What defines corruption ? Is the system corrupt? Is The system designed by solicitors and lawyers and judges who have a conflict of interest when it comes to creating an injust unequal biased gendered stereotyped system to create argument and debate in order to create jobs for the legal profession and universities coming through the system at the expense of bringing family values down divide and rule
Thank you for sharing your article on coercive control. As a middle-aged tall white male of European background, I've often felt that I should remain silent amidst the #MeToo movement and discussions on inequality. While I agree that minorities face greater challenges, the push to eliminate these issues sometimes feels counterproductive and discriminatory towards people like me.
A few weeks ago, I told my partner, who is a narcissist, that I wanted a separation. I would have left long ago, but we have two young boys. She is controlling and manipulative; whether it's coercive control or not, it's challenging to prove. She recently took "her" car away from me, accusing me of ruining it. I wrote about this incident in my latest post, which you might find interesting.
My lawyer advised me to be extremely cautious, especially with the recent focus on violence against women. As a tall, white, German man, I find myself under general suspicion from the outset.
Thank you for raising a voice for people in situations like mine. Your work is incredibly important and much appreciated.
I am lucky to have a wife who is not violent and does not exercise coercive control in any form, and I am the same.
It must also be truly horrible to be falsely accused and dragged through a justice system that has little interest in ensuring that truth is rewarded over good story-telling, or good acting performances.
It also makes me feel somewhat at a loss that our politicians have found that promoting legislation to allow these traits to flourish, somehow makes them feel more secure with their need to get re-elected.
Along with their lapdogs in the mainstream media, there appears to be no limit to the depths to which they will stoop.
Terry, some might call you lucky with respect to that comment when you referred to your supportive wife, but you are not alone or in the minority. The MSM will can you for it - evil men.
What I have found in talking to women who find that a male has been thrown to the wolves via the many Courts, is that predominately two responses often occur:
1. "Well, he must have done something wrong to cause that situation", and after that initial response it can be a "case closed". Game set and match. But....
2. What is happening more now is that supportive women of males, when they come across sisters, aunties, mothers etc seeing males alienated from their children, and, by proxy, the many supportive women who are then alienated, who have been formerly blind to how easy it is to delete men and their children. Those women now are raising red flags, and it is about time.
Society is always quick to assume men are guilty of something , all it takes is an accusation and men are once again forced to prove their innocence instead of the accusers proving guilt. There is a naivety in Western countries which assumes that the courts and police are always right and if a man is accused or charged or served with a DV order then he MUST have done something wrong and therefore deserves what he gets.
But such a mindset can have fatal consequences , a case from WA shows how self righteousness can go too far. Mr Ly Tong of Beechboro WA. was fatally shot by two police officers in his own home , he was unarmed and had done nothing wrong.
His family was devastated and wanted the police to charge the officer , but they refused and tried to blame Ly for his own death , claiming that he was hostile and of poor character , because there had been a DV order placed on him , in other words “ he deserved to be killed” .
Normally there is an enquiry into deaths at the hands of police, whether the deceased was armed or not.
The enquiries are normally handled by a separate police division, often referred to as "Ethical Standards". There are a few recently that have occurred in WA, many in remote communities.
Hopefully Mr Ly's family have also looked at addressing his death beyond any police-directed investigations.
A major part of the DV processing takes on a bigger emphasis due to constant media pressure that is intent on determining and then judging blame, often ignoring any statistical basis for so doing. This filters through to the police and eventually the courts, and also via a well-funded and government backed support base.
The WA police have shown over many years and many similar cases that they can’t be trusted to conduct their own internal investigations without being openly biased in favour of themselves.
But the Ly Tong case has been a challenge to their usual whitewash and cover ups ,Ly’s family the Tongs ( Ly,being his first name ) would not give up easily and got a coroners inquest against all odds , but this was a set up from the start, the coroner was very easy on the police officers and also seemed to blame Ly for his own death. The Tongs appealed the coroners decision and won a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. The saga continues and now over 18 months later they are still waiting for a date for this hearing . No doubt the police would like it to all go away and are stalling the case as long as possible.
What is certain is that if this case was ever brought before a jury in a properly conducted trial the jury would almost certainly find the police officer guilty , given the known facts of the case .
And that’s the reason why the police never charged the officer , they know that police procedures and training would also be on trial.
