ONE IN THREE VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE IS MALE

OPINION: Men are victims of domestic violence too | Newcastle Herald

r0_1_1200_676_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

LAST month a NSW Police Facebook post talked about male victims of family violence and the fact that last year one in five domestic violence assaults that NSW police attended to involved male victims.

This is not news for many of us who have worked for many years to advocate for rights for male domestic violence victims and for services to be provided for them and also female perpetrators

Both of these groups – male victims and female perpetrators – are “invisible” in the eyes of the domestic violence field in this country.

Male victims need to be encouraged to come forward, and they need as much support as female and child victims of family violence, and the NSW Police Facebook post  we hope will help to facilitate this.

The fact that women are victims of domestic violence in 66per cent of the cases needs to be addressed and is being addressed, but what about the other 33per cent?

There has been no community education censuring violence by women or raising awareness of the needs of male domestic violence victims.

I run the only training program for health and community workers in how to respond to the needs of male victims in Australia and New Zealand.

There are hundreds of training courses in Australia around domestic violence but none of them deal with the two “invisible” groups, they simply help to perpetrate the myth that domestic violence is something that only happens to women at the hands of men.

Domestic violence can be thought of as an equal opportunity killer.

Recent tragedies in Brisbane and Cairns involving women killing their children show that women are just as capable of homicide as men when children are involved.

The latest statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that between 2008 and 2010, in family-related murders of children by all family members, more than 37per cent of the known killers were the mother.  (The source is raw data from the AIC’s National Homicide Monitoring Program at oneinthree.com.au/storage/xls/Family_Violence_Homicides_2008-10_NHMP.xlsx)

It is indeed sad that while our community awareness of the dangers of domestic violence is growing, the information is not being presented fairly and the truth about who might actually commit violence and abuse in relationships is not being accurately portrayed.

Dr Elizabeth Celi, a psychologist and author on men’s health, has some interesting insights.

She says public awareness of domestic violence often falls short of portraying the whole story.

‘‘Decades of rightly raising public awareness for female victims of domestic violence, have simultaneously lacked in accurate public education that women can also be abusive and violent, towards other women, men and children,’’ she says.

She also points out that turning a blind eye to women who commit domestic violence puts children at risk.

‘‘Children are affected by abusive and violent behaviour regardless of the perpetrator’s gender. Our children don’t deserve to be put at risk by overlooking women’s abuse and violence.’’

It is time that we called for a stop to all domestic violence, irrespective of who commits it and who is the victim.

In the real war to stop all violence in relationships, there is no place for gender battles; we need to move on from this and work towards making all men, women and children safe.

Greg Millan is a men’s health consultant. He will run a training program for health workers ‘‘Working with men affected by violence” in Newcastle on February 20. 

Visit menshealthservices.com.au

Domestic Violence Against Men: Women More Likely To Be ‘Intimate Terrorists’ With Controlling Behavior In Relationships

Upset woman about to slap her partner the living room

Relationships can be an emotional rollercoaster. Throughout the ride, men and women can be everything from loving and nurturing, to sometimes verbally and even physically abusive during fights. While aggression in heterosexual relationships is believed to stem from men, a recent study presented on June 25 at a symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow, found women are more likely to be “intimate terrorists,” or physically aggressive to their partners than men.

Michael P. Johnson, an American sociologist coined the term “intimate terrorism,” or batterers or abusers, in the 1990s to define an extreme form of controlling relationship behavior involving threats, intimidation, and violence. Men were almost always responsible for these heinous acts. This belief is further supported by statistics highlighting nearly three in 10 women (29 percent), and one in 10 men (10 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner, affecting some form of their functioning, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To observe the dynamic and prevalence of intimate partner violence of men and women in heterosexual relationships, Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire, conducted a survey collecting data from a large cohort of students. More than 1,000 students — 706 women and 398 men with an average age of 24 — responded to the questionnaires. The students were asked about their physical aggression and controlling behavior to partners, and to same-sex others, including friends.

The findings revealed just as many women as men could also be classed as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with serious levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. Women were more likely to verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men. “This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. “It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” said Bates,Medical Xpress reported. Some of the survey respondents circled boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and even threatening to use a weapon.

However, when it came to terms of high levels of control and aggression, there was no difference between men and women. There was a higher prevalence of controlling behavior seen in women than men, which was found to significantly predict physical aggression in both sexes. In other words, the more controlling behavior a woman displayed, the more likely she would an “intimate terrorist,” or physically aggressive to her partner.

“This was an interesting finding. Previous studies have sought to explain male violence towards women as rising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek to control women’s behavior, using violence if necessary,” Bates said. This suggests IPV may not be motivated by patriarchal values, and should be further studied with other forms of aggression. The stereotypical popular view, although still dominant, is being challenged by research over the last ten to 15 years, shedding light on male domestic violence.

Mark Brooks, chair of the ManKind Initiative in the U.K., which offers support for male victims of domestic violence, believes Bates’ study is “game changing.” “At the charity we’re not surprised at the findings, because of the type of calls we get to our helpline every day,” Brooks told The Telegraph. “What concerns us still is the lack of awareness and services available to support those men suffering in this way.”

It is no surprise that the media and government in the U.S. and throughout other parts of the world, people focus most attention on the female victims of domestic violence and, consequently, men are the overlooked victims of domestic violence. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, men and boys are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to several challenges such as the stigma of being a male victim. Sixteen percent of adult men who report being raped or physically assaulted are victims of a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.

Source: Bates E et al. Women more likely to be aggressive than men in relationships. British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow.

Voting LNP ALP Axis of Evil is Voting for child Abuse from Trafficking.

The Magna Carta (Great Charter), 1297 Parliament House, Canberra | Origins of the 1215 Magna Carta

King John exploited and abused the traditional sources of revenue. Desperate for money to wage wars in defence of his estates, John demanded unprecedented amounts in ‘scutage’, or money from his tenants in lieu of providing knights for the king’s service. He was intemperate and at times cruel in his manner of enforcing his rights from his land-holders and from the church, and unjust in his treatment of people at all levels. There was no redress against the absolute power of the king.

Barons who resisted paying the excessive levies had their lands confiscated and members of their families taken as hostages. By 1215 rebel barons outnumbered those loyal to John. They united and marched on London from the north and captured the Tower of London on 17 May 1215.

logo

 

 

 

I have proven false allegations of DV, proven corruption in Queensland Government, have court orders for my 5yo to see me every week, I have been in family corrupt court for 5 years,  legal aid Queensland has blocked contact for over 2 years. I am still waiting new orders from August 2014 trial.

Voting LNP ALP Axis of Evil is Voting for child Abuse from Trafficking

Would be good if you will write to your state and federal members as this is their job to do my son  has been denied his inalienable rights and free liberties by corruption in our government to see and be with us.

Breaches of law FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 – SECT 4AB  (i)  preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture;

We need to get Tough on public service crime and corruption, we are very much under attack, we need leadership.

My Surfers Paradise State and Fed LNP reps got me on charges s474.17 a fed indictment from an email on my sons 5th birthday, in defense of my young son, I’m getting a summary trial, no legal aid, no legal rep, no jury, 3 years prison.

CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 4G

Indictable offences

Offences against a law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months are indictable offences, unless the contrary intention appears.

CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 –

10.4   Self-defence

(1)  A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

Forced to file a writs of habeas corpus in federal magistrates court for COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80

Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth

, and subsequent  private prosecution of systemic corruption and child abuse under the Australian family law act.

The Parliament and government are linked in the relationship known as ‘responsible government’, which was described earlier. For this reason, we consider them together. These are powerful institutions, which control the law-making process.

Potentially, they protect rights in two ways: positively, by passing laws to protect rights that are not currently protected and negatively, by restraining themselves from making laws to infringe rights that are recognized by the common law or international law.

CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

A person is incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Member if he or she has been convicted of bribery, undue influence or interference with political liberty, or has been found by the Court of Disputed Returns to have committed or attempted to commit bribery or undue influence when a candidate, disqualification being for two years from the date of the conviction or finding..

