Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

"THE PLAN" to End Civil Rights in Australia

In 2011 Gillard's radical feminist government outlawed shared parenting. That was just warming up for 2012. Australia is about to be thrust into the legal Dark Ages to, you guessed it, to protect women and children.

The scope of a planned $80M campaign by the Australian government (The National Councils Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021) is a far reaching, invasive assault of monumental scope designed to eliminate the civil rights of men and children across the Australian continent.The Government will misrepresent this as consolidating isolated and different laws - "…and we support shared parenting" - yeah right - and Men get $3M for sheds.

The machinations of "The plan" involve but are not limited to

  • The systemic enabling and likely promotion of child abuse by mothers and other women
  • The Australian government suppression of research that implicates women as child abusers
  • The legal redefinition of domestic violence to be non-violence including acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or simply not doing what she wants or looking at another womans breasts
  • The legal redefinition of domestic violence to exclude male victims from that legal definition
  • Arresting and holding men in prison, without bail, on the accusation alone of domestic violence
  • Summarily evicting men from their homes while forcing them to maintain financial responsibility for those homes on nothing more than an accusation from their wives or girlfriends
  • Shifting the burden of proof on domestic violence from the state to the defendant. The accused will be forced to prove he did not commit an act of violence.
  • The legal redefinition of rape, and subsequent shift of the burden of proof onto a defendant to prove that he obtained specific kinds of verbal consent for sex.


A series of articles started on "A Voice for Men" website regarding this witch hunt that will sweep the Australian continent
Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights


Excerpt of speech launching this Titanic disaster by former "Status for Women" Minister, Kate Ellis, 13/12/11

 "Victorian Police Crime Statistics show that more than 40,800 incidents of family violence were reported over the twelve months to the end of June this year…up by 14.6 per cent from the previous year. Moreover, one in four children is estimated to have witnessed family violence against their mother or step-mother… Wife Torture as part of a successful campaign to enable abused women to obtain restraining orders against their partners… gender inequality remains the fundamental cause of violence against women and children and data indicates that domestic and family violence is one of the main causes of homelessness for women in Australia (cue McClelland) … these factors can lead to reduced social inclusion (Plibersnarl)

 Enlisting informants.
 …partnering with community organisations across the country to prevent Family violence before it happens  … the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA) to engage with communities on the National Plan…

 Community groups in Bendigo are working with the White Ribbon Day Foundation to progress existing activities, while other community groups have committed to developing information for newly arrived migrant women on their legal rights in Australia if they experience violence and abuse".

The usual outrageous victim story
 Julie says in this issue of Parity,
 If this [Plan] had been in place during my experience I probably would have exited homelessness within a year because there would have been collaboration between services and there would have been more support programs. If programs for the perpetrators had been in place and were compulsory for all perpetrators, I don't believe domestic violence would have been such an issue.

 This Plan must be a success.

 It has to be  so that we can keep faith with people like Julie."

at http://www.kateellis.fahcsia.gov.au/speeches/Pages/parity_mag_13dec11.aspx

This crusade is getting way out of hand and likely involves the I-VAWA, international arm of the USA feminist extremists civilising men of other nations.

 We will soon have "special" domestic violence courts, anonymous informants, presumption of guilt, no protections from perjury, police state CPS/welfare, multimillions on childcare, no-contact for fathers until 4yo… this is rapidly degenerating into an outright persecution of men.


Last edit: by srldad101

Charles Waterstreet, in his column in the SMH on the weekend mentioned an ecent that took place at an art exhibition he attended:

"The evening finished with a two-fisted display of the women's art of boxing the ears of her boyfriend. He received an ambiguous text during a scrumptious dinner. Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud. He sounded very proper and polite, a neatly suited man in his 20s with bright green eyes and a strong jaw. Stating over and over, ''It was nothing, she was a friend.'' Slap. Slap. Slap. He stood with his arms by his sides, like a soldier taking it like a man should, murmuring, ''It's nothing. She's nobody.'' Twenty slaps, like rolling thunder."

Nobody interveed, nobody protested except the artist, eventually:

"Cullen, himself unsteady on his feet after a photographic session, intervened. Stop it. Stop it now."

Waterstreet gives some indication why:

"Until the biff, she was an engaging girl with blazing features and amazing blonde hair."

He goes on to say that the couple then retreated to the toilets where he says, the slapping seems to have continued. Nobody called the police, nobody thought to intervene more directly. why? Simple, he was male, he'd received a text from a woman, of course she had the right to bash him… Of course, if he had defeded himslef, he would have found the entire female part of the crowd arrayed against him, calling police, urging their own husbands to "do something", taking her off to offer support after she was "assaulted".

This is the society feminism has created.It is dysfuntional, it is not balanced, it is not reasonable. I despise it to its core, which is full of rot. It has given us something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime - 2 PMs worse than John Howard, both in the thrall of an orhanisation that doesn't evn have an affiliation with the ALP - Emily's List. And it's barely even started on its desructive path. It's "achieved" all that destruction without even occupying he highest positions in strength, because it has played the age-old woman's game of "if you really loved me, you'd do this for me" in the most dishonest way possible.

There's nothing to be proud of in stating one is a feminst. nothing at all.

Last edit: by Craigo

"Dear Abby" letter from a Male victim of domestic violence - from Robert Franklin

Here's a letter to that everlasting doyenne of taste, manners and everything that is right and proper in middle-America, Dear Abby (Sun Journal, 10/19/11).  The Dear Abby column has been around since before most of us were born.  It's taken on every imaginable topic in the realm of the mundane from the accepted way to install a roll of toilet paper (I'm not making that up), to significant issues about marriage, divorce and children.

But the letter is perhaps a first in the annals of the column that was first penned by Abigail Van Buren.  It's about domestic violence and it was written by a male victim.

DEAR ABBY: I have been dating Samba for a few years, but in the last year she has started becoming violent when we are having an argument. I think this is domestic abuse, but she claims it isnt because Im a man.

I'm not someone who can take abuse without repercussions. I'm like a mirror. If someone brings violence into my life, I reflect it back on them. So far, I have restrained my instincts  but eventually I know Samba will cross the line and Im going to snap. I have the potential to hurt her badly.

I have tried everything to make Samba understand how I feel, but she continues to insist it doesn't matter because I'm so much bigger and stronger than she is. When she hits me, it doesn't hurt physically, but the anger I feel is indescribable. I'm at the end of my rope and considering breaking up with her before I hurt her.

I don't want to end the relationship, but I think it's the only way to make her see things from my perspective. Or should I call the cops the next time she hits me?  BRUISED AND ABUSED BOYFRIEND


Now, anyone who's reasonably aware of the facts about domestic violence knows that the point Bruised and Abused raises is an important one.  Beyond the facts that (a) its a man writing to Dear Abby, (b) hes the victim of DV and ( c) Abby doesn't question his status as victim, all of which are important, B and A describes his emotional reaction to Samba's physical violence.  It's clear that, as was established in a study done for the Centers for Disease Control, it's Samba who hits first, and it's Samba who's in danger of serious injury.

I've cited that study time and again for the proposition that, if the DV establishment were really serious about protecting women from injury, it would never stop publicizing the study's findings.  The DV establishment should be telling women and girls "don't hit first".  My guess is that and that alone could save more injury to women than all of the Duluth Model Aggression Wheels ever printed.  But of course, in the minds of DV advocates, doing a simple, obvious thing that would protect women, constitutes blaming the victim.  No, actually it gives her information she can use to avoid becoming one.  Apparently they don't want to do that.

Anyway, Abby's advice to Bruised and Abused is acceptable, albeit not long on information.  It says nothing about how common female-on-male violence is; it offers no sympathy of the you are not alone type.  The response is more concerned with the welfare of children who B and A and Samba don't even have than it is with the man writing.  Maybe that's because he says she doesn't really hurt him.

On the plus side, the response correctly points out that he's the one who'll land in jail if the violence escalates.  He describes himself as larger and stronger than his girlfriend, so, even though she starts it, if he responds in kind, hell be the one in jail with the restraining order lodged against him.

Abby's last word is Run! and I hope he takes the advice.

But readers didnt let that advice stand, and Abby, to her credit, published their responses both to her and to B and A.  Here's the follow-up (SAVE Services, 12/22/11).

The letters responding to Bruised and Abused aren't as knowledgeable as Id like, but many make good points.  They say that much abuse is committed by women; they say that men are raised to never hit a woman and are therefore likely to suffer abuse; they emphasize that what hes experiencing is domestic abuse, something Abby neglected to mention.  The talk about TROs and the need for him to get out while he can.

My point is that this is now part of mainstream public discourse.  Dear Abby is read by millions of people.  Indeed, it's about as mainstream as it gets in American life.  Im here to tell everyone that ten years ago or even less, the type of information provided by Abby and her readers would never have appeared.  Ive tracked public perceptions of DV since about 1998 and I cant overstate how much has changed in public awareness of the reality of DV.  Slowly, but inexorably, the nonsense peddled by the DV establishment is being supplanted by both solid science and the type of personal stories that B and A and Abbys readers tell.

As is so often the case, the great mass of people are ahead of policy-making elites.  Those elites are the ones who lobby Congress and state legislatures and the ones in office who hear what they have to say.  Theyre the elected officials who budget money, the bureaucrats who spend it and the countless organizations that live off of federal largess. Those pseudo-elites like Flood, Brown, McIntosh and their cadre of nescient academic dolts have been wrong and in power for so long that theyre not about to let go of either their precious false notions about DV or their funding.  Don't look to Nanny Roxon or Potatohead McClelland or those Emily's listers to call a press conference and say "I got it wrong on DV". - [actually the campaign against DV has nothing to do with reducing DV]

But the far broader base of people generally, standing on the shoulders of the scientific community are coming to know the truth about DV.  And that means, in the not too distant future, the worm will turn.


I reposted this article to reinforce Craigo's above and to make this point regarding what is particularly appalling about Gillard's National Plan against Domestic Violence.

It is not that the plan is rooted in 1970s radical feminist ideology of male oppression wholly inappropriate if not dangerous in our 21st century society but that the same strategies and legislative interventions have failed miserably in the USA for twenty years and they can't get rid of them.

One needs only to google "VAWA"  (Violence Against Women Act)  or "Bradley amendment" to see the damage these laws have done to their society. (I will expand later on the real purpose of these laws).

In brief, it costs taxpayers $112Bn/yr thrown away on massive welfare increases, the mass criminalisation, incarceration and impoverishment of men, epidemics of false allegations, 40% of children fatherless, and dealing with the Pandoras box of personal and social pathologies directly associated with mass fatherlessness which, in turn, creates generational family dysfunction and child abuse in a self-perpetuating cycle.
 
However in the USA these terrible laws with unforseen consequences were implemented with good intentions. To deliberately infect our nation, institutions and culture with their known societal cancer is an outrage. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth.  

 





Last edit: by srldad101

Not terribly recent, 1997, but I thought this study 'Why Women Assault' on MenWeb was quite interesting.  The study involved 978 women abusers and of these women it briefly discusses the reasons given by those women who have been physically violent towards their male partners.  If anyone knows of a more recent study on this same subject (perhaps say from the past 5 years) I'd love to read it.   Here's the link anyway - http://www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm


And to give the alternate.  A 2010 study about why men abuse 'Normative Misperceptions of Abuse Among Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence'.  Smaller test group just 124 and quite a specific selection criteria for participants but rather interesting in that the study is suggestive that men who abuse usually do it because they have the misperception that it is a socially "normal" behaviour (i.e. they do not hold the same perceptions as the real normal male population).  Will need more research in the area but the study does tend to negate the general 'male dominance' theories that imply that men in general view themselves as privileged and entitled.   Here it is anyway http://depts.washingto...tive%20misperceptions.pdf

Hope the links work
 



 

"Never, "for the sake of peace and quiet," deny your own experience or convictions". Dag Hammarskjold
I needed help with my case and couldn't afford a lawyer and found these guys invaluable  srl-resources.org
Violent Acts committed by women are rising at an alarming rate. ABS statistics show that  in 2009/2010 homicides committed by women rose by 27% on the previous year, injuries caused by women were up 3.8% and sexual assaults committed by women rose by 6%. These figures cover crimes against partners, children and others. Many magistrates blame increasing drug use by women as a cause of the increasing amount of women perpetrators ending up before the courts .I don't think the actual level of violence by women against male partners could truly be known, as most men wouldn't report it. I think any campaign on DV should focus heavily on women being capable of being perpetrators not just victims.