It’s the same in most states , police investigating themselves is open to abuse . Other more advanced countries have independent investigations for police misconduct , so why not Australia ? The conference on innocence might be the start of big changes to the whole justice system , not before time.
Victoria's Family Violence Benchbook is THE manual applied by enforcement and judicial services in the state. It's a remarkable read. Originally created in 2004 I summarised some of it a decade ago on the AVFM blog but thought the manual wasn't in use any more. Wrongly as it turns out.
The section titled "Responding to men who claim to be victims of family violence" is a real highlight for me. As an example..."Women, if they feel safe enough, may undertake small acts of retaliation, which can be construed as ‘evidence’ of a pattern of violence on their part."
All the systems and institutions in our communities are being weaponised in line with the aggressive strategies preferred by women. It will not end well.
Excellent article Bettina, THANK YOU for sharing your concern for the presumption of innocence. As a side note: The Matriarchy is so ingrained in the western world that even in THIS article, the symbol of justice is portrayed as a pagan>fe-MALE Goddess holding a TIPPED SCALE in HER in her own favor. It may seem trivial that justice in the west is symbolized by the image of a scantily clad wo-MAN tipping the scale in her own favor. I think not. Even the statue of liberty was a gift from free masonry luminaries, and it is based on the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar, Isis, Athena, and the Roman Goddess Libertas. I see even our symbols of justice as the pagan worship of wo-MEN, and being part of the problem!
ahhhh Misandry, dont you just Love it....... Im afraid to share my story because she (ex wife No.3) might come after me again. I managed to get away 'with the shirt on my back', but she might take that fvrom me too......
Lawyer here. Important to point out that all the behaviours encompassed by this new crininal law, are already covered by existing criminal laws.
Ergo, the new criminal law is 100% unnecessary.
If the UK experience is anything to go by, it's going to be an ineffective new law, too. In one major study of a representative police district in the UK, only 4 years after the offence was introduced, it was found that only 3.1% of cases involving coercive control unaccompanied by evidence of physical violence resulted in coercive control charges being laid, compared to 20.7% of cases where physical violence was also present : see https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:016a4746-e42a-4eb3-9034-7905970db2ac
In other words 89.3% - 96.9% of all complaints weren't result in charges being laid in the UK.
As usual the misandrists - ignorant & arrogant as ever - blame all this on incompetent police. 'Believe all womyn', as they say.
However the reality is far more straightforward - it is just normal policing.
First, in the real world, the police are already over-stretched and under-resourced, and are always reluctant to get involved in the tit for tat, he said/she said evidence-free BS that comes from intimate partners who are fighting.
Second, absent credible evidence (esp evidence of physical violence), most cops know that it is a waste of time and energy to charge anyone with any crime, let alone DV-related offences.
Third, the Australian police have already been badly burned by fake ADVO complaints. Until 2019, they'd charge people almost as a reflex. In 2024, they rarely do. Anecdotally, I can tell you that lawyers & magistrates all know how much the ADVO system has been abused & how many complaints are total fakes. The cops also tell me they won't go near these complaints anymore unless very credible evidence is provided to them.
Don't get me wrong. There are genuine victims of extremely nasty domestic violence peroetrators. I've represented them. In fact, there are probably far more than we know. It's a travesty that their perpetrators aren't brought to justice.
However, it's not really a surprise to me that the police are reluctant to get involved these days, without compelling evidence.
Maybe rather than passing stupid new laws, one idea might be to come down hard on people who file fake complaints with the police. This would likely deter those people from doing so, leading over time to an increase in confidence by the police to intervene (when the evidence supports it).
The misandrists have a role in this. It always fascinates me how they fail to understand that their protection of straight out liars and frauds - women who make false complaints to police - undermines their cause. If anything the misandrists should be demanding that women who make false allegations are exposed, charged, and prosecuted.
They should be helping the police, not pointing the finger at them.
But of course, they won't. Because 'believe all womyn'. Because 'patriarchy'. Because 'toxic masculinity'. Etc etc etc.
Conclusion - at the start, there will be a significant increase in complaints to the police. However, most complaints won't lead to charges. Over time, the police line will harden and without credible evidence of physical violence, the police will be wary of charging anyone under the new law.
No , coercing and or controlling another person has never been a criminal offence before ,has it? I can’t see how you can say that nothing has changed .
Good points Scipio, and also from you as a lawyer who has done research outside of Oz. When it comes to this it shows that DV issues are in fact "open boarders". You wrote:
"Third, the Australian police have already been badly burned by fake ADVO complaints. Until 2019, they'd charge people almost as a reflex. In 2024, they rarely do. Anecdotally, I can tell you that lawyers & magistrates all know how much the ADVO system has been abused & how many complaints are total fakes. The cops also tell me they won't go near these complaints anymore unless very credible evidence is provided to them".
The really of these dubious AVO's impacts not only men but also those women who are in genuine fear of their safety, if not wondering whether or not that they may be alive the next day.
A case in point was in Victoria, Philip Island, where a female Psychologist lived in fear of her life. In that community there were many allegations of DV against women that took up precious Police time. The Psychologist and her children were in fact stalked by the eventual killer of her. Her ex could travel undetected from Gippsland to Philip Island and continue even though speed cameras (registration identity) are often manned on the route to her (it is essentially a one way crossing of an Isthmus). Cops on the beat in that area dealing with allegations, later of those many disproved, were a barrier even though her killer was "known to the Police" and dangerous.
One hopes that the certain women who tied up those precious Police resources in Philip Island have some feeling of regret. I am not sure of the outcome/sentencing of this case, other than he, her alleged killer, suggested that she committed suicide.
There is often a malicious attitude towards men from prosecutors and police as well as magistrates , he should have been given bail for what was a trivial matter and based on only the word of the woman who had lied.
He should be entitled to compensation and the police concerned should be charged with unlawful imprisonment , malicious prosecution, ETC. What would Scipio say about that I wonder?
This case shows how DV orders are used as weapons , and overwhelmingly by women against men in marriage breakups , a law should never be made in such a careless way that it can be abused to the extent these laws are , but the legal profession does nothing, they are making money and there’s some evidence of a conspiracy . Magistrates have been known to drum up business for their “mates” in the legal industry.
A friend of mine going through a divorce was shocked when the Family Court magistrate hearing his case turned to his ex wife and asked her if she would like to have a Violence Restraining order against him.
His ex was just as surprised and to her credit declined the offer , but this is a disturbing insight into the workings of the courts , magistrates acting as ‘salesmen’ for the ‘products’ of the justice ‘industry’ , disgraceful.
Spot on, as always, Tina. In the UK, coercive control was made a criminal act in January 2016. Despite the ample evidence that coercive control of men by their female partners is very common - and impactful (see, for example, the empirical evidence here: https://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/351/408) 98% of prosecutions and convictions are of men against their female partners. As I constantly try to get over to people, it's irrelevant that the wording of the legislation is gender neutral if the police do not put a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). And, whether they do so is most often subject to the "compelling advice|" from a multi-agency panel upon which sits Women's Aid. And those few cases which pass that very high hurdle will probably be dropped by the CPS. This is how institutionalized prejudice is done.
"But naturally, there’s never, ever any mention of female perpetrators controlling men."
Nevertheless it seems the public may be slowly waking up to the truth. Last year's ANROWS survey revealed that "Community understanding about the gendered nature of domestic violence has gone backwards, with 41 per cent of people wrongly believing both men and women are equally likely to be perpetrators." Of course, to the feminazi, "going backwards" means getting closer to the truth. So they simply double down on their lies. Like this classic Hitlerian BIG LIE from ANROWS CEO Padma Raman, in response to the findings: "The findings are problematic because we know that domestic and family violence is perpetrated, by and large, by men against women," Ms Raman said.
MEN for fuck sake stop giving these women the benefit of the doubt and start reporting them.
STOP being lazy and thinking the law will do its job.... it won't.
STOP thinking you will fix it if you just give it more time.
STOP thinking it's all your fault.
STOP thinking you just have to save your marriage when it's already broken.
STOP blaming yourself.
STOP taking the abuse because no-one will believe you.
STOP taking the threats of I'll destroy you if you leave.
STOP taking the theats of, you won't see your children if you ever leave me.
STOP taking the threats of "I'll tell everyone you're the abuser if you leave me"
STOP taking the threats of "if you leave I'll tell everyone you rape me"
Ask me how I know.........
In the end I left because of all of this, with a stabbing on the way out.
I now have nothing because I didn't report it.
I documented it but it was not believed because I didn't report it when it all happened so they sided with the woman because it can't have possibly happen at the hands of a woman.
