This is by way of documenting some findings in the public interest, relating to Tasmania's Safe at Home family violence system (which Dr Fiona Girkin commented on). The following parties have, since March 2023, received a written explanation from me of why Police Family Violence Orders are unlawful:
Women's Legal Service Tasmania
Tasmania Police
The Hon Guy Barnett, Attorney-General of Tasmania and Minister for Justice
The Hon Jo Palmer, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Family Violence
The Law Society of Tasmania
Prof Jeremy Prichard
Prof Rufus Black, VC of the University of Tasmania
Tasmanian Labor (Dean Winter, Rebecca White and Meg Brown corresponded with me about it last year for a time)
Police Family Violence Orders (PFVOs) are unconstitutional as they require Tasmania Police to exercise federal judicial power - to consider federal family law matters when issuing or varying 12 month final orders (an exercise of judicial power). If police dismiss an application for a variation, the court is obliged to ask a potentially irrelevant question to establish its own jurisdiction to hear the matter, in s 14(11) of the Family Violence Act 2004. This is also unconstitutional as it violates the Kable doctrine regarding the institutional integrity of the courts.
I had sent an email to all those that Bettina suggested and thus far - I received a response from the ABC and the final lines are:
'Ombudsman’s Finding
The program did not breach the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy or impartiality.
Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns and for the opportunity to respond. Please be assured that your comments have been shared with the ABC team.
Yours sincerely,
Cath Regan
Investigations Officer
ABC Ombudsman’s Office'
-----------------------------
The other response I have received is from The University of Tasmania:
"Thank you for your email regarding the recent interview of one our academics and the ensuing coverage.
As I am sure you would understand, we have obligations to our people that we take very seriously and, as a result, we do not publicly discuss employment matters involving individual staff members.
I would like to make two important points about our university’s commitments and principles in relation to gender-based violence and to academic freedom.
The University of Tasmania is committed to fostering a community where respect, safety and inclusion are paramount. Our values in relation to gender-based violence are set out clearly in our Gender-Based Violence Action Plan, released in March this year and which you can read on our website.
A commitment to academic freedom is central to the University of Tasmania. We deeply value and will protect freedom of speech for our staff and our students, in line with our Academic Freedom and Free Speech Policy, which is also publicly available.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this issue.
On an ABC News report yesterday I heard that a study about intimate relations between a couple had 1/3 of males self reporting to some form of abuse. WHY IS THIS NEWS ALLOWED TO BE PUBLICALLY BROADCAST, yet when an academic presents what seems to me to be very reasonable training to the Tasmanian Police (and boy haven't they rolled over with a review of her training now). This only perpetuates Government sanctioned feminists attack on men. Enough is enough. Bettina, you recently interviewed a former Family Law judge who actually said that the beauracy behind the Family Act were EVIL. I hope Fiona is supported somehow in all this.
The University is being hypocritical and abusive to Dr Girkin because they support Dr Matthewson, who is a well-known parental alientation researcher. Gender is being used as a smokescreen to excuse increasingly procedurally unfair and unlawful family violence protection order legislation (PFVOs, PPDs). Men, women and children are all victims of this. If you are poor, you certainly won't get fair treatment. Like Robodebt.
The University of Tasmania was under fire some time ago.
They were pressured to deny the teacher, who was convicted of abusing Grace Tame, for him to undertake a post graduate degree. The mother of Grace Tame was also employed by that said University at the time and of course objected to his enrolment in the post-grad degree.
I am not sure what then transpired here, however the convicted abuser had earlier served his time in custody and then later made his application after his release.
What is happening in Tasmania? When the feminists (not the majority of concerned and caring women) were totally silent when one of their sisters (Sue Neal-Fraser) was convicted of killing her husband: On their own boat moored in the Derwent, hoisting him up through a hatch on the boat in the dead of night and bludging him to death with a wrench (non-existent) and tipping him overboard into the Derwent. Yes, there were brave females who took on this dubious Lindy Chamberlain type scenario, and also brave males as well. But, a unified approach that the DV industry normally receives, and with their significant funding, absolutely not: Silence.
Perhaps even the DV feminists were scared - eminent QC's (now KC's) were threatened with perjury if they stepped foot in Tasmania, to even question the judgement.
Thinking about this further, what on earth is there for the University to investigate?
The purpose of a university is to expand the body of knowledge by structured investigation and civil exploration of challenging ideas. So if the university is investigating that this professor may have expressed a challenging idea, then that university needs to be defunded, It should not receive tax payer funds.. It is not performing its basic function, if it is putting a chilling effect on civiling expressing challenging ideas.
