Julia Gillard: The Professional Lair..

Column - Is your Prime Minister a liar?

Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:27am


THE question we now face: Is the Prime Minister of Australia a liar?

Her Four Corners disaster on Monday night is part of a pattern.

Julia Gillard deceives and, I suspect, lies. And what’s killing her is that she does it so badly.

Here are my seven deadliest examples.

The first: Just a “part-time” typist

The Socialist Forum was a radical group that helped to bring former members of the Communist Party into the Labor Party.

In 2007, asked about her involvement, Gillard said “many a long year ago” - mostly when “I was a university student” - she’d merely done “part-time clerical and administrative work” for this “debating society”.

In fact, she’d been on the forum’s management committee, organising events and giving speeches. The parliamentary register of interests states she was still a member from 1998 to 2002.


The second: “I did not say that”

On July 6, 2010, Gillard announced she’d talked to East Timor’s President about her plan for a detention centre for boat people.

Her Immigration Minister said our “unauthorised boat arrivals will be returned to East Timor”.

On July 8, after East Timor’s Prime Minister said “what plan?”, Gillard rewrote history: “I did not say that ... I’m not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location.”

On July 9, mocked for flip-flopping, she conceded: “I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor.”

The third: “There will be no carbon tax”

Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.

The fourth: Fooling Andrew Wilkie

In 2010, independent MP Andrew Wilkie agreed to make Gillard prime minister after she promised to make all poker machines have mandatory pre-commitment.

Last month, scared of the backlash, Gillard broke her promise.

The fifth: “A bit of a lark”

In 2010, ABC journalist Annabel Crabb told a story of deception that must have come from Gillard.

In 2004, Gillard was Labor’s health spokeswoman, and “one night ...fired off a despairing text message to a friend, confessing exasperatedly that health was too confusing for her”.

To her horror, she accidentally sent the message to Tony Abbott, then the health minister. Fearing he’d embarrass her, she arranged to talk to a regional radio station.

“During the interview she laughingly confessed to having sent tongue-in-cheek text messages to her opponent feigning frustration with the minefield of health reform.

“Had (her email) been raised in Parliament, she would musically have read aloud from the transcript, demonstrating that the whole thing was a bit of a lark.”

The sixth: “The Marriage Act will stay unchanged”

Gillard before the 2010 election promised not to allow same-sex marriage.

“We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged,” she said.

“And that’s what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we’re re-elected.”

A Labor MP this week introduced a private member’s bill to allow same-sex marriage, which the Labor Party now supports.

Says Gillard: “The undertakings I gave to the churches are undertakings that I’m abiding by ... There won’t be a government bill.”

The seventh: I did not plot

Gillard yesterday said she’d never plotted to remove Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

“I made a decision to run for prime minister on the day I walked into Kevin Rudd’s office and asked him for a ballot,” she said.

But on Monday came her embarrassing exchange with Four Corners reporter Andrew Fowler.

Fowler: Did you know that people in your office, two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as prime minister, were preparing a (victory) speech that you subsequently delivered?

Gillard: Uh well, I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.

Fowler: My question was simply whether or not you knew.

Gillard: I heard your question and I’ve answered it.

My list does not include many of Gillard’s broken promises or false claims about her “carbon tax”.

No, I’ve listed only the seven deceptions I think damn her most.

So, is your Prime Minister a liar?

Gillard Employing More Monkeys..

The desperation of the Gillard Government in trying to sell the ABN, demonstrates desperation as they try on the Soviet Union style, communist era propaganda methods. Why not, how much closer can Gillard's Government get to communism without actually giving that name what they would like it to be. Could change it to the Gillard's Peoples Republic of Australia and guess which left wing lunatic they would assign the position of puppet head of state..

Why not the current "Rudd Slave", governer general, she has in one term already destroyed the GG office and reputation, dragged it down the drain just like other left wing lunatics have done with every else they touch, eg. Gillard, Roxin, Wong just to name a few. Totally hopeless as well as being dysfunctional..

ART FOR LABOR’S SAKE

Tim Blair

Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 03:21am

 

Dance, arts monkeys! Dance for money:

Artists are being offered grants of up to $100,000 by the federal government to create “visionary” works promoting the controversial $36 billion National Broadband Network.
The Australia Council for the Arts has called for submissions on creating “visionary arts projects”.
An initial funding pool of $300,000 has been set aside for the projects, which would have to demonstrate the network’s cultural benefits and the “new opportunities” broadband creates for the arts.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull isn’t impressed:

“So now Australian artists will be recruited to promote the NBN,” Mr Turnbull said.
“It reminds us of Soviet artists being recruited to glorify the heroic labour of the No.3 V.I. Lenin Missile Factory.
“What’s next? Will the Flying Fruit Fly Circus be given a grant to develop a show involving larger and larger backflips?”

Actually, so far as I understand things, that’s exactly how the Flying Fruit Fly Circus operates. Add taxpayer money: children fly through the sky! Subtract taxpayer money: children lose crucial tumbling skills. Arts Minister Simon Crean (the name and title mesh so naturally) defends his government’s creative bribes:

“You only have to look at the submissions to the National Cultural Policy discussion paper to see that artists and those in the creative industries understand the significance of the NBN for reaching new audiences and encouraging innovation,” he said.
“It’s only the Coalition who doesn’t understand this. The Coalition’s cultural policy is to roll back high-speed broadband, stifle innovation, suppress creativity and send artists back to the Dark Ages.”

If that really was the Coalition’s policy, polling would be sensational.
(Via Tim T.)