Slrdad your rantings really make me think that you need serious help. The family Law reforms have not outlawed shared parenting, the shared parenting provision was kept.

You and your cronies appear to be lacking the ability for analytical thought and are displaying paranoid and delusional tendencies due to your unadressed bitterness.

The more I read these seething hateful comments towards women, the outright and deliberate fostering of misinformation and cultivation of hate and divisiveness makes me think that the laws need to go further because its clear that there are quite a few men out there lacking in the evolutionary process. It looks to me that men like this feel very threatened by the painfully slow movement toward a more equitable society where womens and childrens voices are finally being heard.

Of course the alarming rise in domestic violence is just a furphy and a ploy, all this documentation is just made up isnt it? And well, if its true then she made him do it didnt she? All that nagging, whod blame someone for giving her a back hander to shut her up and send her back to the kitchen in the his castle to make his dinner as she should right?

I have attempted to engage in rational discussions on here, I have acknowledge that women can be violent and some men truly are the victims of the court process, but the overwhelming evidence shows that men are still the main perpertrators of such heinous behaviour and women and children need to be protected. To deny that reality in my mind is a form of abuse.

Any moves to stop violent behaviours by any gender has to be a good thing. Anyone that ridicules making our society and our homes safer places has got rocks for brains and probably needs to be kept away from their children while attending a very thorough reality check.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/step-up-to-save-women-at-risk-after-shocking-new-statistics/story-e6freuy9-1226239027764

POLICE are calling on neighbours and family members to "interfere" in domestic violence cases, as shocking statistics show nearly half of all murders are related to family disputes.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Murdoch said NSW police attended 120,000 domestic violence incidents last year - an average of 330 a day - but only 26,800 convictions were recorded.

And 26 of the 55 NSW murders in 2010 were related to domestic violence, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research says.

"The first time a victim comes to police to report domestic violence, on average they would have experienced it 24 times before they report it," Mr Murdoch said.

"We need victims to come forward and a lot are reluctant.

"A lot of people don't want to interfere, but if the community doesn't get involved, the police can't do their job and people wind up dead," he said.

The bureau's analysis of 215 domestic homicide victims between 2003 and 2008, found only one in 10 had reported any previous violence.

"We can't protect people unless we know about it, so if you are a friend or a neighbour and know about it, call police," Mr Murdoch said.

A Sunday Telegraph investigation reveals assaults related to domestic violence are also increasing. In 2001, 36 per cent of assaults were related to domestic violence. By 2010 this had increased to 39 per cent.

The bureau's director, Dr Don Weatherburn, said there had been a real increase in the problem not explained by increased reporting.

"The number of young women turning up in hospital with assaults is rising, so maybe it is an upward trend in violence," he said.

Cat Gander, head of the Women's Refuge Movement, said its 55 refuges and safe houses were full over holiday periods and they were turning away half the women and children who sought help.

Police said domestic violence was difficult to prosecute because victims were often reluctant to pursue charges, often due to fear.

Betty Green from the NSW Domestic Violence Coalition said it was important friends and families be informed and step in and help.

"Please believe her and, to support her, get her to connect to services for help. People have to understand there is a risk of death," Ms Green said.




Ripped Apart - the National Plan in the USA

A chilling new article Ripped Apart: Divorced dads, domestic violence, and the systemic bias against men in family court uses insiders within the family law-domestic violence system to expose the legal scams caused by the subjective definitions of family violence and the USA National Plan to reduce Violence Against Women - VAWA

  • "Jim's first indication that his life was about to be turned upside down came the night he got home from work and was approached by an off-duty sheriff's deputy. 'Are you Jim?' the deputy asked. 'I am,' he replied, The deputy then informed him that not only was he no longer welcome inside his own house, he wasn't allowed even to collect his things. The officer handed him a suitcase his wife had packed…."

Family Courts & "special" DV courts there are so overloaded and the rules of evidence on claims of domestic violence so lax, that the wholesale removal of fathers from children's lives is inevitable.  

Incredibly the Gillard government is now trying to import these society destroying USA laws into our "National Plan to reduce domestic violence"

The article details the way allegations of domestic violence are routinely used to separate fathers from children in family courts. In fact, there seems to be a cabal of judges, commissioners, custody evaluators and mental health professionals that target fathers in custody cases.

It's is a must-read for anyone who wants an education about how Family courts will function in our country as Gillard legislates Australia into the most feminized nation on the planet.  

Put simply, a mother can use a claim of domestic abuse to thwart a father's access to his children. It doesn't need to be founded on anything much, and certainly not actual violence. Mere allegations of a push a shove, shouting or disagreements on how money is to be spent are routinely called domestic violence and used to remove men from their homes and their children's lives.

And Shapiro brings that all to life in her descriptions of three fathers her pseudonyms for whom are Jim, Richard and Daniel. The full insanity of how allegations of domestic violence are used to abuse fathers and their children is on display in Shapiro's article.


A recent study done of results in Oregon custody cases found that, despite the clear intention of the legislature for shared parenting  the laws it passed actually made no difference to the number of sole custody rulings. Why? Allegations of domestic violence, the vast majority of which were levelled at men by women, trumped the intention of the statute.

The same is clearly true in Washington State. Washington is the only state that meticulously tracks all custody decisions by its family judges and commissioners. The data show about as clear a bias in favour of mothers as can be imagined. Here's the original Franklin article on the Washington State data.

As but a few examples, in about 65% of cases, mothers get greater parenting time than do fathers. By contrast, fathers get more in only about 17% of cases. [In Australia mother's get equal time or more in 90% of cases]

More telling are cases involving risk factors. Those are parental behaviours like abuse or neglect of children, drug or alcohol abuse, mental health problems and the like. So, when the parent had one or more risk factor, fathers were far more likely than mothers to be denied all access to their children. For example, 75% of fathers who had abused or neglected their children were denied all access to them, while only 50% of mothers were.

Adding insult to injury, when the father had no risk factor and the mother had one, he got full custody in only 26% of cases. When the sexes were reversed, she got custody 44% of the time.

So Washingtons own data show its family courts radical anti-father bias. Nina Shapiro shows just how that happens on a day-by-day, case-by-case basis.

First, she interviews only female lawyers, at least one of whom describes herself as a feminist. And those lawyers are clear that, despite the shift in parenting practices by both fathers and mothers, family courts doggedly favour mothers.

But parenting roles have changed. And the judicial system, says veteran family-law attorney Deborah Bianco, is way behind the culture. Bianco is one of a number of mainstream family-lawyers representing both women and men, and often female themselves who now say they too see a bias against men.

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a women and the law class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioners courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. She ruled against every single man, Rolfe recalls, and two of them were unopposed.

In any other arena, the evidence gets you the ruling, observes attorney Maya Trujillo Ringe. But in this particular arena, the dad has a much bigger uphill battle. So much so, she says, that she and other attorneys often joke that if you put a skirt on the dad, same facts, he'd win primary custody. You can overcome the bias, Ringe adds, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of resources.

Attorney Jennifer Forquer agrees, noting that fathers will routinely be sent to parenting classes by commissioners. It doesn't matter if they took paternity leave, if they changed diapers. If a mother makes an allegation that a fathers parenting is deficient, he ends up going. If a dad wants to make such an allegation about a mom, she says, you have to be careful how you present that. Commissioners are not inclined to believe it, she says.

Plenty of people have noticed that fathers are much more involved in childcare than ever before. They've also noticed the social science that overwhelmingly favors keeping fathers and children together where possible. And finally they've noticed that fairness, justice and gender equality demand equal treatment of fathers and mothers in custody cases. The only ones to take note of none of that are family court judges who, year after year, do the same thing  primary custody to Mom, every other weekend to Dad.

Articles like Shapiro's will help to put an end to that.
Robert Franklin National Parents Organization, Shared Parenting, Child Support and Alimony Reform



Samba said
…the laws need to go further because its clear that there are quite a few men out there lacking in the evolutionary process…blah, blah, …
Samba: give yourself an uppercut. You've gone and fouled yourself in public again

You fail to mention that while domestic violence allegations increase there is no increase in substantiated cases and that can't be explained away with statistical lying bullshit.

When it comes to dealing with people such as yourself, in truth it does annoy me, because really, to be so self-unaware of who you are, what you believe and the consequences of the views you hold is an irritation.

Your rambling sounds like exactly the sort of thing Robespierre would have said about people who didn't understand the genius, necessity and inherent rightness of the Committee of Public Safety.

By the way, which of my stated views would you characterise as representing a paranoid, delusional, hateful threat to women?

More similarities between Samba and Robespierre: both self-important, humourless twats with delusions of socially enginerring equality.

The National Plan should be seen for what it really is. It is not enlightened new procedures for protecting women and THEIR children from violent crime. They are a declaration of martial law against men, justified by an imaginary "domestic violence" emergency, and a betrayal of children's rights to know both parents and equal protections under the law. It is political opportunism to channel billions of taxpayer dollars to pursue radical feminist ideological dreams in the hope of women's votes.
srldad101 said
A chilling new article Ripped Apart: Divorced dads, domestic violence, and the systemic bias against men in family court uses insiders within the family law-domestic violence system to expose the legal scams caused by the subjective definitions of family violence and the USA National Plan to reduce Violence Against Women - VAWA

  • "Jim's first indication that his life was about to be turned upside down came the night he got home from work and was approached by an off-duty sheriff's deputy. 'Are you Jim?' the deputy asked. 'I am,' he replied, The deputy then informed him that not only was he no longer welcome inside his own house, he wasn't allowed even to collect his things. The officer handed him a suitcase his wife had packed…."

There Family Courts and "special" DV courts are so overloaded and the rules of evidence on claims of domestic violence so lax, that the wholesale removal of fathers from children's lives is inevitable.  

Incredibly the Gillard government is now trying to import these society destroying USA laws into our "National Plan to reduce domestic violence"

The article details the way allegations of domestic violence are routinely used to separate fathers from children in family courts. In fact, there seems to be a cabal of judges, commissioners, custody evaluators and mental health professionals that target fathers in custody cases.

It's is a must-read for anyone who wants an education about how Family courts will function in our country as Gillard legislates Australia into the most feminized nation on the planet.  

Put simply, a mother can use a claim of domestic abuse to thwart a father's access to his children. It doesn't need to be founded on anything much, and certainly not actual violence. Mere allegations of a push a shove, shouting or disagreements on how money is to be spent are routinely called domestic violence and used to remove men from their homes and their children's lives.

And Shapiro brings that all to life in her descriptions of three fathers her pseudonyms for whom are Jim, Richard and Daniel. The full insanity of how allegations of domestic violence are used to abuse fathers and their children is on display in Shapiro's article.


A recent study done of results in Oregon custody cases found that, despite the clear intention of the legislature for shared parenting  the laws it passed actually made no difference to the number of sole custody rulings. Why? Allegations of domestic violence, the vast majority of which were levelled at men by women, trumped the intention of the statute.

The same is clearly true in Washington State. Washington is the only state that meticulously tracks all custody decisions by its family judges and commissioners. The data show about as clear a bias in favour of mothers as can be imagined. Here's the original Franklin article on the Washington State data.

As but a few examples, in about 65% of cases, mothers get greater parenting time than do fathers. By contrast, fathers get more in only about 17% of cases. [In Australia mothers get equal time or more in 90% of cases]

More telling are cases involving risk factors. Those are parental behaviours like abuse or neglect of children, drug or alcohol abuse, mental health problems and the like. So, when the parent had one or more risk factor, fathers were far more likely than mothers to be denied all access to their children. For example, 75% of fathers who had abused or neglected their children were denied all access to them, while only 50% of mothers were.

Adding insult to injury, when the father had no risk factor and the mother had one, he got full custody in only 26% of cases. When the sexes were reversed, she got custody 44% of the time.