So if it not investigating the expression of a challenging idea, then what is it is investigating?
Thank you so much for the draft letters and addresses. I sent them all. YOu make it so easy for us hard workers with limited time and emotional energy.
(Female here) It’s all true but… a lot of men still don’t report it so women are probably worse and in the US the demographic with the most DV is lesbians… tells you everything you need to know.
ENOUGH!!!! I had a dream of standing up in court yelling that word out with our sons BS from his immigrant ex..
That is another story how our system is being abused with false accusations from people here on partnership visas to stay in the country and receive funds, rehomed and free legal aid.
What of the police —they don’t seem independent- seems they can be bought! What chance do people have of a fair decision. So when someone has a person high on drugs, shoot a person, when the relative of the murderer approaches the police and offers what that police department wants the police will decide in favour of the one high on drugs who murdered the person. Not what I thought I could expect of the police service.
Australia is not a patriarchy anymore, it has become very female-centric. As of 30 June 2024, women hold 54.4% of Australian Government positions. If an ordinary bloke dares raise his head on any issue regarding this subject he will be attacked mercilessly by the feminazis and the loony leftists with the possibility of having his life completely destroyed. A big thank you to the level headed females that champion the cause on behalf of the blokes.
It begins early. My grandson, now 14, had a horrendous experience in Year 1, which has adversely coloured his view of the school system.
He was playing with his friends at lunchtime, when a teacher came and fetched him. She told him he was in 'big trouble' and took him to the Principal's office. There he saw a little girl who was a classmate, crying her eyes out, with bleeding scratches on her neck. She accused Billy* of having done it. He knew he hadn't done it, and now he had several teachers and the Principal, with raised voices, insisting he had. He saw an opportunity to escape, so he ran from the school to his Dad's business, about 500m away. He told my son what had happened and my son left the business in his employee's hands and took Billy back to school.
After much patronising language on behalf of the teachers, telling my son you can't believe everything your child says - like he didn't already know that - the little girl was paraded before him, prompting a fresh burst of hysterical crying as she showed my son her neck. As soon as he saw it my son knew Billy hadn't done it, because at that time he was a nail biter. He had virtually no nails.
When the teachers actually bothered to check, they realised that Billy wasn't responsible. The crying stopped instantly and the protests began. It turned out that the child had done it to herself because she 'hated' Billy. She actually said she believed that he'd be expelled so she wouldn't have to see him any more. She was six years old!
My question was rhetorical. Of course it was the mother, but ably supported by the school Principal and certain teachers, who appear to have been sided with the mother.
That sort of behaviour from the school should be documented and followed up with the Region that the school comes under and nipped in the bud. The six year old girl has effectively been rewarded for her deceit, in the absence of it being brought to her attention in the strongest terms.
"Show me the boy at 7 and I'll show you the man" ...but, hey, let's incentivize splitting the 2 parent family and arbitrarily establishing "custodial" and "non-custodial parents" - and $pending year upon year in Court! The real question is not why we have so much unbalanced/unhinged youth with "mental health" and "esteem issues" it is why there is not more! #LegalizeFatherhood
The statistics for offending youth from one-parent families is not published and perhaps not even not considered in relevant discussions on youth crime.
There have been recent cases in Victoria where mothers have wanted their children locked up (at home, or in protected custody) and even one that wanted her son sent back "home" to an African country, but no mention of fathers being involved, or most likely they were not present at home.
I did ask a Psychologist some time ago what he thinks has caused the youth crime wave elevation from a few decades ago, compared with how it exists now. His comment; "it's complicated".
There is a big elephant in the room that needs to be addressed, not skirted around.
This is by way of documenting some findings in the public interest, relating to Tasmania's Safe at Home family violence system (which Dr Fiona Girkin commented on). The following parties have, since March 2023, received a written explanation from me of why Police Family Violence Orders are unlawful:
Women's Legal Service Tasmania
Tasmania Police
The Hon Guy Barnett, Attorney-General of Tasmania and Minister for Justice
The Hon Jo Palmer, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Family Violence
The Law Society of Tasmania
Prof Jeremy Prichard
Prof Rufus Black, VC of the University of Tasmania
Tasmanian Labor (Dean Winter, Rebecca White and Meg Brown corresponded with me about it last year for a time)
Police Family Violence Orders (PFVOs) are unconstitutional as they require Tasmania Police to exercise federal judicial power - to consider federal family law matters when issuing or varying 12 month final orders (an exercise of judicial power). If police dismiss an application for a variation, the court is obliged to ask a potentially irrelevant question to establish its own jurisdiction to hear the matter, in s 14(11) of the Family Violence Act 2004. This is also unconstitutional as it violates the Kable doctrine regarding the institutional integrity of the courts.
I had sent an email to all those that Bettina suggested and thus far - I received a response from the ABC and the final lines are:
'Ombudsman’s Finding
The program did not breach the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy or impartiality.
Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns and for the opportunity to respond. Please be assured that your comments have been shared with the ABC team.
Yours sincerely,
Cath Regan
Investigations Officer
ABC Ombudsman’s Office'
-----------------------------
The other response I have received is from The University of Tasmania:
"Thank you for your email regarding the recent interview of one our academics and the ensuing coverage.
As I am sure you would understand, we have obligations to our people that we take very seriously and, as a result, we do not publicly discuss employment matters involving individual staff members.
I would like to make two important points about our university’s commitments and principles in relation to gender-based violence and to academic freedom.
The University of Tasmania is committed to fostering a community where respect, safety and inclusion are paramount. Our values in relation to gender-based violence are set out clearly in our Gender-Based Violence Action Plan, released in March this year and which you can read on our website.
A commitment to academic freedom is central to the University of Tasmania. We deeply value and will protect freedom of speech for our staff and our students, in line with our Academic Freedom and Free Speech Policy, which is also publicly available.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this issue.
Regards,
Rufus
Professor Rufus Black
Vice-Chancellor
Office of the Vice-Chancellor
University of Tasmania"
On an ABC News report yesterday I heard that a study about intimate relations between a couple had 1/3 of males self reporting to some form of abuse. WHY IS THIS NEWS ALLOWED TO BE PUBLICALLY BROADCAST, yet when an academic presents what seems to me to be very reasonable training to the Tasmanian Police (and boy haven't they rolled over with a review of her training now). This only perpetuates Government sanctioned feminists attack on men. Enough is enough. Bettina, you recently interviewed a former Family Law judge who actually said that the beauracy behind the Family Act were EVIL. I hope Fiona is supported somehow in all this.
The University is being hypocritical and abusive to Dr Girkin because they support Dr Matthewson, who is a well-known parental alientation researcher. Gender is being used as a smokescreen to excuse increasingly procedurally unfair and unlawful family violence protection order legislation (PFVOs, PPDs). Men, women and children are all victims of this. If you are poor, you certainly won't get fair treatment. Like Robodebt.
I listened to the 2GB interview with Dr Girkin. What a horror these organisations truly are.
I send you good thoughts Dr Girkin 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
After listening to this interview I was pushed to finally send off an email to all the organisations listed by Bettina.
For The Australian Press Council I used an email address and hope it is just as effective: media@presscouncil.org.au
I found it here: https://www.presscouncil.org.au/contact
The University of Tasmania was under fire some time ago.
They were pressured to deny the teacher, who was convicted of abusing Grace Tame, for him to undertake a post graduate degree. The mother of Grace Tame was also employed by that said University at the time and of course objected to his enrolment in the post-grad degree.
I am not sure what then transpired here, however the convicted abuser had earlier served his time in custody and then later made his application after his release.
What is happening in Tasmania? When the feminists (not the majority of concerned and caring women) were totally silent when one of their sisters (Sue Neal-Fraser) was convicted of killing her husband: On their own boat moored in the Derwent, hoisting him up through a hatch on the boat in the dead of night and bludging him to death with a wrench (non-existent) and tipping him overboard into the Derwent. Yes, there were brave females who took on this dubious Lindy Chamberlain type scenario, and also brave males as well. But, a unified approach that the DV industry normally receives, and with their significant funding, absolutely not: Silence.
Perhaps even the DV feminists were scared - eminent QC's (now KC's) were threatened with perjury if they stepped foot in Tasmania, to even question the judgement.
"Run with the Hares' and hunt with the Hounds."
Thinking about this further, what on earth is there for the University to investigate?
The purpose of a university is to expand the body of knowledge by structured investigation and civil exploration of challenging ideas. So if the university is investigating that this professor may have expressed a challenging idea, then that university needs to be defunded, It should not receive tax payer funds.. It is not performing its basic function, if it is putting a chilling effect on civiling expressing challenging ideas.
So if it not investigating the expression of a challenging idea, then what is it is investigating?
