area needs to be addressed. Total Victory belongs to the Femo machine, the gender war is over, only some mopping up left to do.
Men are sooo weak in the eyes of the Law now, its laughable. And as for respect of men, there is little. Women are laughing at us, and indeed men from other countries who did not allow the slippage to happen know our mistake. Australia internationally is known as a Femo stronghold and a place were men are humiliated daily all in the name of liberty.
For which man in Australia will come out from under a women's skirt to fight their own battles, committing economic and social suicide, for the sake of Men's rights? And in doing so make Mr Trump look like an Angel? Who ?
Fear and no care has gripped the men of Australia, Femos wait on every street corner to accuse us of being pedophiles, rapists, abusers, and more. Oh the Fear I can smell it.
The hierarchy of importance for most Australian women is, 1 The House, 2 themselves and children, 3 her job. 4 the dog and cat, 5 House, 6. Car. 7 her girl friends and associates. 8 Her soccer team mates. 9 other stuff. 10 husband, male partner.
Men handed the ' power of independence ' to women, and look at what happened? Before this, we were kings in our country, most women were depending on their men. So we handed the Baton over to women and continue to do it. See what men have done!
Can men ever make it back to the half way point or beyond under the political system as it stands? In your dreams . No way, it's likely to slide even further down hill.
Goodbye traditional Australia. The other New Australians, Muslims etc will take full advantage of your stupidity in maintaining our population and the fem-mocracy .
We continue to vote in female Polly's who clearly do not represent the men in their electorate. Why do we vote more in? Cus every man believes it's right to do so.
Haha, power to men will never return here. Oh , some small incremental adjustments maybe, that's it.
Blame yourselves, men have handed it over gladly.
Women's Studies is a major University course in Australia. Code for Man Hating Femo Studies, needs to be banned in all Universities in Australia.
Is it any wonder foreign governments warn their parents against sending their students to Australia for Education. They go home Femos.
It's no wonder men are in this mess.
Universities in Australia have been left wing propaganda havens for decades .Marxist tactics , brainwash the young people and you can control a society. Many of the women at universities were not really suited to an academic or scientific career.
These were traditionally the working class girls who left school early and may have had a brief period of employment before marriage . To the radical feminists this was seen as exploitation by the dreaded “patriarchy” , so the girls were herded into universities by left wing governments , here they where easy prey to feminists anti -male indoctrination. They aim of the feminists was not to ensure the young women got a useful education , only to be feminist crusaders. They were given useless degrees in subjects which where not helpful to employment.
If I had money for every man I heard say after his divorce case, ' I gave her the house and car and walked away ' said with pride, I would have some money now. This is code for Caved in to Asset Rape.
Asset Rape.. now there is a new term to be used...
If a woman claims to have been sexually assaulted and has done it before on several occasions then police should have the records and should decide not to charge the accused. This is what should happen , but feminist pressure of “zero tolerance” for sexual assault has forced police to go ahead with cases which in past years would have been dropped.
Then it would be irrelevant that such information was withheld from a jury.
This is the issue , political pressure put on police forces to give one section of the community an advantage , police forces should be protected from political interference , there’s work needed there too it seems , what a mess Australia’s justice system is in, who allowed it to get so bad?
Sexual history is history. It has bearing on who a person is. We disclose our race, gender, married status, age, political affiliation, voting record, if we're mothers or fathers and our employment. It's tells who we are. Which is why you get to confront your accuser. So you can say who they are. In a sexual assault case, I'm to believe there isn't a difference between a virgin and a prostitute. The facts of a case are relevant to a case. If we can ignore sexual history of women and say it's not relevant, can we say the past rapes of a rapist are relevant? Isn't that the rapist's past sexual history? It isn't relevant?
If 58% of interpersonal violence is bi-directional and 14% was uni-dimensional male to female? Wouldn't that make 28% uni-demensional female to male? Or maybe these numbers aren't heterosexual only?
I see that Alistair P D Bain has responded to you but I can assure you that as a gay man I've encountered aggressive Lesbians (December 2024 was the last time) and an ex female, straight, psychotherapist (I think it was in 2003, Sydney) once told me that 'she had a few lesbian patients who were notably abusive in their same sex partnerships'. I was shocked about this.
So a good question Matthew..
The trouble with Arndt is she makes provocative statements, uses generalises and tosses around figures, but never provides evidence. Think about that.
Nothing wrong with making provocative statements , it’s a good way of sparking debate on a subject .and the subject of the bias against men in our courts is a subject which should be discussed ,if only more politicians had the courage.
Alistair, disagree, Bettina always provides evidence.
The way I read this is that the law preventing the tendering of the fabrication history relates to it in a court of law. What prevents the information being released to the media?
Well, the complainant can't be named, obviously, nor any details published which could identify her. But the other problem is the media isn't interested.