So Washington's own data show its family courts radical anti-father bias. Nina Shapiro shows just how that happens on a day-by-day, case-by-case basis.

First, she interviews only female lawyers, at least one of whom describes herself as a feminist. And those lawyers are clear that, despite the shift in parenting practices by both fathers and mothers, family courts doggedly favour mothers.

But parenting roles have changed. And the judicial system, says veteran family-lawyer Deborah Bianco, is way behind the culture. Bianco is one of a number of mainstream family-lawyers representing both women and men, and often female themselves who now say they too see a bias against men.

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a women and the law class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioners courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. She ruled against every single man, Rolfe recalls, and two of them were unopposed.

In any other arena, the evidence gets you the ruling, observes attorney Maya Trujillo Ringe. But in this particular arena, the dad has a much bigger uphill battle. So much so, she says, that she and other attorneys often joke that if you put a skirt on the dad, same facts, he'd win primary custody. You can overcome the bias, Ringe adds, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of resources.

Attorney Jennifer Forquer agrees, noting that fathers will routinely be sent to parenting classes by commissioners. It doesn't matter if they took paternity leave, if they changed diapers. If a mother makes an allegation that a fathers parenting is deficient, he ends up going. If a dad wants to make such an allegation about a mom, she says, you have to be careful how you present that. Commissioners are not inclined to believe it, she says.

Plenty of people have noticed that fathers are much more involved in childcare than ever before. They've also noticed the social science that overwhelmingly favors keeping fathers and children together where possible. And finally they've noticed that fairness, justice and gender equality demand equal treatment of fathers and mothers in custody cases. The only ones to take note of none of that are family court judges who, year after year, do the same thing  primary custody to Mom, every other weekend to Dad.

Articles like Shapiro's will help to put an end to that.
Robert Franklin National Parents Organization, Shared Parenting, Child Support and Alimony Reform

Last edit: by OneRingRules

More about the USA:

10 reasons the US is no longer the land of the free

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own - the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

The list of powers acquired by the US government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of US citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens - and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security - a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamoured for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers - including the possible transfer of US citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?" His response was a bit chilling: "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
Dads on the Air Radio
Intimate Partner Violence (Special Episode)

Special Guests:
 
Kyle Lovett, Research Editor and Author of - Fraud in Australias plan to reduce violence against women will be appearing as a special guest on Dads on the Air Radio, the longest running radio program regarding men and fathers in Australia, and likely the world. Kyle will be talking about the upcoming legal Kamikaze attack on men in Australia, a subject he has extensively researched and written about at AVfM for the past several weeks. The article Onlineopinion.com.au has refused to publish for "political" reasons.

Also on that show will be Barbara Kay, a Canadian columnist for the National Post. Kay often produces some very sound critique of feminist perspective on issues like domestic violence - The awkward truth about spousal abuse

The show airs on Tuesday, January 31 at 10.30-12.00 AET, and a link to the broadcast archive will be made available here after the episode airs.

Listen live on 2GLF 89.3FM in Sydney
 or online via live streaming at www.2glf893.com/
 or in MP3 format at www.dadsontheair.com.au
whats the REAL reason behind this? this is only going to divide the sexes and this "ageing" population is only going to get worse.

THE STATS THAT MATTER
DOTA Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 10:30AM
Juggling Stats

Kyle Lovett is a Research Editor and Author at A Voice for Men. Kyle is based in Washington DC in the USA but even at that distance he cannot help but be disturbed about the National Council of Australia's plan supposedly directed at reducing violence against women.

Some of the recommendations of the Plan have already been implemented following the amendments made to the Family Law Act late last year expanding the definition of what legally constitutes domestic violence. Others to follow may include formalising new sexual assault laws which will define legally consensual sexual intercourse. Unless a man gets verbal consent to perform various acts following a direct question he could be facing a rape charge. Furthermore consent can be removed after the fact if the woman claims she was coerced under a broad range of vague or implied threats. And it is the man who has the burden of proof if these types of allegations are made by the woman.

Even the title of the Plan causes great concern: Time for Action: The National Councils Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and THEIR Children 2009-2021.. Note the use of the word "their" when referring to children. What about the Dads? And the Plan does not even address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children.

As to the statistics on which this draconian Plan is supposedly based hear Kyle show where the findings have been ignored, twisted and in some cases deliberately misrepresented. [Australia's #1 pro-feminist man-hater Dr Michael "women don't lie" Flood is extensively referenced throughout the Plan. Paradoxically Dr Flood, PhD in "Why Heterosexual Men Don't Wear Condoms", instructs women how to lie on his own Wikipedia page]

The Plan has to be of major concern to all fair minded men and women who are witnesses to the vanishing civil rights of Australia's men.

Kyle's latest article Australia the new Saudi Arabia of radical feminism?


Barbara Kay has recently posted an article "The awkward truth about spousal abuse". In the article Barbara recognises the achievements of feminists in the 1970s to redress some of the wrongs from 60 years ago. But now in the 21st century the feminists are fighting among themselves about who are the real feminists and the denial of domestic abuse is still with us, only it has shifted from the female victims to the males.

Honest researchers were surprised to find in study after study that intimate partner violence is mostly bidirectional when feminists and governments still act as though the only victims of domestic violence are women. Erin Pizzey who opened the first refuge for battered women in England in 1971 was expelled from the feminist movement because she dared to ask women about their own violence.

With regard to domestic violence men are where women were 60 years ago.

Listen in to hear Barbaras candid and eloquent analysis of the current situation and what we should be aiming for in our social, judicial and political attitudes towards violence.

Listen Now (MP3)
That's very interesting. The White Ribbon Day campaign does not appear to be growing or gaining much popularity whilst support for Movemeber is unbelieveable. I agree men are now where women were 60 years ago. Can I say that I believe the mens movement will be much more reasonable and fair than the profeminists have been.

Last edit: by Fairgo

This is written by a female who counsels domestic violence victims.
     
My husband and I are pastoral counselors. A pastoral counselor is a peculiar hybrid critter. The "pastoral" part means we are clergy. The "counselor" part means we have the same training, and techniques as other psychotherapists.

    For the most part we do marriage and family counseling. I noticed that when clients reported incidents of violence the wife was often the perpetrator. I mentioned this to my husband.  Sam is a good scientist and a clear thinker. His response was, "Do you remember when you got your blue Oldsmobile how many blue Oldsmobiles seemed to be on the road?"

    Sometimes I go with my instincts rather than my reason, and besides, I was real curious. So, I dug through client files of the past five years. I was astounded by what I found! Again I went to Sam and explained that in a large majority of the violent incidents the wife was the abuser and the man was the victim. Sam said, "We can't draw any valid conclusion from such a small sample." He also pointed out that couples in counseling would not be representative of the general public. Now, Sam was getting curious.

    At that time we had recently sold Sam's fishing boat and spent the money to purchase our first PC. That was back when a complete 486/66 setup was around $4,000.

    We were real newbies to the internet. Sam is the Gifted Child Coordinator for our local MENSA chapter in Southwest Florida. So, our first experience of the cyberworld was the MENSA forum on CompuServe. We posted our first e-mail message asking for feedback on our observations about family violence. All the  harpies from Hades descended from cyberspace into our inbox. We were called unkind names and accused of having motives similar to the profile of serial killers. We were shocked at how adamantly we were attacked.

    Somewhat puzzled by such an irrational response to our first electronic message, we decided to go where we were more comfortable. The Internet provides access to a behavioral science database called Psych Info. All of the scientific abstracts of the last 30 years are stored and available for download. Psych Info is expensive, but I believe information will get you through times with no money better than money will get you through times with no information.

    Again we were amazed by what we found! There were dozens of solid scientific studies documenting female violence against men. How could this be? We had been working on the domestic violence issue for years. We were embarrassed that we were unaware of this research. No one at the women's shelter acknowledged any awareness of these studies. Why was this information more secret than the private lives of our politicians?
The rest of it can be found here http://www.projusticia...mily-violence_orlando.htm . On the site there is alot of information on the scientific studies undertaken on female violence. The research is shocking and disturbing and it really does go to show  the truth has been deliberately hidden. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets