It's a disgrace that Women only have to say they fear for their safety without any evidence and the Father is treated like a criminal without any hope of seeing his Children.
I don't think comments are open on your spectator article yet. I will comment when I get the chance. I spent an extra seven or eight years in a dead marriage because I knew that the family law situation would simply screw me. The financial workover would have been one thing but to lose the day-to-day contact with my kids would have been soul destroying. I managed to hang on long enough to get my youngest to 16 years old before she dumped me. I can only imagine how devastating it is for Dads who are sliced out of their kids lives when the kids are young. I was lucky, in a way.
If anyone reading this has a subscription to Spectator Australia, can you please urgently post a comment under my article, which has just been published? We need to impress on readers just how many families will be affected by these drastic changes to family law. https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/a-return-to-winner-takes-all-custody-battles/
Years ago, Attorney Gloria Allred used every media outlet at her disposal to destroy the reputation of a young man. The young man in question had impregnated a young woman who worked for his family restaurant. He wanted to be part of the baby's life. The mother had the opportunity to attend a prestigious university on the east coast - might have been Harvard. Allred used every tool to paint a picture of a low class individual because, Good God, he was only an employee of a family restaurant. Meanwhile, the woman was painted us this virtuous young woman with so much ahead of her. At the time in California you had to get a court order to take children out of state if the other parent opposed it. Allred argued in courts, and the media, that of course she should be allowed to take the baby with her to the east coast even thought it would deny the ability for the young man to truly interact with his child. I wrote a letter to the LA Times, which I canceled long ago, stating that if the young woman was intelligent enough to get into Harvard, she surely could get into a university in California which has many top schools, and that should be the compromise. It was pure selfishness on the part of the young woman, but she was young and that is normal. However, to have an attorney go after and destroy the young man in the media was unforgivable. I stopped referring myself as a feminist ever since.
Mention is made of children's SAFETY which is what this is all about, but haven't we gone too far trying to protect children .
Children today are so overprotected that it is making them neurotic, they are wrapped in cotton wool, not allowed to take even the slightest risk.
Kids used to ride their bikes to school even in primary school, now most are chauffeur driven by parents, kids used to swim in lakes and rivers, climb trees etc. Now this is deemed to be unsafe and banned.
Now we see even more laws which will further reduce the time spent with fathers who were more likely to play outdoors with children.
When these kids grow up they will be fearful and timid , exactly what the Feminist/ Marxists want , a populace easily intimidated and controlled.
My son basically stopped going to school by year 6.
My daughter was lucky to attend more than 50% of the time.
Everyone refused to assist me, from legal aid, the schools, the school district, the department of education and the education minister, they all created an endless cycle of referring me up the chain of command, once at the top I get referred to the beginning again.
Nobody wants to take responsibility. I suspect DHS was involved, and my children as adults confirmed this, but I was never contacted by them.
Not only that, the deadliest combination for children that puts high numbers of children at risk, is their mother with a biologically not related male.
In the past few years, Los Angeles has paid out large sums to extended family members for the death of a young child (always seems to be a boy) who was murdered by the mother and boyfriend. The story is always the same. Extended family members plead for intervention and it is ignored.
Verity... Hell no. They are corrupt. I knew a couple of dedicated ladies that helped mothers whose children were taken by child protection authorities, police, and judges and handed over to paedophile fathers. In SA, Vic, and NSW the entire sysytem is corrupt.
I took this up with a colleague in London who told me it is generally recognised in child protection and child trafficking investigation circles that Australia is the global capital. Currently, I am trying to discover if cases I reported to the Director of Welfare forty years ago were actually acted upon.
I will not swear to accuracy on the above reports because I did not investigate them myself, but my intuition tells me they have substance. Quite apart from child abuse issues, I am aware that Australia's entire judicial/political system is corrupted beyond remedy. We will have to start all over again.
You are right to say that and the justice system needs serious reform. But politicians will do nothing and it is up to the people to rise up.
Australia's justice system is virtually unchanged since colonial times, it was a brutal and biased colonial system foisted onto us by the British masters of the day.
The same could be said of the political system both state and fed.
This is the 21st century why can't we have a justice system to suit the modern world?
But the parasites , AKA lawyers, magistrates , judges etc. are very happy with this closed shop, where a lawyer can work his way to the top and be a judge.
That should be the first thing to change, in more modern countries lawyers do not become judges , they are sourced from other walks of life.
Nothing will change unless people protest and this is getting harder , politicians hide from the public under the excuse of "security" and Parliament House Canberra is ringed by a security fence. .
You will get no argument from me, Ken. If we want change we will have to do it ourselves. But the system does not want change and it will fight us. Timing is out of our hands but, when the system's guardians get ill and die from the mRNA jab, the path will be clear to make change. And the first change must be to scrap representationalism and adopt genuine democracy, as this was defined by Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Acton, and the Irish Monks. Contrary to what we are told, there were many democracies throughout history so we have plently of ancient wisdom to draw from. Anyway, I have studied these and have documented how it can be done and will brook no attempts to retain elitism. Our basic philosophy must be, either we live under tyranny or die defeating it. Some of us will be lucky.
If we had a leader like Abraham Lincoln there might be some hope, he would not have tolerated the feminists. But where are the strong leaders we need today?
But I'm not sure what you mean by genuine democracy, if if is not
Lincoln nailed it with "Government of the people, by the people and for the people", meaning "an informed populace formulates all policy ad the public service implements it". No middle man. No parliament, politicians, elections, and no corruption. Just local, regional and national consensus. When Lincoln was assassinated, the Populist movement was formed to install genuine democracy. They, too, failed. The plutocrats overwhelmed them, just as they do today. There will be no new democrcies until the plutocrats are all dead.
Kay, it is so lovely to encounter another human being whose eyes read the same landscape the same way. After we have won this war, and war it is, I will remember the name Kay as a sister-in-arms.
So sorry to hear your daughter is heading down the same destructive path as her mother, David. That is tragic. Re dad friendly lawyers, perhaps contact this group and see if they have any suggestions.
https://menslegalservice.org.au/. I know the key players here and they certainly are on side, although I gather they only have Brisbane lawyers at this stage in Qld.
Thanks Bettina. Your article has reminded me of the horrors I went through back in the late 1990’s when my ex-wife took my children from Canberra to Queensland against my will and there was nothing I could do about it. I lost contact with my children for many years and my relationship with my then 12 year old daughter never recovered. She is now in her mid-30’s and just ended her 10 year marriage with her husband and has stated she wants 100% custody of their two young girls. It looks as if these treacherous changes to the Family Law Act by despicable Labor will enable the return of those horrid days I endured back in the 1990’s. I feel for my son-in-law as he has a real battle ahead, and it may also threaten my future relationship with my granddaughters as my daughter blames everything bad in her life on me and already wants to deny me contact with them. :-(
Do you know any great 'Dad-friendly' Family Law lawyers on the Gold Coast?
I'd like to think we have a chance of getting them to pull back on the critical issue of joint parental responsibility - particularly since the government has lied about having support from key inquiries. It all depends on whether our people can persuade some of the cross bench Senators to demand changes.
Likely 100% - maybe minor amendments if anyone has the guts to put them up, but it'll go through, Labor control of the Reps and Greens support in the Senate of course. I wonder what Lambie will say and do? :-(
You would have thought that being brought up with a single parent (mother) that Albanese would have been more in favour of a father's input. Obviously not. I can remember in the 1970's when a truck driver divorced his wife and SHE ended up with his tools and equipment. Not half but the whole. Now these women are coming for the children. Shame on them but then it does not surprise me. There seems to be a generation of bitter, nasty females out there who forget that men are a necessary asset to the community and to relationships. This is not feminism.....its anarchy and they will bring down the very fabric of society which in the past they held together. Certainly different times.
As of 10 years or more ago, the mother’s got “sole” (85-100%) or “predominant” (65-84%) “parental responsibility” in 75% plus of cases compared to less than 5% for fathers, with the balance being shared responsibility. With the proposed changes, in all likelihood, it would not be surprising that mothers’ would get sole or predominant care in 90% to 95% of cases with father’s getting less than 1%.
The ABS “research” on this has not been update in over a decade and the family court and AGs refuse to keep such data, nor do they keep data on the percentage of cases where one or both parents make claims of domestic violence.
Kay, I am so pleased you are planning to contact your local MP but best to frame the arguments not in terms of fathers' rights but arguing that the evidence is overwhelming that children need both parents in their lives.
Another important and really disturbing article, Bettina. You may already know this, while the 2016 Personal Safety Survey may say only a tiny number of people are physically assaulted by their partner each year it should be noted that this survey result is likely to be inflated for a number of reasons. For example, as per the previous 2011 survey, the report shows three times as many women as men were surveyed and only women could do the survey interviews (unless, by some miracle, a man was requested). It also notes there was significantly less people who participated in the 2016 survey than was planned for. The reduced numbers resulted in a ridiculously high margin for error for that survey. With less than a third of the popular vote, the ALP and its allies believe they have a mandate for another wholesale attack on the family. Ironically, not for the first time, safety is being used as a political weapon. By removing fathers from families they can keep mothers and their children married to, and entirely dependent on, the state. The ALP is the party of failure.
All these surveys are intended to show a high level of violence towards women by their husbands / boyfriends etc. but fail and the best the feminists can come up with is " 1.5 % of women are assaulted in domestic situations".
This is very low and does not say whether or not the women were hurt and could be just a push or a slap , serious injury is even more rare, less than 1% .
This is such a low percentage it is not worth worrying about , women in Australia are now the safest they have ever been .
And anyway many women provoke or instigate domestic violence themselves, but this is the subject politicians and most journalists are afraid to raise, for fear of incurring the wrath of radical feminists who control Canberra and most of the media .
You make a good point that is consistent with Bettina's interview with a policewoman who was in the DV unit as I recall it. I think it's very likely the statistics we often see in the media are manipulated to exaggerate the numbers in favour of the narrative being pushed. If it doesn't say what it's supposed to we would never see it.
Police forces are being used as tools in the political war against men, DV units are full of vicious young women who take great pleasure in kicking a man out of his own house on no evidence apart from lies and exaggerations . But fair minded and decent police officers are browbeaten to conform.
Even high ranking police officers are too scared to rock the feminist boat and so the injustices continue .
DV laws allow for the legal owner of a property to be denied possession and use of that property under threat of jail, this is a threat to democracy and I wonder why it has not been challenged in the high court.
The right to peaceful possession of one's own property is a foundation stone of a free society.
A NSW magistrate in 1999 said words to the effect that women often provoke DV by nagging and bitching , this magistrate was telling it as she { it was a woman} saw it.
This caused an uproar from feminist politicians and this magistrates was attacked for speaking the truth.
A senator, Amanda Vanstone was especially vocal in her condemnation of this female magistrate, but Vanstone was a Liberal and this at least confirms that BOTH major parties were hostage to feminists.
And robust research that has been rigourously peer reviewed over the past 3 or 4 decades finds that 75% (+/- 5%) of domestic violence is reciprocal ~ i.e. both partners are perpetrators.
Further, the peer reviewed research that was commissioned by the UK Home Office to support the "committee" (all were militant feminists except for one token male) in their recommendations to the UK government, was rejected by this militant feminist committee, becuase 1. The research findings surprised them and 2. The research findings did not support the recommendations they intended to make to the UK government on (latest female privilegeand "fem-splaning") "coercive control". The commissioned research found that there is gender symmetry arround the perpetration on domestic violence and coercive control and that there is
gender symmetry arround the victimisation from domestic violence and coercive control; not what militant feminists want ro hear, especially those in AU like Qld AG fentiman (still don't know why a toxic feminist has "man" in her name)who shriill "only men..." obviously this woman doesn't intend to yave sons
Ironically this flawed UK legislation is being used /touted throughout AU and the rest of western world to support the introduction of draconian "coercive control" laws were only a male is a perpetrator and a female can profiteer from her claimed victimhood
So Queensland has a woman AG, another example of the recent and rapid increase in women in power.
There should be nothing wrong with that but you could assume that a lot of these women have strong feminist sentiments.
They are mostly of an age where the feminist influence would have affected them in education and the media .
Also the way women behave in big organisations is a worry . They can be very "catty", alliances are made and dissenters are frozen out of the "clique", backbiting , character assassination etc, far worse than men.
These laws coming up will pass if the feminist influence has affected enough of these new women in power.
As you say, these things are happening in all Western countries and that deserves a closer look, is this part of a bigger picture?, a "war on the West" in the words of Douglas Murray.
A.K.A. also known as "research" (cough) based on "the dependent variable". Or to put it another way, asking a question in such a way that the answer can be construed to support whatever narrative the authors of the so-called "research" wish to falsely claim. This type of misandristicly biased so-called "research" has become the mainstay for feminist /women's studies research for the past decade if not 6 and the woke drones and political parties /political hacks that spruik that "only [marxist] feminism has all the answers”.
Who was it who said "there are lies and then there are statistics". I agree with you Joe that these polls/surveys are biased from the start and we are now seeing a lot more of data abuse. From the weather to history, it is all being re-written to suit someone's agenda. And for the sake of what? Bringing down society, electing an incompetent Party, subscribing to something which does not exist? What sort of world do these people want to live in......a false one???
It was Benjamin Disraeli (twice UK PM) who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'd add a fourth and fifth; "AU family court orders and AU DV allegations"
Thanks Verity - this survey is a good example of what you are saying. It was interesting to see how the ABS adjusted the survey participant shortfall in such a way that they were able to maintain the same 3 to 1 proportion, which I think shows where their priority was. Getting the right outcome was far more important than getting an accurate outcome. Gave the game away I think. As you could probably guess, I'm a little dubious of survey results these days.
It's a disgrace that Women only have to say they fear for their safety without any evidence and the Father is treated like a criminal without any hope of seeing his Children.
I don't think comments are open on your spectator article yet. I will comment when I get the chance. I spent an extra seven or eight years in a dead marriage because I knew that the family law situation would simply screw me. The financial workover would have been one thing but to lose the day-to-day contact with my kids would have been soul destroying. I managed to hang on long enough to get my youngest to 16 years old before she dumped me. I can only imagine how devastating it is for Dads who are sliced out of their kids lives when the kids are young. I was lucky, in a way.
That's a tragic story, Elizabeth. But so typical of what is happening everywhere now. I am pleased it forced you to see the light.
If anyone reading this has a subscription to Spectator Australia, can you please urgently post a comment under my article, which has just been published? We need to impress on readers just how many families will be affected by these drastic changes to family law. https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/a-return-to-winner-takes-all-custody-battles/
Years ago, Attorney Gloria Allred used every media outlet at her disposal to destroy the reputation of a young man. The young man in question had impregnated a young woman who worked for his family restaurant. He wanted to be part of the baby's life. The mother had the opportunity to attend a prestigious university on the east coast - might have been Harvard. Allred used every tool to paint a picture of a low class individual because, Good God, he was only an employee of a family restaurant. Meanwhile, the woman was painted us this virtuous young woman with so much ahead of her. At the time in California you had to get a court order to take children out of state if the other parent opposed it. Allred argued in courts, and the media, that of course she should be allowed to take the baby with her to the east coast even thought it would deny the ability for the young man to truly interact with his child. I wrote a letter to the LA Times, which I canceled long ago, stating that if the young woman was intelligent enough to get into Harvard, she surely could get into a university in California which has many top schools, and that should be the compromise. It was pure selfishness on the part of the young woman, but she was young and that is normal. However, to have an attorney go after and destroy the young man in the media was unforgivable. I stopped referring myself as a feminist ever since.
Mention is made of children's SAFETY which is what this is all about, but haven't we gone too far trying to protect children .
Children today are so overprotected that it is making them neurotic, they are wrapped in cotton wool, not allowed to take even the slightest risk.
Kids used to ride their bikes to school even in primary school, now most are chauffeur driven by parents, kids used to swim in lakes and rivers, climb trees etc. Now this is deemed to be unsafe and banned.
Now we see even more laws which will further reduce the time spent with fathers who were more likely to play outdoors with children.
When these kids grow up they will be fearful and timid , exactly what the Feminist/ Marxists want , a populace easily intimidated and controlled.
Without going into too many details,
My son basically stopped going to school by year 6.
My daughter was lucky to attend more than 50% of the time.
Everyone refused to assist me, from legal aid, the schools, the school district, the department of education and the education minister, they all created an endless cycle of referring me up the chain of command, once at the top I get referred to the beginning again.
Nobody wants to take responsibility. I suspect DHS was involved, and my children as adults confirmed this, but I was never contacted by them.
There's plenty of evidence showing sexual abuse is more common by mum's boyfriend than the natural dad.
Mothers are by far the biggest killers of children.
Not only that, the deadliest combination for children that puts high numbers of children at risk, is their mother with a biologically not related male.
In the past few years, Los Angeles has paid out large sums to extended family members for the death of a young child (always seems to be a boy) who was murdered by the mother and boyfriend. The story is always the same. Extended family members plead for intervention and it is ignored.
Boys are punished more severely and are more likely to get blamed
In two of the stories, the boys were tortured because the moms believed they were gay.
I remember that
Mothers kill more children
Yes a woman in Queensland killed 7 children, and just recently in WA a mother killed her 2 daughters.
But society and the justice system always goes easy on them, all the woman has to say is she was stressed or mentally ill and she gets sympathy.
But if the father kills his kids it's a different story , then there is public outrage.
that's interesting. I haven't looked at that part.
Verity... Hell no. They are corrupt. I knew a couple of dedicated ladies that helped mothers whose children were taken by child protection authorities, police, and judges and handed over to paedophile fathers. In SA, Vic, and NSW the entire sysytem is corrupt.
I took this up with a colleague in London who told me it is generally recognised in child protection and child trafficking investigation circles that Australia is the global capital. Currently, I am trying to discover if cases I reported to the Director of Welfare forty years ago were actually acted upon.
I will not swear to accuracy on the above reports because I did not investigate them myself, but my intuition tells me they have substance. Quite apart from child abuse issues, I am aware that Australia's entire judicial/political system is corrupted beyond remedy. We will have to start all over again.
You are right to say that and the justice system needs serious reform. But politicians will do nothing and it is up to the people to rise up.
Australia's justice system is virtually unchanged since colonial times, it was a brutal and biased colonial system foisted onto us by the British masters of the day.
The same could be said of the political system both state and fed.
This is the 21st century why can't we have a justice system to suit the modern world?
But the parasites , AKA lawyers, magistrates , judges etc. are very happy with this closed shop, where a lawyer can work his way to the top and be a judge.
That should be the first thing to change, in more modern countries lawyers do not become judges , they are sourced from other walks of life.
Nothing will change unless people protest and this is getting harder , politicians hide from the public under the excuse of "security" and Parliament House Canberra is ringed by a security fence. .
You will get no argument from me, Ken. If we want change we will have to do it ourselves. But the system does not want change and it will fight us. Timing is out of our hands but, when the system's guardians get ill and die from the mRNA jab, the path will be clear to make change. And the first change must be to scrap representationalism and adopt genuine democracy, as this was defined by Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Acton, and the Irish Monks. Contrary to what we are told, there were many democracies throughout history so we have plently of ancient wisdom to draw from. Anyway, I have studied these and have documented how it can be done and will brook no attempts to retain elitism. Our basic philosophy must be, either we live under tyranny or die defeating it. Some of us will be lucky.
If we had a leader like Abraham Lincoln there might be some hope, he would not have tolerated the feminists. But where are the strong leaders we need today?
But I'm not sure what you mean by genuine democracy, if if is not
Lincoln nailed it with "Government of the people, by the people and for the people", meaning "an informed populace formulates all policy ad the public service implements it". No middle man. No parliament, politicians, elections, and no corruption. Just local, regional and national consensus. When Lincoln was assassinated, the Populist movement was formed to install genuine democracy. They, too, failed. The plutocrats overwhelmed them, just as they do today. There will be no new democrcies until the plutocrats are all dead.
Kay, it is so lovely to encounter another human being whose eyes read the same landscape the same way. After we have won this war, and war it is, I will remember the name Kay as a sister-in-arms.
So sorry to hear your daughter is heading down the same destructive path as her mother, David. That is tragic. Re dad friendly lawyers, perhaps contact this group and see if they have any suggestions.
https://menslegalservice.org.au/. I know the key players here and they certainly are on side, although I gather they only have Brisbane lawyers at this stage in Qld.
Thanks Bettina. Your article has reminded me of the horrors I went through back in the late 1990’s when my ex-wife took my children from Canberra to Queensland against my will and there was nothing I could do about it. I lost contact with my children for many years and my relationship with my then 12 year old daughter never recovered. She is now in her mid-30’s and just ended her 10 year marriage with her husband and has stated she wants 100% custody of their two young girls. It looks as if these treacherous changes to the Family Law Act by despicable Labor will enable the return of those horrid days I endured back in the 1990’s. I feel for my son-in-law as he has a real battle ahead, and it may also threaten my future relationship with my granddaughters as my daughter blames everything bad in her life on me and already wants to deny me contact with them. :-(
Do you know any great 'Dad-friendly' Family Law lawyers on the Gold Coast?
What are the chances of passage, Tina? Any ideas at this point?
I'd like to think we have a chance of getting them to pull back on the critical issue of joint parental responsibility - particularly since the government has lied about having support from key inquiries. It all depends on whether our people can persuade some of the cross bench Senators to demand changes.
Likely 100% - maybe minor amendments if anyone has the guts to put them up, but it'll go through, Labor control of the Reps and Greens support in the Senate of course. I wonder what Lambie will say and do? :-(
You would have thought that being brought up with a single parent (mother) that Albanese would have been more in favour of a father's input. Obviously not. I can remember in the 1970's when a truck driver divorced his wife and SHE ended up with his tools and equipment. Not half but the whole. Now these women are coming for the children. Shame on them but then it does not surprise me. There seems to be a generation of bitter, nasty females out there who forget that men are a necessary asset to the community and to relationships. This is not feminism.....its anarchy and they will bring down the very fabric of society which in the past they held together. Certainly different times.
As of 10 years or more ago, the mother’s got “sole” (85-100%) or “predominant” (65-84%) “parental responsibility” in 75% plus of cases compared to less than 5% for fathers, with the balance being shared responsibility. With the proposed changes, in all likelihood, it would not be surprising that mothers’ would get sole or predominant care in 90% to 95% of cases with father’s getting less than 1%.
The ABS “research” on this has not been update in over a decade and the family court and AGs refuse to keep such data, nor do they keep data on the percentage of cases where one or both parents make claims of domestic violence.
Kay, I am so pleased you are planning to contact your local MP but best to frame the arguments not in terms of fathers' rights but arguing that the evidence is overwhelming that children need both parents in their lives.
Another important and really disturbing article, Bettina. You may already know this, while the 2016 Personal Safety Survey may say only a tiny number of people are physically assaulted by their partner each year it should be noted that this survey result is likely to be inflated for a number of reasons. For example, as per the previous 2011 survey, the report shows three times as many women as men were surveyed and only women could do the survey interviews (unless, by some miracle, a man was requested). It also notes there was significantly less people who participated in the 2016 survey than was planned for. The reduced numbers resulted in a ridiculously high margin for error for that survey. With less than a third of the popular vote, the ALP and its allies believe they have a mandate for another wholesale attack on the family. Ironically, not for the first time, safety is being used as a political weapon. By removing fathers from families they can keep mothers and their children married to, and entirely dependent on, the state. The ALP is the party of failure.
All these surveys are intended to show a high level of violence towards women by their husbands / boyfriends etc. but fail and the best the feminists can come up with is " 1.5 % of women are assaulted in domestic situations".
This is very low and does not say whether or not the women were hurt and could be just a push or a slap , serious injury is even more rare, less than 1% .
This is such a low percentage it is not worth worrying about , women in Australia are now the safest they have ever been .
And anyway many women provoke or instigate domestic violence themselves, but this is the subject politicians and most journalists are afraid to raise, for fear of incurring the wrath of radical feminists who control Canberra and most of the media .
Scare? Or don't want to?
You make a good point that is consistent with Bettina's interview with a policewoman who was in the DV unit as I recall it. I think it's very likely the statistics we often see in the media are manipulated to exaggerate the numbers in favour of the narrative being pushed. If it doesn't say what it's supposed to we would never see it.
Police forces are being used as tools in the political war against men, DV units are full of vicious young women who take great pleasure in kicking a man out of his own house on no evidence apart from lies and exaggerations . But fair minded and decent police officers are browbeaten to conform.
Even high ranking police officers are too scared to rock the feminist boat and so the injustices continue .
DV laws allow for the legal owner of a property to be denied possession and use of that property under threat of jail, this is a threat to democracy and I wonder why it has not been challenged in the high court.
The right to peaceful possession of one's own property is a foundation stone of a free society.
A NSW magistrate in 1999 said words to the effect that women often provoke DV by nagging and bitching , this magistrate was telling it as she { it was a woman} saw it.
This caused an uproar from feminist politicians and this magistrates was attacked for speaking the truth.
A senator, Amanda Vanstone was especially vocal in her condemnation of this female magistrate, but Vanstone was a Liberal and this at least confirms that BOTH major parties were hostage to feminists.
And robust research that has been rigourously peer reviewed over the past 3 or 4 decades finds that 75% (+/- 5%) of domestic violence is reciprocal ~ i.e. both partners are perpetrators.
Further, the peer reviewed research that was commissioned by the UK Home Office to support the "committee" (all were militant feminists except for one token male) in their recommendations to the UK government, was rejected by this militant feminist committee, becuase 1. The research findings surprised them and 2. The research findings did not support the recommendations they intended to make to the UK government on (latest female privilegeand "fem-splaning") "coercive control". The commissioned research found that there is gender symmetry arround the perpetration on domestic violence and coercive control and that there is
gender symmetry arround the victimisation from domestic violence and coercive control; not what militant feminists want ro hear, especially those in AU like Qld AG fentiman (still don't know why a toxic feminist has "man" in her name)who shriill "only men..." obviously this woman doesn't intend to yave sons
Ironically this flawed UK legislation is being used /touted throughout AU and the rest of western world to support the introduction of draconian "coercive control" laws were only a male is a perpetrator and a female can profiteer from her claimed victimhood
So Queensland has a woman AG, another example of the recent and rapid increase in women in power.
There should be nothing wrong with that but you could assume that a lot of these women have strong feminist sentiments.
They are mostly of an age where the feminist influence would have affected them in education and the media .
Also the way women behave in big organisations is a worry . They can be very "catty", alliances are made and dissenters are frozen out of the "clique", backbiting , character assassination etc, far worse than men.
These laws coming up will pass if the feminist influence has affected enough of these new women in power.
As you say, these things are happening in all Western countries and that deserves a closer look, is this part of a bigger picture?, a "war on the West" in the words of Douglas Murray.
A.K.A. also known as "research" (cough) based on "the dependent variable". Or to put it another way, asking a question in such a way that the answer can be construed to support whatever narrative the authors of the so-called "research" wish to falsely claim. This type of misandristicly biased so-called "research" has become the mainstay for feminist /women's studies research for the past decade if not 6 and the woke drones and political parties /political hacks that spruik that "only [marxist] feminism has all the answers”.
Who was it who said "there are lies and then there are statistics". I agree with you Joe that these polls/surveys are biased from the start and we are now seeing a lot more of data abuse. From the weather to history, it is all being re-written to suit someone's agenda. And for the sake of what? Bringing down society, electing an incompetent Party, subscribing to something which does not exist? What sort of world do these people want to live in......a false one???
It was Benjamin Disraeli (twice UK PM) who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'd add a fourth and fifth; "AU family court orders and AU DV allegations"
Thanks Verity - this survey is a good example of what you are saying. It was interesting to see how the ABS adjusted the survey participant shortfall in such a way that they were able to maintain the same 3 to 1 proportion, which I think shows where their priority was. Getting the right outcome was far more important than getting an accurate outcome. Gave the game away I think. As you could probably guess, I'm a little dubious of survey results these days.