The "long game" describes this common situation from Bettina's article...
'Never any mention of men who spend their lives being coerced by vindictive partners. Men who don’t dare leave the relationship because that would mean putting their children at risk by leaving them with a frightening mother.'
Most wives are canny enough to keep their "coercive control" at a level which intimidates the husband into compliance with her every demand, but below the level where he could present a case in court - especially bearing in mind that he knows that in the event of a fight over custody, the scales are strongly tipped in favour of the mother.
When it comes to court, the wife will be well capable of presenting herself as a good and loving parent, and, with the recent weaponisation of "abuse", with herself as the victim of an abusive man. Did any of her provocation result in him glowering and slamming a door (albeit with no physical threat to her)? She's remembered it, and how it "scared" her and the kids. (Jewell Drury describes how she presented herself to a taxpayer funded women's legal aid as a a woman seeking divorce, and the officer talked her through the past, looking for just such an incident as the basis for a violence order!)
One "low level" method is the occassional picking of a fight over nothing at all. Typically over something to do with the kids. Eg. he wants to take Billy to a football match, as "boy time". When he presents this perfectly reasonable request (note, that he's already learned that "request" is the power dynamic with his wife), she goes ballistic! He may take Billy to that football match, but she's intimidated him into being very careful with future "requests".
The "long game" here is that he knows that if he leaves that Billy will now be under the control of a woman who is determined to destroy the fatherhood that Billy needs. So he stays, clinging to some sort of chance of preparing Billy for life.
And yet, you look at something like the start of the metoo movement, and you soon start to see that the awful ghastly vicissitudes of yours are spared to the women who - when they please - can easily just decide to denounce abuse 20, 30 years after it has happened. And nobody is there telling them what you were told, “you should have reported it then”, or “then we could have done something”. No. They’re exempt from such requirements by the law. They can not report it and decide to do so 30 years after the “event”, or whenever they please, and the whole world sits up in attention. Talk about double standards…
Actors bow because they were once considered the lowest caste in the community. Everyone in the audience was their social superior, even prostitutes. Women weren't allowed on the stage because no woman could be of that low a class. Given that the actors' skill sets revolve around memorising lines and pretense it's not hard to understand why.
The law cannot solve all problems and attempting to create an utopia through legal means is likely to create a dystopia worse than the original problem.
Coercive control to me seems an extension of the law far too far into the relations between adults seeking to impose an ideal within which both parties are sensible competent, altruistic, responsible, share common values and contribute equally. In the real world few if any relationships fit this model. Severla decades ago I used to rent a house in which the landlord provided a gardener one day a fortnight. His wife came round one day and asked to borrow ten pounds from my wife, which she gave her, and the next day he came round to repay it and to say his wife was an alcoholic, had got drunk that night and not to lend her any more money. He obviously was systematically acting to prevent her gaining access to cash. Is that coercive control or sensible pragmatic and caring altruism? If both parties are competent adults then the solution to an abusive relationship is not the law but to leave. If there are non-adults or those without the capacity to make their own decisions then the law and courts perhaps have to be involved but purely from the point of view of ensuring that a competent and responsible adult is acting on their behalf. Fraud remains fraud and assault remains assault so prosecute men and women for that but if two competent adults chose to live together and then fall lets not get the law sitting in judgement of how they chose to interact.
The world isn't perfect and never will be but providing yet another route for cynical and manipulative women to threaten and take advantage of men is not going to improve it.
I also doubt the statistics that have women and men using emotional abuse and coercive control in similar numbers. Reputational damage and emotional abuse are stereotypically female means of aggression and the empathy gap in society makes it much easier for women and harder for men to respond to. I have no study to point to but would be very surprised if this sort of behaviour is not predominantly female.
Well said! It's so bizarre that the government should be getting itself involved in human relationships at this level they can get away with it! Just too bizarre for most people to be able to call out the absurdity.
Yes scream at all non stud males to jump off the cliff
What defines corruption ? Is the system corrupt? Is The system designed by solicitors and lawyers and judges who have a conflict of interest when it comes to creating an injust unequal biased gendered stereotyped system to create argument and debate in order to create jobs for the legal profession and universities coming through the system at the expense of bringing family values down divide and rule
Hi Bettina
Good to see you on Substack now.
Best of luck with it all.
Hi Bettina,
Thank you for sharing your article on coercive control. As a middle-aged tall white male of European background, I've often felt that I should remain silent amidst the #MeToo movement and discussions on inequality. While I agree that minorities face greater challenges, the push to eliminate these issues sometimes feels counterproductive and discriminatory towards people like me.
A few weeks ago, I told my partner, who is a narcissist, that I wanted a separation. I would have left long ago, but we have two young boys. She is controlling and manipulative; whether it's coercive control or not, it's challenging to prove. She recently took "her" car away from me, accusing me of ruining it. I wrote about this incident in my latest post, which you might find interesting.
My lawyer advised me to be extremely cautious, especially with the recent focus on violence against women. As a tall, white, German man, I find myself under general suspicion from the outset.
Thank you for raising a voice for people in situations like mine. Your work is incredibly important and much appreciated.
Best regards,
Walter
In my experience throughout my career as a nurse, coercive control is extremely prevalent within the nursing profession.
It is covert, it is hidden and easily deniable.
I am lucky to have a wife who is not violent and does not exercise coercive control in any form, and I am the same.
It must also be truly horrible to be falsely accused and dragged through a justice system that has little interest in ensuring that truth is rewarded over good story-telling, or good acting performances.
It also makes me feel somewhat at a loss that our politicians have found that promoting legislation to allow these traits to flourish, somehow makes them feel more secure with their need to get re-elected.
Along with their lapdogs in the mainstream media, there appears to be no limit to the depths to which they will stoop.
Terry, some might call you lucky with respect to that comment when you referred to your supportive wife, but you are not alone or in the minority. The MSM will can you for it - evil men.
What I have found in talking to women who find that a male has been thrown to the wolves via the many Courts, is that predominately two responses often occur:
1. "Well, he must have done something wrong to cause that situation", and after that initial response it can be a "case closed". Game set and match. But....
2. What is happening more now is that supportive women of males, when they come across sisters, aunties, mothers etc seeing males alienated from their children, and, by proxy, the many supportive women who are then alienated, who have been formerly blind to how easy it is to delete men and their children. Those women now are raising red flags, and it is about time.
Society is always quick to assume men are guilty of something , all it takes is an accusation and men are once again forced to prove their innocence instead of the accusers proving guilt. There is a naivety in Western countries which assumes that the courts and police are always right and if a man is accused or charged or served with a DV order then he MUST have done something wrong and therefore deserves what he gets.
But such a mindset can have fatal consequences , a case from WA shows how self righteousness can go too far. Mr Ly Tong of Beechboro WA. was fatally shot by two police officers in his own home , he was unarmed and had done nothing wrong.
His family was devastated and wanted the police to charge the officer , but they refused and tried to blame Ly for his own death , claiming that he was hostile and of poor character , because there had been a DV order placed on him , in other words “ he deserved to be killed” .
Normally there is an enquiry into deaths at the hands of police, whether the deceased was armed or not.
The enquiries are normally handled by a separate police division, often referred to as "Ethical Standards". There are a few recently that have occurred in WA, many in remote communities.
Hopefully Mr Ly's family have also looked at addressing his death beyond any police-directed investigations.
A major part of the DV processing takes on a bigger emphasis due to constant media pressure that is intent on determining and then judging blame, often ignoring any statistical basis for so doing. This filters through to the police and eventually the courts, and also via a well-funded and government backed support base.
The WA police have shown over many years and many similar cases that they can’t be trusted to conduct their own internal investigations without being openly biased in favour of themselves.
But the Ly Tong case has been a challenge to their usual whitewash and cover ups ,Ly’s family the Tongs ( Ly,being his first name ) would not give up easily and got a coroners inquest against all odds , but this was a set up from the start, the coroner was very easy on the police officers and also seemed to blame Ly for his own death. The Tongs appealed the coroners decision and won a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. The saga continues and now over 18 months later they are still waiting for a date for this hearing . No doubt the police would like it to all go away and are stalling the case as long as possible.
What is certain is that if this case was ever brought before a jury in a properly conducted trial the jury would almost certainly find the police officer guilty , given the known facts of the case .
And that’s the reason why the police never charged the officer , they know that police procedures and training would also be on trial.
It’s the same in most states , police investigating themselves is open to abuse . Other more advanced countries have independent investigations for police misconduct , so why not Australia ? The conference on innocence might be the start of big changes to the whole justice system , not before time.
Victoria's Family Violence Benchbook is THE manual applied by enforcement and judicial services in the state. It's a remarkable read. Originally created in 2004 I summarised some of it a decade ago on the AVFM blog but thought the manual wasn't in use any more. Wrongly as it turns out.
https://resources.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/article/1053062
The section titled "Responding to men who claim to be victims of family violence" is a real highlight for me. As an example..."Women, if they feel safe enough, may undertake small acts of retaliation, which can be construed as ‘evidence’ of a pattern of violence on their part."
All the systems and institutions in our communities are being weaponised in line with the aggressive strategies preferred by women. It will not end well.
Excellent article Bettina, THANK YOU for sharing your concern for the presumption of innocence. As a side note: The Matriarchy is so ingrained in the western world that even in THIS article, the symbol of justice is portrayed as a pagan>fe-MALE Goddess holding a TIPPED SCALE in HER in her own favor. It may seem trivial that justice in the west is symbolized by the image of a scantily clad wo-MAN tipping the scale in her own favor. I think not. Even the statue of liberty was a gift from free masonry luminaries, and it is based on the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar, Isis, Athena, and the Roman Goddess Libertas. I see even our symbols of justice as the pagan worship of wo-MEN, and being part of the problem!
ahhhh Misandry, dont you just Love it....... Im afraid to share my story because she (ex wife No.3) might come after me again. I managed to get away 'with the shirt on my back', but she might take that fvrom me too......
Lawyer here. Important to point out that all the behaviours encompassed by this new crininal law, are already covered by existing criminal laws.
Ergo, the new criminal law is 100% unnecessary.
If the UK experience is anything to go by, it's going to be an ineffective new law, too. In one major study of a representative police district in the UK, only 4 years after the offence was introduced, it was found that only 3.1% of cases involving coercive control unaccompanied by evidence of physical violence resulted in coercive control charges being laid, compared to 20.7% of cases where physical violence was also present : see https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:016a4746-e42a-4eb3-9034-7905970db2ac
In other words 89.3% - 96.9% of all complaints weren't result in charges being laid in the UK.
As usual the misandrists - ignorant & arrogant as ever - blame all this on incompetent police. 'Believe all womyn', as they say.
However the reality is far more straightforward - it is just normal policing.
First, in the real world, the police are already over-stretched and under-resourced, and are always reluctant to get involved in the tit for tat, he said/she said evidence-free BS that comes from intimate partners who are fighting.
Second, absent credible evidence (esp evidence of physical violence), most cops know that it is a waste of time and energy to charge anyone with any crime, let alone DV-related offences.
Third, the Australian police have already been badly burned by fake ADVO complaints. Until 2019, they'd charge people almost as a reflex. In 2024, they rarely do. Anecdotally, I can tell you that lawyers & magistrates all know how much the ADVO system has been abused & how many complaints are total fakes. The cops also tell me they won't go near these complaints anymore unless very credible evidence is provided to them.
Don't get me wrong. There are genuine victims of extremely nasty domestic violence peroetrators. I've represented them. In fact, there are probably far more than we know. It's a travesty that their perpetrators aren't brought to justice.
However, it's not really a surprise to me that the police are reluctant to get involved these days, without compelling evidence.
Maybe rather than passing stupid new laws, one idea might be to come down hard on people who file fake complaints with the police. This would likely deter those people from doing so, leading over time to an increase in confidence by the police to intervene (when the evidence supports it).
The misandrists have a role in this. It always fascinates me how they fail to understand that their protection of straight out liars and frauds - women who make false complaints to police - undermines their cause. If anything the misandrists should be demanding that women who make false allegations are exposed, charged, and prosecuted.
They should be helping the police, not pointing the finger at them.
But of course, they won't. Because 'believe all womyn'. Because 'patriarchy'. Because 'toxic masculinity'. Etc etc etc.
Conclusion - at the start, there will be a significant increase in complaints to the police. However, most complaints won't lead to charges. Over time, the police line will harden and without credible evidence of physical violence, the police will be wary of charging anyone under the new law.
In the meantime - stay safe.
No , coercing and or controlling another person has never been a criminal offence before ,has it? I can’t see how you can say that nothing has changed .
Good points Scipio, and also from you as a lawyer who has done research outside of Oz. When it comes to this it shows that DV issues are in fact "open boarders". You wrote:
"Third, the Australian police have already been badly burned by fake ADVO complaints. Until 2019, they'd charge people almost as a reflex. In 2024, they rarely do. Anecdotally, I can tell you that lawyers & magistrates all know how much the ADVO system has been abused & how many complaints are total fakes. The cops also tell me they won't go near these complaints anymore unless very credible evidence is provided to them".
The really of these dubious AVO's impacts not only men but also those women who are in genuine fear of their safety, if not wondering whether or not that they may be alive the next day.
A case in point was in Victoria, Philip Island, where a female Psychologist lived in fear of her life. In that community there were many allegations of DV against women that took up precious Police time. The Psychologist and her children were in fact stalked by the eventual killer of her. Her ex could travel undetected from Gippsland to Philip Island and continue even though speed cameras (registration identity) are often manned on the route to her (it is essentially a one way crossing of an Isthmus). Cops on the beat in that area dealing with allegations, later of those many disproved, were a barrier even though her killer was "known to the Police" and dangerous.
One hopes that the certain women who tied up those precious Police resources in Philip Island have some feeling of regret. I am not sure of the outcome/sentencing of this case, other than he, her alleged killer, suggested that she committed suicide.
There is often a malicious attitude towards men from prosecutors and police as well as magistrates , he should have been given bail for what was a trivial matter and based on only the word of the woman who had lied.
He should be entitled to compensation and the police concerned should be charged with unlawful imprisonment , malicious prosecution, ETC. What would Scipio say about that I wonder?
This case shows how DV orders are used as weapons , and overwhelmingly by women against men in marriage breakups , a law should never be made in such a careless way that it can be abused to the extent these laws are , but the legal profession does nothing, they are making money and there’s some evidence of a conspiracy . Magistrates have been known to drum up business for their “mates” in the legal industry.
A friend of mine going through a divorce was shocked when the Family Court magistrate hearing his case turned to his ex wife and asked her if she would like to have a Violence Restraining order against him.
His ex was just as surprised and to her credit declined the offer , but this is a disturbing insight into the workings of the courts , magistrates acting as ‘salesmen’ for the ‘products’ of the justice ‘industry’ , disgraceful.
Spot on, as always, Tina. In the UK, coercive control was made a criminal act in January 2016. Despite the ample evidence that coercive control of men by their female partners is very common - and impactful (see, for example, the empirical evidence here: https://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/351/408) 98% of prosecutions and convictions are of men against their female partners. As I constantly try to get over to people, it's irrelevant that the wording of the legislation is gender neutral if the police do not put a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). And, whether they do so is most often subject to the "compelling advice|" from a multi-agency panel upon which sits Women's Aid. And those few cases which pass that very high hurdle will probably be dropped by the CPS. This is how institutionalized prejudice is done.
"But naturally, there’s never, ever any mention of female perpetrators controlling men."
Nevertheless it seems the public may be slowly waking up to the truth. Last year's ANROWS survey revealed that "Community understanding about the gendered nature of domestic violence has gone backwards, with 41 per cent of people wrongly believing both men and women are equally likely to be perpetrators." Of course, to the feminazi, "going backwards" means getting closer to the truth. So they simply double down on their lies. Like this classic Hitlerian BIG LIE from ANROWS CEO Padma Raman, in response to the findings: "The findings are problematic because we know that domestic and family violence is perpetrated, by and large, by men against women," Ms Raman said.
Report, report, report, report.
MEN for fuck sake stop giving these women the benefit of the doubt and start reporting them.
STOP being lazy and thinking the law will do its job.... it won't.
STOP thinking you will fix it if you just give it more time.
STOP thinking it's all your fault.
STOP thinking you just have to save your marriage when it's already broken.
STOP blaming yourself.
STOP taking the abuse because no-one will believe you.
STOP taking the threats of I'll destroy you if you leave.
STOP taking the theats of, you won't see your children if you ever leave me.
STOP taking the threats of "I'll tell everyone you're the abuser if you leave me"
STOP taking the threats of "if you leave I'll tell everyone you rape me"
Ask me how I know.........
In the end I left because of all of this, with a stabbing on the way out.
I now have nothing because I didn't report it.
I documented it but it was not believed because I didn't report it when it all happened so they sided with the woman because it can't have possibly happen at the hands of a woman.
In other words, women are good at playing the long game.
Ahh... always worth remembering!
The "long game" describes this common situation from Bettina's article...
'Never any mention of men who spend their lives being coerced by vindictive partners. Men who don’t dare leave the relationship because that would mean putting their children at risk by leaving them with a frightening mother.'
Most wives are canny enough to keep their "coercive control" at a level which intimidates the husband into compliance with her every demand, but below the level where he could present a case in court - especially bearing in mind that he knows that in the event of a fight over custody, the scales are strongly tipped in favour of the mother.
When it comes to court, the wife will be well capable of presenting herself as a good and loving parent, and, with the recent weaponisation of "abuse", with herself as the victim of an abusive man. Did any of her provocation result in him glowering and slamming a door (albeit with no physical threat to her)? She's remembered it, and how it "scared" her and the kids. (Jewell Drury describes how she presented herself to a taxpayer funded women's legal aid as a a woman seeking divorce, and the officer talked her through the past, looking for just such an incident as the basis for a violence order!)
One "low level" method is the occassional picking of a fight over nothing at all. Typically over something to do with the kids. Eg. he wants to take Billy to a football match, as "boy time". When he presents this perfectly reasonable request (note, that he's already learned that "request" is the power dynamic with his wife), she goes ballistic! He may take Billy to that football match, but she's intimidated him into being very careful with future "requests".
The "long game" here is that he knows that if he leaves that Billy will now be under the control of a woman who is determined to destroy the fatherhood that Billy needs. So he stays, clinging to some sort of chance of preparing Billy for life.
So, don't make the mistakes I made in not reporting the abuse.
In the end I got told "you should have built a picture of abuse like women do".
"Then we could have done something"
And yet, you look at something like the start of the metoo movement, and you soon start to see that the awful ghastly vicissitudes of yours are spared to the women who - when they please - can easily just decide to denounce abuse 20, 30 years after it has happened. And nobody is there telling them what you were told, “you should have reported it then”, or “then we could have done something”. No. They’re exempt from such requirements by the law. They can not report it and decide to do so 30 years after the “event”, or whenever they please, and the whole world sits up in attention. Talk about double standards…
Worse; $MeToo is and always was about MENOPUASE & $
Notice virtually ALL $MeToo accusers are OVER THE HILL >B >ACTRESSES?
And what is an actor's job? @ It is to LIE
Actors bow because they were once considered the lowest caste in the community. Everyone in the audience was their social superior, even prostitutes. Women weren't allowed on the stage because no woman could be of that low a class. Given that the actors' skill sets revolve around memorising lines and pretense it's not hard to understand why.
The law cannot solve all problems and attempting to create an utopia through legal means is likely to create a dystopia worse than the original problem.
Coercive control to me seems an extension of the law far too far into the relations between adults seeking to impose an ideal within which both parties are sensible competent, altruistic, responsible, share common values and contribute equally. In the real world few if any relationships fit this model. Severla decades ago I used to rent a house in which the landlord provided a gardener one day a fortnight. His wife came round one day and asked to borrow ten pounds from my wife, which she gave her, and the next day he came round to repay it and to say his wife was an alcoholic, had got drunk that night and not to lend her any more money. He obviously was systematically acting to prevent her gaining access to cash. Is that coercive control or sensible pragmatic and caring altruism? If both parties are competent adults then the solution to an abusive relationship is not the law but to leave. If there are non-adults or those without the capacity to make their own decisions then the law and courts perhaps have to be involved but purely from the point of view of ensuring that a competent and responsible adult is acting on their behalf. Fraud remains fraud and assault remains assault so prosecute men and women for that but if two competent adults chose to live together and then fall lets not get the law sitting in judgement of how they chose to interact.
The world isn't perfect and never will be but providing yet another route for cynical and manipulative women to threaten and take advantage of men is not going to improve it.
I also doubt the statistics that have women and men using emotional abuse and coercive control in similar numbers. Reputational damage and emotional abuse are stereotypically female means of aggression and the empathy gap in society makes it much easier for women and harder for men to respond to. I have no study to point to but would be very surprised if this sort of behaviour is not predominantly female.
Well said! It's so bizarre that the government should be getting itself involved in human relationships at this level they can get away with it! Just too bizarre for most people to be able to call out the absurdity.