Unfortunately it will get worse, our public services attract antisocial types, sociopaths, psychopaths, pedophiles, narcissus like flies. Question is how do we fix it, given our public service is working against us.

We need to organise real people to take up parliamentary seats. candidates, independents or otherwise.

 

http://fathersaustralia.com/wp/

lp

Kickstart 2015 by being proactive from now‏

fireworks

01 January 2015

Hi All

Here attached is good reading to begin 2015 with thanks to Lone Fathers Association Australia for the great job they do in producing a great newsletter.  Note the branches listed and get along and give force to change in 2015 or if no branch is in your area get one started and contact Barry Williams to help you get another branch up and running.  Not only for the duration of your own case but for years after like me now over 15 years and still driving for the equality of fathers out of Government Administration.

http://lonefathers.org.au/

Here’s an easy start of something very positive right now offsetting feminist propaganda about domestic violence.

Read Bliney Dan on page 21 and read Professor Patrick Parkinson Report on false allegations attached here.  Run off a few copies of his research he submitted to The Senate and get an appointment with your nearest Station Sergeant and explain to them how false allegations leave harm upon the father falsely accused and that false allegation can be prosecuted by police under the Police Administration Act for also being a waste of Taxpayers Resources especially under budget cuts.  If it still goes to court as a false allegation it then comes under the Criminal Code Act for the misuse of courts and the penalty for the false claimant is the same as what they were trying .to have falsely imposed.  A false report is a serious legal matter not being properly handled by police. Run off the ABS stats too for police.  They are       GOVERNMENTS OWN STATISTICS that police should be heeding as the status quo.

And that Police must by way of their Oath of Office abandon their long ago adopted and unlawful feminists solely male blame Duluth Model of administering Domestic Violence.

Come on now and make 2015 a year of being proactive restoring truth and gender equality in these heterosexual administrations.  The feminists are doing it all of the time surely fathers can find some time to counterbalance their propaganda with the likes of Professor Parkinson’s Research. Professor Parkinson is a professor of law with as specialization in family law at NSW University email patrick.parkinsion@sydney.edu.au

Regards

Robert K

Phone 08 8932 333908 8932 3339

Reading View. Alt Shift A for Accessibility Help.

False Allegations of Abuse – Submission by Prof. Parkinson to Senate

Excerpt of submission to the Senate Committee: There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have become very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well.  The view that some family violence order applications are unjustified appears to be shared by state magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland. Hickey and Cumines in a survey of 68 NSW magistrates concerning apprehended violence orders (AVOs) found that 90% agreed that some AVOs were sought as a tactic to aid their case in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children. About a third of those who thought AVOs were used tactically indicated that it did not occur ‘often’, but one in six believed it occurred ‘all the time’. A similar survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

90% of surveyed NSW Magistrates agreed that AVOs were sometimes or often sought as a tactic in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often. In another study based upon interviews with 181 parents who have been involved in family law disputes, we found a strong perception from respondents to family violence orders (both women and men) that their former partners sought a family violence order in order to help win their family law case. This is a quote from one of the women in our study. Her former husband, who we also interviewed, sought an apprehended violence order (AVO) to keep her away from the house after she had left it.

A survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

She said this: “I thought this is ridiculous. What’s he giving me an AVO for? I haven’t done anything to him. I haven’t hit him, kicked him. We never had any violence in our marriage. Why have I got an AVO?  … you can put an AVO on someone and say that they’re violent, and the only way you can get a child off their mother is because they’re violent. And that’s why I think he gave me the AVO.” The belief that family violence orders are a weapon in the war between parents is fuelled by the fact that judges are required under the Family Law Act to consider such family violence orders in determining the best interests of the child. The proposed clause in this Bill takes the law back to what it was before 2006, without any explanation for why Parliament should reverse its previous decision at least to limit the provision. It really doesn’t matter whether this belief that family violence orders are used tactically is true or not. The fact is that the perception is out there and it is held by state magistrates and family lawyers, as well as the wider community. The retention of this provision in the Family Law Act simply fuels the suspicion that family violence orders are being misused. This is damaging to the credibility of the family violence order system and the courts.The second reason why the requirement to consider family violence orders ought to be removed is that this serves absolutely no purpose. Yes, the court needs to know about the existence of a current family violence order in order to consider how to frame its own orders (s.60CG), but that is dealt with by requiring people to inform the court of such orders (s.60CF). Why consider them again in deciding what is in the best interests of a child (s.60CC(3))? The court is already required to consider the history of violence. What does it add to require the court also to consider a family violence order? The impression given by the legislation is that these orders are somehow evidence that there has been violence. However, that is a misunderstanding.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often.

Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions. The hearings in these uncontested cases are very brief indeed. Prof. Rosemary Hunter, in observations in Victoria in 1996–97, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence, they were typically asked to confirm the content of their written application, and very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place. Dr Jane Wangmann, in a recent analysis of court files in NSW, reached finding very similar to Hunter’s. In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague. It is hardly surprising, then, that judges in family law cases draw no inferences from the mere existence of a family violence order. This has been the clear view of family lawyers for the last 15 years. Indeed, in the research we recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, none of the lawyers who responded to the question believed that judicial officers gave AVOs much consideration in determining parenting disputes. Judges, they indicate, want to evaluate the evidence of violence itself, not the fact that another court has made an order about it by consent and without admissions. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=f6c1e09d-3367-4ed1-b0da-aed26481ea59 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011 Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs  by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney

STOP PRESS! PREROGATIVE WRITS OF MANDAMUS SERVED IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY!

December 2010

In an historic first for Australia, Prerogative Writs of Mandamus were served in the High Court in Canberra at about 3.48 pm this afternoon pertaining to the illegal “corporations” that have been formed, and are being operated under the “Commonwealth of Australia” ABN122 104 616 and the America Securities Exchange Commission No. 000 080 5157, and commanding that this fraudulent “corporation,” and all of the fraudulent subsidiary “companies” – being those in each of the States – be dissolved. Queenslanders will no doubt be familiar with the “Brigalow Corporation,” brought to the attention of the people some years ago by Sue Maynes in New South Wales, Brian Shaw in Victoria, Wayne Glew et al in Western Australia, as well as many other good and hard-working people for the cause in many other States.

This action will have repercussions throughout Australia, and around the world, and result in the formation of the King’s Bench, which may result in the dissolution of all of the governments – State and Federal – as they are all guilty of fraud – and possibly the arrest and jailing of a number of people – politicians, government “advisers” and lackeys, judges, and many others. The list is already quite extensive, including former politicians and Prime Ministers, Premiers, on and on it goes! As we said in a previous issue of the Voice, “Runnymede, here we come again!”

This is the result of people realising their sovereign rights under the Australian Consitution Act 1901, sections 1 to 128, Section 61 of Magna Carta 1215/1297, and the Statute of Monopolities 1623-4, where there has been a number of frauds of gigantic proportions perpetrated on the sovereign people of Australia.

We congratulate people like Sue Maynes and many others, who have toiled for years to try to get something done about the situation. We have waited and waited for someone to act, hoping someone would, and having waited for years, with nothing happening, we decided to do it ourselves. Together, we quietly formed an alliance with other hard working sovereign people from other States, issued the writs this week in the High Court, serving them this afternoon. It was a tremendous rush, to get them in to the High Court before they close tomorrow for the year, and we sincerely thank all those who gave their all to get them sent in time for issuing this afternoon in the High Court in Canberra..

The Chief Justice Mr. French does not have long to act, and he must act. If he does not, he may be charged with high treason, which according to law, is punishable by death. YOU WON’T SEE THIS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANY TIME SOON!

White Ribbon considering legal action against men’s rights group

A US-based men’s rights group has purchased a similar domain name to promote its own cause. The URL whiteribbon.org directs to a website that looks very similar to whiteribbon.org.australia, but is run by a group calling itself ‘A Voice for Men’.

It also uses the name ‘White Ribbon’, but claims to be raising awareness about domestic abuse as a non-gendered issue, highlighting men also as victims and the effects on children.

The “copycat” website claimed that violence against women was an exaggerated myth at the cost of men.

The group claimed on its website that the idea of a female victim of domestic violence was manufactured, accusing universities and researches on domestic violence prevention of man hating.

National Executive Engagement Officer for White Ribbon Australia, Fayssal Sari, told SBS the group was using deceitful tactics to mislead people who had genuine concerns for victims of domestic violence.

Listen: Fayssal Sari speaks with Widyan Al Ubudy.

7317bb06-b3ca-4b16-94fa-b89aecbb9f1d

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/06/white-ribbon-considering-legal-action-against-mens-rights-group

“End Violence Against Everyone”

1926785_473981019409382_8390872773784998840_n

https://www.facebook.com/Whiteribbonworldwide

abs_logo_wh2

Australian Bureau of Statistics

AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY ONLINE PARTY, DEMOCRACY 2.0 THE UPGRADE Only together we can over run the ALP LNP Cults with our own direct democratic party, to make the changes we want and need for our children and our children’s children.

Change won’t happen unless we make it happen, we have to do it together as one, unless we do we will relive history.

Point is laws are only any good if they protect us and our rights, freedoms and liberties, laws are only good if they are upheld at all times equally.

It is obvious to most that the government and pathetic judiciary, our employees do not up hold the law nor the spirit of the law, because they hold us in contempt and this is why we are here to be a political force to deal with them, because they believe we work for them, and in reality we do, we work and pay them tax an they hold us in contempt..

21

 

Dads protest outside court to see their children

Andy Parks
Dads outside the Family Court in Lismore protesting about lengthy delays that keep them seperated from their children.Andy Parks
TODAY marks 12 months since the last time Adam (not his real name) saw his daughter.
TODAY marks 12 months since the last time Adam (not his real name) saw his daughter.

He marked the occasion by staging a protest outside the Family Court in Lismore along with a couple of other dads who have been through lengthy court cases in order to see their children.

“Every adjournment is a sentence for the non-custodial parent,” Adam said.

The court has ordered that Adam be given supervised visit with his daughter every fortnight. He drove to Coffs Harbour for these visits on a number of occasions, but the mother decided it was too stressful for their daughter and just stopped coming.

“I don’t get any photos, artworks, news from what’s happening at school – nothing. She (the mother) ignores everything (the court ordered) and there is no penalty.”

Many of the delays in his case are because the judge is based in Townsville and only occasionally put on the Brisbane circuit, which includes the Lismore Family Court.

Adam’s story resonated with several passers-by who offered support while The Northern Star was visiting.

“We went through it and everyone came out bitter and twisted. It’s a f**ked system,” one woman offered.

“So many people, particularly men, have told me not to bother, not to feed the system and the lawyers, to wait until your kid grows up and that they will come back to you then,” Adam said. “But I don’t want to do that.”

One father said in order to be eligible for Legal Aid, he had to give up his job.

Adam has spent so much time studying the legal proceedings of his case, he is now studying law at SCU and one day hopes to be able to help other dads in Family Court matters.

If two nations are at war

268001_2106284531925_5227072_nIf two nations are at war but only one nation knows it, that one nation will win.

EMILY’s List Australia – Current Members of Parliament

penny wong colour web ready 2

Jacobin Club – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10450931_1570223063206066_5671424695153606098_n

Unfortunately it will get worse, our public services attract sociopaths, psychopaths, peodafiles, nacrtists etc like flies. Question is how do we fix it, given every sh#t in our public services is working against us.

We need to organise real people to take up parliamentary seats. candidates, independents or other wise.

lp

OUR SOLUTION AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY ONLINE PARTY. DEMOCRACY 2.0 THE UPGRADE

10516931_712567022160059_2049446783_n

10712804_735282736526447_5375800710597531308_n

 

10686989_296031523937467_1434876597261433624_n

 

 

10678662_1458835544399322_4991491977839488049_n

21