Thank you so much for the draft letters and addresses. I sent them all. YOu make it so easy for us hard workers with limited time and emotional energy.
(Female here) It’s all true but… a lot of men still don’t report it so women are probably worse and in the US the demographic with the most DV is lesbians… tells you everything you need to know.
ENOUGH!!!! I had a dream of standing up in court yelling that word out with our sons BS from his immigrant ex..
That is another story how our system is being abused with false accusations from people here on partnership visas to stay in the country and receive funds, rehomed and free legal aid.
The system is so #uc*ed..
Fiona Girkin is being interviewed on 2GB tomorrow at 8.15 AEDT... here's the link https://www.2gb.com/show/ben-fordham-live/
What of the police —they don’t seem independent- seems they can be bought! What chance do people have of a fair decision. So when someone has a person high on drugs, shoot a person, when the relative of the murderer approaches the police and offers what that police department wants the police will decide in favour of the one high on drugs who murdered the person. Not what I thought I could expect of the police service.
.
Bettina Arendt
I must signal to your attention a Danish study published in January 2022 in
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (based on 4835 persons aged 48 / 62
1986 /2011)
Conclusions : women seem immunised against love deceptions and marital ruptures
Suicide risks are 4 times more important for men.
+
No doubts Justice ‘s benevolance to women ( believe the woman attitude) in family courts explains these results
Ellen Coulter please report on the latest tragedy, female in QLD murdered 3 year old toddler yesterday. When are women going to stop killing.
Australia is not a patriarchy anymore, it has become very female-centric. As of 30 June 2024, women hold 54.4% of Australian Government positions. If an ordinary bloke dares raise his head on any issue regarding this subject he will be attacked mercilessly by the feminazis and the loony leftists with the possibility of having his life completely destroyed. A big thank you to the level headed females that champion the cause on behalf of the blokes.
Thank you Bettina.
It begins early. My grandson, now 14, had a horrendous experience in Year 1, which has adversely coloured his view of the school system.
He was playing with his friends at lunchtime, when a teacher came and fetched him. She told him he was in 'big trouble' and took him to the Principal's office. There he saw a little girl who was a classmate, crying her eyes out, with bleeding scratches on her neck. She accused Billy* of having done it. He knew he hadn't done it, and now he had several teachers and the Principal, with raised voices, insisting he had. He saw an opportunity to escape, so he ran from the school to his Dad's business, about 500m away. He told my son what had happened and my son left the business in his employee's hands and took Billy back to school.
After much patronising language on behalf of the teachers, telling my son you can't believe everything your child says - like he didn't already know that - the little girl was paraded before him, prompting a fresh burst of hysterical crying as she showed my son her neck. As soon as he saw it my son knew Billy hadn't done it, because at that time he was a nail biter. He had virtually no nails.
When the teachers actually bothered to check, they realised that Billy wasn't responsible. The crying stopped instantly and the protests began. It turned out that the child had done it to herself because she 'hated' Billy. She actually said she believed that he'd be expelled so she wouldn't have to see him any more. She was six years old!
I had a similar story at age 8
I'm sorry that happened to you. I know what it did to my darling grandson, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Learned behaviour.
Indeed, from whom?
How would a 6 year old girl learn that behaviour from anyone other than their mother?
My question was rhetorical. Of course it was the mother, but ably supported by the school Principal and certain teachers, who appear to have been sided with the mother.
That sort of behaviour from the school should be documented and followed up with the Region that the school comes under and nipped in the bud. The six year old girl has effectively been rewarded for her deceit, in the absence of it being brought to her attention in the strongest terms.
"Show me the boy at 7 and I'll show you the man" ...but, hey, let's incentivize splitting the 2 parent family and arbitrarily establishing "custodial" and "non-custodial parents" - and $pending year upon year in Court! The real question is not why we have so much unbalanced/unhinged youth with "mental health" and "esteem issues" it is why there is not more! #LegalizeFatherhood
A pertinent point James.
The statistics for offending youth from one-parent families is not published and perhaps not even not considered in relevant discussions on youth crime.
There have been recent cases in Victoria where mothers have wanted their children locked up (at home, or in protected custody) and even one that wanted her son sent back "home" to an African country, but no mention of fathers being involved, or most likely they were not present at home.
I did ask a Psychologist some time ago what he thinks has caused the youth crime wave elevation from a few decades ago, compared with how it exists now. His comment; "it's complicated".
There is a big elephant in the room that needs to be addressed, not skirted around.
She should be expelled. Easy. False allegations are a crime and should be treated as such.