January 9, 2012Kyle LovettFEATURED, FEMINIST LIES

Australia abandons its children to abuse

Simply put, the most puzzling thing about the Australian ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′ is that the plan doesn’t address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children. In fact, the actual incidence of various types of child abuse, and the profiles of the individuals abusing them have been intentionally omitted from the volumes of information that justify the National Council’s plan.
Understandably, many Australian men have expressed outrage that such a high profile government study would use the possessive pronoun “their,” regarding women, as though fathers did not exist in their childrens lives. But perhaps the government’s failure to include men as caretakers of their own children can be better explained with further investigation into The Plan. Let’s take a look at some statistics and studies about child abuse and neglect in Australia as well as the conspicuous absence of some key information. This may help to guage the severity of the problem, and to determine who is responsible.

THE EXCLUSION OF CHILD ABUSE STATISTICS

While the architects of The Plan often mention how a life in an abusive home is detrimental to a cbild’s well-being, they lack any actual analysis of child abuse and the perpetrators.
In 1996, two quite detailed reports discussing the problem of child abuse in Australia were published, including in-depth analysis of the data that examined the sex and relationship of the perpetrators. Both Angus G & Hall G (1996) [8] and Tomison A (1996) [9] research papers showed an alarming amount of varying types of child abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, one of the more shocking pieces of information they supplied identified single parent mothers as the largest demographic of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia.
In 1997,  the academic researchers Broadbent and Bentley published ‘Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996′ for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which confirmed what Angus & Hall as well as Tomison showed the year before. The report examined the national figures of child abuse for 1995-96, which showed 29,833 cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect in Australia. The split between the victims sexes, girls(51%) and boys(49%) under the age of 15 who were abused, was split almost evenly. [10-pg19]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Broadbent and Bentley went on to discuss the prevalence of the natural parent as it related to the perpetrators of the cases of child abuse.

“The data that are available indicate that the person believed responsible in 71% of substantiated notifications of abuse and neglect was the natural parent. This is not surprising given that child abuse and neglect is a child protection issue and that the natural parent is the person most likely to have care of a child. Step-parents were reported as the person responsible in 10% of substantiated notifications and a parent’s de facto partner in 7%. Parents were believed to be responsible for 66% of physical abuse substantiations, 77% of emotional abuse substantiations, 87% of neglect substantiations, but only 24% of sexual abuse substantiations.” [10-pg34]

The researchers further examined the sex and relationship of the responsible parties in which this data was readily available.

“In 1995–96, of finalised investigations in those States and Territories for which data were available (Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), 40% involved children living in single female parent families and 31% living in ‘two parent—natural’ families. A further 15% of finalised investigations involved children from ‘two parent—other’ families (such as families where there is one natural parent and a de facto or a step-parent)”[10-pg35]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

The breakdown of this data for the sex and relationship of child abusers was:

• 40% single parent female
• 46% two-parent families (both male and female parental perpetrators) 
• 6% single parent male
• 8% Other

This means that in 86% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a female offender, while 52% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a male offender. If past years of recorded child abuse in Australia are any indication, between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of substantiated incidents occur each year. This information did not sit well with several of the people inside the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In fact, in 1997 the AIHW pulled the plug on recording any further data pertained to the sex or relationship of a child abuser, unless it was sexual abuse.[11]
(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Click to enlarge

In 2003, another researcher for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Fitzroy 2003 ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’, shed some further light on the statistics which continued to show mothers as the primary perpetrator of child abuse.

“Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children. Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children. It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used, however there is no further discussion as to whether it was a father or mother who perpetrated the assaults. This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers.”[11-pg2]

While Fitzroy criticizes the AIHW and ABS decision to not keep the data concerning the sex and relationship of child abusers, she gives a brief reasoning why she understands that many feel that women’s violence can be explained away.

“This paper positions women’s use of violence within a social context that includes historical, structural and institutional violence characterised by patterns of domination and oppression. This social context includes patriarchal, racist and classist ideologies whereby some people are defined as superior to ‘others’…..I would argue therefore that an analysis of women’s violence should be positioned within an analysis of the human capacity for violence. We can all desire retribution for perceived harms, experience rage and the wish to inflict pain on another.”[11-pg3]

The National Director of the Joint Parenting Association, Yuri Joakimidis, not only admonishes the Australian government for its refusal to keep these records, he claims that bias within the AIHW, to further a particular ideology, were compromising the integrity of all of its data collection.

“In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent & Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of Information request at a cost of $200.
Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data in 1996. In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that “the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented.” Quite obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources. If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours.” [11]

Indeed, looking at Western Australia’s numbers for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, they continue to show the same pattern of perpetrators of child abuse being overwhelmingly single females.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

For State government, or key members within, to intentionally cover up the sex and relationship of child abusers in reporting important child welfare statistics, simply because 40% of child abuse cases are perpetrated by single mothers, it may well constitute a criminal conspiracy. Particularly if children are harmed as a result. Since Parliament allocates monies to combat child abuse, decisions to stop keeping these crucial statistics must be seen as at least passively endangering the welfare of Australian children.
It is also important to note the hypocrisy of calling this major report on domestic violence ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ when critical information concerning child abuse and neglect in Australia is concealed. Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that the National Council left out key facts regarding women’s violence to satisfy an ideological and financial agenda that hinges on a false paradigm in which only men are violent in the home.
This kind of conduct has been previously identified and addressed in a paper  by the internationally recognized expert researcher on Domestic Violence, Dr. Murray Straus. In his paper, Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, he catalogs methods used to conceal and distort evidence on symmetry in partner violence, which has become a widespread corruption issue in western academe.  As Straus writes:

 Method 1. Suppress Evidence - Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gende r symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism. Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberatcly omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims. This practice startcd with one of the first general population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was publishcd (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).[24]

Using this method and others, The National Council attempts to paint men as the monsters of domestic violence, who are responsible for almost all of Australia’s problems inside the home. The fact that women, not men, are responsible for the majority of actual child abuse has been intentionally removed from the parameters of their studies. Violence, a human problem, is one which both men and women perpetrate; we are all responsible for putting an end to it, not just in the home, but in society at large. For this council to deny the violence, neglect and other abuses that women commit codemns Australian children to lives of invisible pain, for which no help will be allowed, by edict of the government.
It is not only a disgrace to professional and academic integrity, it’s a slap in the face to those forgotten children of Australia who live the brutal reality of violence and abuse, day in and day out. It is time the men and women of Australia let their voices be heard, and instruct their government that this is not an acceptable situation. And it is time that the members of the National Council Advisory Board be held accountable to the public they purport to serve. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth.

References
(1)The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx
(2) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx
(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397
(4) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf
(5) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
(6) The Road Home http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics 
(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)
(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra
(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)
(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2
(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies
(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.
(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml
(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62
(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71
(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680
(18) http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx
(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument
(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6
(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical
(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
(23)http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22
(24) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Written byKyle Lovett

Share viaSocial Media

13 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Important Message for ALL MEN: Please Read..

Here we have an explanation of what feminists, in this case radical feminists and the Gillard Government, have in mind for ALL AUSTRALIAN MEN and this is just an example of what is coming your way as well. This legislation is already in Place in Tasmania, AUSTRALIA and it will ensure that Men are jailed, without any opportunity to claim a fair trial, no opportunity to present any counter argument and will be taken to prison on any claim made by any female under any circumstances..

Fifty percent of all men in jail in Tasmania are there because of this draconian piece of legislation. They are served with a court order for one year to not go within 100 meters his own home or see his children and all his accounts, everything he owns will be confiscated and given to the person making the claim. No proof is necessary, no witnesses required, no doctors reports required, no evidence has to be submitted, only on the word of one individual will ensure this action to takes place..

This action will be enforced even when he is not guilty or if the female is the abuser. There is no comeback whatsoever. Even if the claimant retracted her accusation and informs the Police that she has lied, nothing will change..

This release identifies precisely how this new legislation is going to work and this will become LAW in AUSTRALIA within a very short period of time. Possibly over the next month or two if we do NOTHING. Ignore this at your own risk..

New Legislation Designed to Persecute Men and Deny his basic Human Rights.

If you are male and living in Australia, this is the probably the most important email you'll read this year.

 

 

This message is about the highly discriminatory National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Domestic Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009-2021 (henceforth described as 'The Plan').

 

 

The Plan is long (200+ pages), so you might like to save it to your desktop and read it little by little, but it's essential that you do read it as it may affect your freedom. If you don't, you may well find yourself in jail one day - minus legal entry to your house, access to your children and any reputation you think you once had, all without doing a single thing wrong.  Please share it with every other responsible men you know so they too will learn how their civil liberties are being dangerously undermined under the guise of reducing domestic violence against women.

 

The most important liberty that will be lost is the presumption of innocence (for men, not women) - one of the foundation stones of a civilised legal system. If the draconian legislation proposed by The Plan is passed through both Houses of Parliament and into Family Law, the legal system in Australia will no longer automatically protect men from false DV and rape accusations and the government will take control of the family. Adoption of The Plan will, essentially, legalise Apartheid and enforce it if necessary at the point of a gun.

 

 

Domestic violence and sexual assault are serious crimes, so any wise and just plan to properly identify and reduce them should be applauded. The Plan, however, is neither wise, just nor worthy of applause. It presumes women have no agency when under the influence of drugs or alcohol and that all men are violent offenders by default. Read the document and learn for yourself what could happen to both men and women if The Plan passes into law. Once you've read it, forward it to others with a copy of this message and get active. Write to your MP, raise awareness, talk to the press, raise some placards at your local shopping centre, take your protest to Canberra. Do whatever suits you, but please do something. If you do nothing, prepare to lose your civil liberties via the most draconian legislation since the anti-semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Yes, it is that serious.

 

 

Here's a summary of what will happen if The Plan is endorsed by both Houses of Parliament:

 

 

1. The Australian Government will assume that women never lie about domestic violence or sexual assault, even when child custody is at stake and the temptation to lie is extreme.

 

 

2. The definitions of Domestic Violence will be broadened to include acts such as striking inanimate objects, making purchases without consulting a female partner, not listening to a female partner or even disciplining a dog. The same actions will not be considered DV if the actor is female (see item 3 below).

 

 

3. The legal redefinition of domestic violence will exclude male victims from that legal definition - i.e. men and boys who are assaulted by female relatives will not have legal rights as victims.

 

 

4. DV and Sexual assault cases will go to the front of the court docket (presumably ahead of first degree murder).

 

 

5. There will be lower standards for arrest and dual arrest may be forbidden where violence was reciprocal - i.e. police will not be allowed to arrest a woman if both partners were violent (The Plan presumes that female violence is self-defense in almost all cases, despite a substantial and growing body of evidence that indicates otherwise).

 

 

6. Protection Orders will be issued with lowered amount of proof, such as an accusation or belief from a specialist that violence "might" occur in the future - i.e. a woman's fear of violence, rational or not, justified or not, proven or not, would be enough to arrest a man and hold him without bail.

 

 

7. No-Contact orders will be issued much more often, and for non-criminal cases - i.e. a man could be separated from his children on the whims of their mother, without any proof of danger from him, and even when he is the only source of protection for his children against her own abuse and violent behaviour.

 

 

8. The burden of proof will lie with the accused to end a No-Contact order - i.e. the man must prove he wasn't violent, thereby ending the presumption of innocence, but only when the innocent person is male.

 

 

9. Ouster/ Exclusion Orders will be issued more frequently to remove an accused man (not a perpetrator, necessarily) from his residence, as well as removed from lease - i.e. make him homeless, even if his earnings paid for the house and everything in it, including the children's food, clothing and education).

 

 

10. A father's rights will be removed in cases where the State (read: DV industry specialist) feels that the father should never be allowed to see his children until they are adults - i.e. no conviction will be needed, just the word of a State DV specialist.

 

 

11. Men accused of any DV, regardless of conviction or criminal charges, will go on a national registry - i.e. a man's reputation will be potentially destroyed, together with his friendships, family relationships and job prospects permanently on the basis of an accusation alone.

 

 

12. Court procedures will change to limit or even disallow cross examination of "victim" (i.e. a woman who lies about DV may never be held accountable by the courts).

 

 

13. Cases of criminal accusations relating to DV and sexual assault will not be dropped ander any circumstances - i.e. a lying woman who wants to recant her false accusations before a hearing will be prohibited from doing so.

 

 

14. Pre-requests for allowing bail for an accused man (not a woman) will become extremely difficult - i.e. the presumption of innocence would be removed when men are accused of DV or sexual assault.

 

 

15. A method in which it is legally acceptable for a man and a women to engage in sexual intercourse will be formalised. A man will have to verbally ask permission, and receive a verbal affirmative answer, and be able to prove it in court, for each sexual act, even with his wife.

 

 

16. Broader scope when the state feels that female agency is no longer hers to give consent. Woman can remove consent after the fact if she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol - i.e. a woman would be deemed not to have agency when she is affected by drugs or alcohol, thus it would become the man's responsibility (even if he himself was affected by drugs or alcohol), to know precisely what his partner (or wife) had imbibed, how she was affected and how quickly she would be compos mentis (with medical precision) prior to any sexual encounter with her. NB. Men, however, will be assumed to always have agency when affected by drugs or alcohol at the time of a sexual encounter.

 

 

17. An accused man must show proof of consent when using certain defenses such as "mistaken consent" are used. Mistaken consent means he felt that she gave consent, but she denies giving it. In other words, a woman would be able to withdraw consent should she regret a sexual encounter at any time afterwards, and the man would have to provide evidence of a lie or go to jail for 20 years.

 

 

18. A "Gendered policy of arrest" will apply for DV and sexual assault cases - i.e. the man will ALWAYS be arrested, even when the woman is blatantly and obviously the guilty party.

 

 

19. The State will pay for the mother and children to remain in a residence with "crisis payments" and will pay for high tech security features - i.e. The State will keep children with their mother, under high security, away from their father, even if she lied about DV or sexual assault or if she is the (more) violent and abusive party.

 

 

20. The State will have the right to take children into State custody if the mother wants their children to have a relationship with the father, if the "Specialist" feels that this would be detrimental to the children in any manner - i.e. The DV specialist has the power to keep a father from his children until they turn 18, on the mother's say-so, even when the mother has lied about DV or is the greater danger to her children than their father.

When one reads something like this, you could be excused for thinking that it's not really true. How can this be in this day and age when everyone is so enlightened. Human rights is instituted, surely, in law. The bad old days of fascism and witch hunts have been relegated to history as a joke. We now have legal rights as human beings to go about our own business and to live a life free of tyranny and injustice, surely..

 Apparently not. The forces at work in Canberra are not a force of consisting of a group of people who are looking to enhance our lives but to destroy it. Radical feminists have already demonstrated what their end goal is and now we are seeing those same people that we exposed on the RADFEM HUB, who are directly linked to the Australian Government, introducing laws that will not only create disharmony but bias and hate. The reality of all these recommended laws are indeed mind boggling and we have only just starting to poke and prod it's reality..

 Those radical feminists will, if they are not stopped, introduce laws that are so archaic and debilitating as to make George Orwell's book "1984" appear be a normal everyday event. This is not tyranny as we have witnessed in the past, it's apartheid between the sexes in the very worst degree..

Wait until the facts are released as at the moment, if we were to introduce them, it would just be too much to take in. This is only the beginning..

January 6, 2012Paul ElamFEMINIST GOVERNANCE

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights

As chief cook and bottle washer at AVfM I have been in the dubious position of gathering information from across the globe on the negative impact of feminist governance.
Last year we addressed matters like the “Dear Colleague” letter, which effectively ended the right of due process for college men accused of any sort of sexual misconduct. We covered the unthinkable events in India, where men have been assaulted and even thrown from moving trains for daring to set foot in train car reserved for women; where politicians have suggested bounties be paid to women who beat their husbands in public. We exposed circumstances in Sweden, where school children are being indoctrinated into the virulent and hateful ideology of Valerie Solanas.  Just last night we did a radio show as a follow up to Robert O’Hara’s investigative piece on the plan to coerce 28,000,000 African men into being circumcised. And of course there is the ongoing exposure of ideologues at Radfem Hub, a group of well-placed feminists who glorify murder, child abuse, eugenics and infanticide.
It appears now that 2011 was just a warm up for 2012.

Over the next several days you will find a series of articles on this website regarding an assault on human rights that will sweep the Australian continent. The scope of aplanned campaign by the Australian government (The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021) is so far reaching that presenting it without overwhelming readers has been a significant challenge for myself, Kyle Lovett and John the Other. The sheer volume of the content, as well as the staggering loss of civil rights that Australian men are about to suffer is formidable.
The amount and complexity of the material to come is sufficient that I felt it warranted to prepare you with this article, which in essence is written solely for the purpose of bracing you for the onslaught of information; to, if I may request your indulgence, tell you what you are about to be told.
These machinations have now reached the stage of action, and are about to be implemented. They involve, but are by no means limited, to the following:

• The systemic enabling and 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 include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.
• 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 the he obtained specific kinds of verbal consent for sex.

These actions are not individual initiatives to change isolated and different laws. They are all part of a package deal referred to as “The Plan.”  It is a far reaching, invasive effort of monumental scope designed to eliminate the civil rights of men and children across the Australian continent, and as you will see in the upcoming articles it is well on its way to becoming reality.
The articles will explain “The Plan” in detail, and show the egregiously corrupt methods that ideologues employed within the Australian government are using in order to pass it all through to law.
For instance, Australian research up to 1997 demonstrated empirically that women, overwhelmingly, are the perpetrators of physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse of children – compared with men.

After 1997, the Australian government ceased requesting and recording information on the sex of offenders against children in the home, and all the subsequent proposals in “The Plan” run on the assumption that the male is the primary perpetrator.
What you will also learn in the upcoming series of articles is that all of the proposed legislation is specifically gender targeted. The suggested laws will be written with the protection of women and the punishment of men in mind, and will leave scores of abuse victims even more vulnerable than they were before implementation of “The Plan.” This will be particularly true for children who will frequently have the father, their only protector from an abusive mother, removed from the home and incarcerated without bail as the “identified problem.”
What you will also learn is that the suppression and distortion of scientific research so that it appears to support “The Plan,” has reached pervasive levels in Australia.  Such a level of corruption is occurring with complicity and enabling from within the Australian government.
Australia, you will learn, is about to be thrust into the legal Dark Ages, beginning in 2012.
A Voice for Men, I am proud to say, is a very popular website in Australia. It is our hopes that this series of articles will give our friends Down Under something on which to take action with their elected representatives. Perhaps it is not too late to prevent the majority of the damage.
There is some action already. Dr. Greg Canning, an Australian oncologist, has formed an organization to foster an initiative to address these issues.  I am going to close this piece with his announcement, hoping that it reaches the eyes of as many Australian citizens as possible.

An open letter to all Australian Men’s Advocacy Groups

There exist in Australia many men’s advocacy groups, albeit with differences in focus. This indicates that many men are not being treated fairly in our country that prides itself on providing a fair go for all.
In the lead up to the next federal election, I have a vision, that if all the men’s groups in Australia unite to jointly lobby for men’s issues to be put on the national political agenda, we can make a difference.
To this end I ask all groups to commence a joint dialogue with a view to supporting a delegation to go to Canberra and lobby for change.
The focus of the delegation will be open for discussion, but I believe it should present a small number of broad objectives, which could include:

• Establishment of an Office for Men, and Minister fo background-origin: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; list-style-type: none; padding-left: 25px;">A requirement for intellectual honesty and peer review in the data being used to drive social policy for example the “National Plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010 to 2022”
• A requirement to address the increasing problem of fatherlessness in Australia, its determinants and consequences.
• A focus on Male specific health and education issues.

Whilst it is acknowledged there will be philosophical differences amongst the groups, I have little doubt that all would agree with these types of objective.
In the first instance I have commenced a discussion group that can be accessed at http://menscoalition.blogspot.com/
This is a private site and you will need to be invited to join the discussions please email gregcanning@me.com to request access.
Please log on to the blog and in the comments section of the first post introduce yourself and your organisation or group and share your thoughts on forming or joining a “Coalition of Australian Men.”
We can then see where the discussion leads us, but I believe if our joint voices can finally be heard nationally as those of reason and egalitarianism, in the land of the fair go for all, perhaps our sons and daughters will enjoy a brighter future.
Please pass this message onto anyone you believe would be genuinely committed to such a cause.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Greg Canning

Written byPaul Elam

Share viaSocial Media

388 POSTS IN TOTAL

The ABS and the Feminist Lies and Misinformation..

Here is a legitimate response by staff at the ABS (Aus Bureau of Stats) which shows the bias and downright misinformation feminists have introduced to further their agenda. They have indeed provided studies that have the answer to begin with. Endless misinformation and downright lies are the order of the day.. It did not go unnoticed.

A QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY
THE FOLLOWING comments were made by male and female staff members of the Australian Bureau of Statistics using the bureau’s internal e-mail after the Office for the Status of Women approached it in late 1994 to conduct a survey called Male Violence Against Women,
Freely available information on this survey has been pretty thin compared to that usually available during the development of other surveys which I have had to deal with. I think part of the reason for the lack of freely available information is that those responsible for the survey want to minimise the involvement of men. In fact just today I was told that is the case and a special exemption from sexual discrimination is about to be provided, so it looks like I won 't be involved.
Australia currently lacks a comprehensive study of domestic violence with reliable and valid information. Perhaps public funds would be better spent getting such a comprehensive picture first. Would it not be possible to convince the powers that be that, as there is already a survey being funded to gather some of the data, they should take advantage of this and with the addition of a minuscule more funding extend the survey to cover all forms of domestic violence?
Now that a number of surveys in the ABS are being financed by users, it is imperative that we remain objective and that we ensure that the methodology of such collections is soundly based. In the past, I have raised with senior management the possibility that in, the current environment we are in danger of dancing to the piper's tune with surveys funded in this way. Now it appears my concerns are well-founded I have it on good authority that the methodology for this survey is flawed and it appears that it is being deliberately manipulated by OSW to achieve the survey results that they desire.
Has anyone been following the development of the Survey Of Violence Against Women? It is becoming increasingly clear that the Office of the Status of Women are not interested in getting an accurate picture of domestic violence nor are they interested only in violence against women. They are interested only in violence against women by men. We should be asking if this survey is in the best interest of the public. What purpose does it serve? What uses will such data be put to? I have serious concerns about this survey and do not feel that the ABS should be involved if it continues to develop along these lines.

Turning Aus. into Sweden, Radical Feminists in AUS.

December 30, 2011Kyle LovettFEMINISM, FEMINIST GOVERNANCE

A path to Australian apartheid

(The first part of this series on Australia can be found here)
Tanya Plibersek, Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women in the Rudd Labor Government, wrote in 2002;

“At the weekend, the National Party voted against special measures to increase their number of women parliamentarians. The ALP and the Liberals, in contrast, want more women, but can’t agree on the best way to get them. This should be good news for the feminists who fought to make it happen, yet some – like the former federal MP Susan Ryan – ask whether it was worth it. After all, we haven’t defeated patriarchy. Yet.”[1]

Seven years later, Plibersek played a critical role in championing Australia’s new ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. Plibersek, along side Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, put together a consortium of academics and domestic violence experts, to spearhead a team which would go on create the national report that became official policy. Since the early 2000′s, Plibersek never made it secret that she strongly supports feminist and even some radical feminist ideals. Indeed, in 2005, when Sheila Jeffreys came to Sydney to make a speech, it was Plibersek that introduced her with warm welcoming remarks.[2]
In April 1999, Plibersek gave an interview to Peter Lewis, during which she spoke about these ties of the Labor Party to the feminist community:

“I think that our historical relationships with groups outside the Labor Party like the peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the environment, the feminist movement. Our links with community feminist organisations have been about promoting grassroots activism around sexual assault services, domestic violence services; that sort of activism within the community and collective responsibility..”

She went on to weigh in about giving help to families with disabled children, but also clarified that she felt families are strictly women and children, and that any of their responsibilities should become the state’s responsibility;

“But it is also fair to say that the State owes a responsibility to those kids and their parents. We don’t want to return to a situation of voluntarism where individual parents may not have the skills or the patience or the time or the financial ability to look after their children in the ways that would benefit them the most. And I don’t know if it’s an ideal situation to necessarily throw the responsibility back on them. I don’t want to go back to a situation where families — and that means women — are being told its their responsibility all over again.”[3]

Plibersek’s special hand-picked legal advisor to the council was former Tasmanian Attorney-General Judith Jackson. Jackson, who labels herself as a “committed feminist,” has had a career filled with controversy. In the 2004 Tasmania Family Violence Act, [7] she was roundly criticized for her insistence that people accused of domestic violence not be granted bail before trial unless a series of nearly impossible steps were taken by the judge. When Jackson was criticized for attempting to bypass the Justice system, and for violating the human rights of men, she lashed out at her critics;

“How can anybody say that somebody should be let out on bail, so they can go back and re-offend and commit a crime again, and that’s what you’re saying and I find that disgusting.”[4]

But despite the fact that the data used as justification for the bill was based on very poor research, which according to many human rights advocates and several of her critics, never examined how often men were battered in similar circumstances, the bill was passed into law. The ramifications of the law went on to see hundreds of Tasmanian men spending weeks, many times months in prison before trial, for being accused of crimes like ‘economic’ or ‘emotional’ abuse. Ms. Jackson, when confronted about what the law was doing in practice, appeared quite amused and replied:

“We do have some of the best legislation in the world for protecting women and children,”[5]

The reality of the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ is that it was promoted and shepherded through Australian government by Plibersek, a woman that admittedly was heavily biased towards a hardline feminist perspective that entailed a goal of destroying what she saw as a patriarchy and  associated with radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys.  Plibersek also believed that women and children are the only parts that constituted a family and felt that the parental responsibly of raising disabled children lies solely with the state. Plibersek hand chosen, as her legal expert to the National Council, Judy Jackson, was a “committed feminist” who has openly disregarded due process of law for men, ignored compelling data or research when drafting radical legislation and has been often accused of “incessant sexism” by her fellow colleagues. [6]
It is not known exactly how the Rudd Labor Government choose the 11 members of the National Council in May 2008, but their members were: Libby Lloyd AM (Chair),Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Moira Carmody, Dorinda Cox, Maria Dimopoulos, Melanie Heenan, Rachel Kayrooz, Andrew O’Keefe, Vanessa Swan, Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Woodbridge. [8][9] The council in conjunction with Plibersek, Jackson and Macklin, sought the help of several other academics, domestic violence experts and other individuals that the report refers to as “critical friends” to complete and finalize what became known as ‘Time for Action: the National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021‘.[19][20][27]
The Sources of New National Policy
The sources of data, research and analysis that were gathered and referenced by the national council and used as justification for their plan were formally acknowledged in the Government’s press releases in early 2009. Those sources were:[24][25][26]

• The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC)
• The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA)
• The Women’s Services Network (WESNET)
• Women, Domestic Violence and Homelessness: A Synthesis Report
• National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence (NASSV)
• The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) were also used, but only as the information they provided was delivered via other research papers and analytical reports.

Another detailed list of the National Plan’s sources can be found here.
The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists
One little known portion of the website Radfemspeak.net, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes,Diane Bell, Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys, Renate Klein, Jocelynne A. Scutt, Mary Lucille Sullivan, Denise Thompson, Bronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]
Several of these names were attendees of the 2011 Perth SCUM conference, including Hawthorne, Jeffreys and McLellan. Bell, Klein, Scutt, Sullivan and Thompson are also part of this close knit group of radical feminist authors, speakers and/or professors, each of whom have been published through Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press.[14] Two of these are of particular interest to this story for the moment; Dr. Bronwyn Winter, an Associate Professor at The University of Sydney,[12] and Dr.Betty Mclellan, who was the principle founder for ‘A Coalition for a Feminist Agenda‘.[13]
Dr. Winter has been a frequent guest speaker at several feminist and radical feminist gatherings, three of which were hosted or organized by Dr. Betty McLellan. [15][16] Dr. Winter also wrote an article in November of 2006 in support of White Ribbon Dayfor the website Online Opinion. [18] White Ribbon Day is an event that was created from the White Ribbon Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by a woman named Libby Lloyd. Lloyd is the current Chairperson for the National Council’s Violence Against Women Advisory Group. [17] More interesting however, is the end of the article, in which Dr. Winter and Ms. Green list who they feel are other leading voices for women. Most of the names are from the organization known as WESNET, but they also name a few other individual women’s rights advocates in Australia.

“Written by Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney, and Betty Green, domestic violence advocate, on behalf of WESNET (Women’s Services Network): peak body grouping 380 women’s domestic and family violence services across Australia); Pauline Woodbridge, Coordinator, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service; Julie Oberin, Manager, Annie North Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service; Marie Hume, National Abuse Free Contact Campaign; Veronica Wensing, Executive Officer, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; Beth Tinning, Facilitator, Domestic Violence and Family Law Support Action Group, Townsville; and women’s rights advocates Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.”

Many of these names will reappear again, including WESNET and its role in Australia’s ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’, but what is of primary note here the last name mentioned in the article, a women’s rights advocate named Julieanne Le Comte. I did an extensive search for a women’s rights advocate under that name in Australia, or indeed, anyone connected with a domestic violence or battered shelter group, and found nothing except some links to some very old internet list servs about feminist science fiction.
According to the AO files, Julieanne Le Comte is the person who is also known under the alias Rain Lewis. Rain is the owner and the main administrator of the Radfem Hub and forum, and she was also a speaker at the 2011 Pert SCUM conference.  [19] Dr. Winter is also public friends on Facebook with Rain Lewis, as well as the organizers of the Perth SCUM conference Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher. Does this mean that Dr. Winter is saying that Le Comte is an Australian women’s rights advocate leader because she runs the Radfem hub and forum, which as we all know, often discusses things like violence against men and infanticide?
WESNET, Political Action and Patriarchy
Dr. Betty McLellan has been on the Australian feminist scene for some twenty years, and has written several books published under Susan Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press. [20] McLellan has also hosted or chaired several conferences and gatherings of mostly radical feminists, including the 2002 Townsville International Women’s Conferenceand the 2007 International Feminist Summit. [15][16] Her Feminist Agenda coalition was also co-founded in 2002 by Dr. Joanne Baker, a Senior Professor at James Cook University, Chantal Oxenham, who works for the Australian Department of Human Services in the Northern Queensland Service Zone as a Regional Manager and Coralie McLean. [21][22][23]
The 2002 Townsville International Women’s  5 day conference hosted about 50 different feminist speakers from 15 countries. Over a dozen panels and workshops took place as well, several of which took place in women only sessions. From the  Australian speakers, a large portion of them were some of the same radical feminists we’ve seen above; McLellan, Jeffreys, Winter,Scutt, Renate Klein, Hawthorne, Sullivan, Baker and Oxenham.
What stands out was the large contingent of WESNET board members, who were part of four different panels. Over the past decade, WESNET has had only about two dozen board members, the most prominent two being Pauline Woodbridge and Julie Oberin. WESNET describes itself as:

“Established in 1992, the Women’s Services Network (WESNET) is a national women’s peak advocacy body which works on behalf of women and children who are experiencing or have experienced domestic or family violence. With almost 400 members across Australia, WESNET represents a range of organisations and individuals including women’s refuges, shelters, safe houses and information/ referral services.”[29]

While having individual speaking assignments, here are the four panels in which WESNET board members were involved. (WESNET board members in bold)

• Panel – “Many Pieces Make a Whole – Providers of Anti-violence Education (PAVE)” Members - Jennyne Dillon, Ines Zuchowski, Joanne Baker, John Brown, Catherine Bessant, Jo Stewart, Shirley Slann, Jane Collyer, Pauline Woodbridge

• Panel -”Joined Up Responses to Violence Against Women – Townsville Women’s Services Collaboration” Members - Lindy Edwards, Morgan King and Pauline Woodbridge

• Panel – “Domestic and Family Violence Peak Round Table – Reflections, Future Directions/Strategic Directions for Advocacy and Lobbying” Members - Julie Oberin, Pauline Woodbridge, Shirley Slann, Ara Cresswell, Maxene Schulte

• Panel – “National Strategy for Family Law Act Reform” Members - Julie Oberin, Ara Cresswell, Pauline Woodbridge

Obviously the focus of much of the conference was on consolidation of feminist groups within Australia,  to lobby and advocate for new laws and new programs on a national level. Indeed, less than two years latter, in March 2004, five members of the 2002 Townsville Feminist conference (under the banner of the Feminist Agenda Coalition)went to the capital Canberra and met with several Labor Party leaders.[30] They discussed their idea for a blueprint of a national plan, which basic concepts were laid out in Townsville. Interestingly enough, many of the same 2002 Townsville plan basics were incorporated into the 2007 Rudd Labor Party platform, which led to the ‘National Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’.
This topic will be addressed further in the next article, but two items are very important from this 2004 Canberra trip:

• Only one of the five Feminist Agenda delegation that went was a WESNET representative. The other four were into differing degrees of radical feminism and were led by McLellan.

• The politicians the delegation met with are some of the politicians who were directly involved with the 2009 national plan, including Tanya Plibersek and Jenny Macklin.

At the 2007 International Feminist Summit, which was a far more radical feminist conference than 2002, saw Woodbridge and Oberin of WESNET take a much larger role individually. They both even gave back to back speeches:
Pauline Woodbridge – “Challenging Patriarchy in Men’s behaviour Change Programs”
Julie Oberin – “Perpetrators of domestic violence: Can we? Should we?”
Less than 6 months after this conference took place Rudd’s Labor party won the election and took power. And less than 10 months after the 2007 conference Pauline Woodbridge would be appointed (from all indications by Plibersek) to the National Council chaired by Libby Lloyd. Woodbridge and Oberin, under the banner of WESNET, would go on to play a crucial role in the analysis and direction of the National Council. In fact, not only is WESNET listed as one of the main sources for information, Woodbridge and Oberin, along with the WESNET organization were recognized and used extensively as references and analysis in the 2008 Flinders University Synthesis Report; another of the Council’s primary sources.
From Woodbridge and Plibersek  past speeches and remarks, and by the policies outlines in the report,  much of what was recommended  seemed to draw heavily from the feminist theory of Patriarchy. Furthermore, if the 2007 International Feminist Summit was any indication, WESNET’s top two people were increasingly moving in radical feminist circles, including interaction with people like Jeffreys, McLellan, Winter, Bell, Sullivan, Hawthorne, Klein, Catharine MacKinnon, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Ryl Harrison and Beth Tinning.[16] The question is if they did become radicalized, how much? And to what extent did their influence with the National Council’s sources and analysis moved in a radical direction?
Other question remain, which we will examine in the next article:

• Who were the other members of the National Council and what is their story? Were any of them less than friendly to Feminist ideology than Plibersek, Jackson or Woodbridge?
• What exact data and statistics were used? Was the data accurate and factual? Was the information used honestly and in context?
• What did the 2004 Feminist Agenda delegation to Canberra produce, and how much of McLellan’s agenda did the Labor party buy into?
• What other feminists and radical feminists were used as sources for the study?
• What role did the White Ribbon Foundation play?
• What exactly is the plan, and how does the Australian government intend to enact it?
• How does this fit into the already extensive Australian governmental agencies dedicated to women?
• Have any men’s groups or father’s rights groups had a say in the plan?
• How much more marginalized will men become in Australia because of these actions?

This subject is complex, but hopefully many of these connections are a little more clear to everyone. I’ve been as detailed and thorough as possible  to avoid any confusion, and to stay away from generalized accusations. The men’s rights movement is, for me,  at its root about equal protection under the law. Much of Feminism has been about changing the way government operates to further their ideology, often with radical feminists leading the way. It’s happened in Sweden and I hope our research here shows how it is happening in Australia.
[1] http://evatt.org.au/news/womens-suffrage-100-years.html
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ausnews/message/7160
[3] http://workers.labor.net.au/9/print_index.html
[4] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1245028.htm
[5] http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200411/s1252626.htm
[6] http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2005/s1517030.htm
[7]http://www.safeathome.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/27585/Family_Violence_Act_2004.pdf
[8]http://www.dvirc.org.au/UpdateHub/FACS_37004_Violence_Against_Women.pdf
[9] http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/newdelhi11/lloyd.pdf
[10] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/
[11] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html
[12] http://sydney.edu.au/arts/french/staff/academic_profiles/winter.shtml
[13] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/
[14] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Authors/
[15] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/history/tiwc/list_of_abstracts.htm
[16] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Summit/detailedProgram.html
[17]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx
[18] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5212&page=0
[19] http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-scum-connection/
[20] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/author/id=1/
[21] http://www.rural-leaders.com.au/programs/arlp/course-18-participants/488-chantal-oxenham
[22] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/aboutUs.htm
[23] http://www.jcu.edu.au/sass/staff/JCUPRD_016477.html
[24]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/acknowledgments.aspx
[25] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/research/Pages/default.aspx
[26]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/nat_plan_2010_bibliography.aspx
[27]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx
[28] http://www.wwda.org.au/natviolplanrept1.pdf
[29] http://wesnet.org.au/about/
[30] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Canberra%20Report1.html
Other links
(ADFVC) – http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/
(AIC) – http://www.aic.gov.au/
(WESNET) - http://wesnet.org.au/
Synthesis Report –http://fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/synthesis_report08/Pages/default.aspx
(NASSV) - http://www.nasasv.org.au/
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)

Written byKyle Lovett

Share viaSocial Media

11 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »