The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children
In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) headed by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, approved a ‘framework for action’ called ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′. The effort was spearheaded by Tanya Plibersek, former Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women and Jenny Macklin, former Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The main body of work was completed by the National Council’s Advisory Group which is chaired by Libby Lloyd, who founded the White Ribbon Foundation in 2003.
The plan is split into several parts, which puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament. Since we have already explored the disingenuous and dishonest use of statistics, and the conscious decision to obfuscate the realities concerning child abuse, let’s take a look at what the National Advisory Council has recommended Australia enact in terms of judicial and legislative changes.
Components of The Plan
While ‘the Plan’ includes dozens of different recommendations to reduce violence against women and their children, many of the more controversial and contentious propositions are found in the following areas:
- Endorsement of civil and criminal laws to be made ‘gendered’ or ‘gender sensitive’
- Expanding the definition of what legally constitutes domestic violence
- Guidance on several changes to the Judicial processes and requests for new judicial entities
- Broadening of the State’s powers to allow for numerous different legally binding orders
- Granting the State broad powers over the relationships of children and their parents
- Formalizing new sexual assault laws, which define legally consensual sexual intercourse
- Recommend the State be granted new powers, to take extrajudicial actions against fathers and men
Gendering of Civil and Criminal Family Violence Laws
It’s important to note that the council members make it quite clear that all civil and criminal laws and procedures regarding domestic violence and sexual assault must become “gendered.” That is, the National Council recommends that the rule of law, both civil and criminal, will be greatly influenced based the sex of an accused person. In November, 2011 the council directly asked “Make criminal and civil laws gender sensitive.”[2] The Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry took up this issue of gendered laws in it’s 1,556 page report to the National Council.[13]
“The National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children acknowledged that while women as well as men can commit—as well as be victims of—family violence or sexual assault, the research shows that ‘the overwhelming majority of violence and abuse is perpetrated by men against women’. Put very simply, ‘[t]he biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault and/or domestic and family violence is being a woman’.”[13-pg51]
While the ALRC doesn’t commit to equal protection under the law, they attempt to say the gendered treatment for civil and criminal law benefits everyone, stipulating that “reforming legal frameworks with the aim of improving the safety of all victims of family violence—the effect will be to the benefit of all victims, whether male or female.”[13-pg51]
The ALRC again reaffirms that both men and women can be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but again, never affirms the legal principle of equal protection under the law stating that:
“‘the overwhelming majority of violence and abuse is perpetrated by men against women’, and that ‘[t]he biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault and/or domestic and family violence is being a woman’. Such findings lie behind the National Council’s strategies that, in turn, led to the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry being focused on the reduction of violence against ‘women and their children’.” [13-pg102]
The first part of ALRC statement is false, as the “majority of violence is perpetrated by men against other men.” Their second point is contentious, as many studies show that domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women; however, even by their statistics, 1/3rd of domestic violence is committed by women against men. Furthermore, women are the overwhelmingly majority of perpetrators that commit violence, abuse and neglect against children, which is neither taken into account the number of young boys who are victims of abuse, nor that the National Advisory Council never actually addresses the “reduction of violence” against children. Indeed, the ALRC states that:
“The Commissions acknowledge that family violence occurs against men and in the gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex communities and, as such, family violence in such contexts may be matters which deserve separate consideration by government at an appropriate time.”[13-pg103]
I’m curious when the National Advisory Council will feel it is an appropriate time to address the disturbing issue of child abuse? The Council members argue in ‘The Plan’ why they think there is a legal power imbalance between the sexes, and the reasoning behind the gendering of civil and criminal laws:
“Women and men in our society have unequal access to social and economic power. The evidence demonstrates that while there is no single cause of sexual assault or domestic and family violence, many risk factors associated with these types of violence can be influenced by obvious and covert expressions of inequality in the community.”[1-pg37]
In reality, gendering civil and criminal laws is much like what State sponsored racial profiling would be, in that it demands the civil and criminal authorities presume there is a reasonable assumption of guilt of a person based solely on a human characteristic, in this case their sex. In regards to gendering law, the Council and the ALRC argue that “the measures recommended can be seen to be a ‘litmus test’ for how well the legal system is working.”[13-pg103] It is nothing less than a State mandated segregation of its citizens legal rights, which violates not only Australian laws and charters, but Article 55 of the United Nations Charter to which Australia is a signatory nation.[14]
The National Advisory Council gives one of many examples on how gendered laws will work, with its recommendation for a gendered policy of arrest.
“Efforts to increase the application of the criminal law have centred on ‘pro-arrest’ and ‘no-drop’ prosecution policies that remove or limit police and judicial discretion in decision-making. However, these policies have resulted in a number of unintended consequences, including the arrest of both parties after police intervention, commonly referred to as ‘dual arrests’. In effect, dual arrests are frequently re-victimising women who are the victims of domestic and family violence.”[1 -pg116]
It is not known if Australia’s Parliament will pass laws which constitute legal discrimination towards half its population, but there is no question that the government sanctioned National Advisory Council firmly believes that discrimination, legalized sexism and bigotry are required to make their plan successful.
Judicial Changes and New ‘Family Law’ or Domestic Violence Courts and Specialized Personnel
In outcome 4 of the National Plan, the council reiterates its insistence on further integration of State sanctioned gender bias into how the Judicial system in Australia works:[2]
- Make criminal and civil laws gender sensitive.
- Ensure access to justice for women.
- Provide civil remedies in conjunction with criminal penalties.
- Provide for adequate reparation and compensation.
- Enact national plans of action and gender mainstreaming.
- Undertake research and compilation of sex disaggregated data.
On page 95 of the Plan, the council lists out how they want wish to establish new specialized court offices and personnel to deal with cases of domestic and sexual violence against women.[1-pg95]
- widening the definition of offences so that women’s and children’s experiences of violence are more appropriately recognised and encompassed within the law;
- introducing pro-arrest policies and risk assessment tools to improve police practices when responding to reports of violence;
- introducing specialist approaches such as priority listing of sexual offence cases and of domestic and family violence hearings;
- establishing specialist court support services and introducing more flexible arrangements within courts to reduce the extent to which victims feel intimidated and alienated;
- attending to procedural reforms aimed at improving the experience of giving evidence (such as introducing alternative arrangements for giving evidence and prohibiting or limiting the extent to which the accused, or the defendant, can directly cross-examine the victim)
Broadened Definitions of Domestic Violence
The National Advisory Council also put forth their new and expanded definitions of what should be including in the legal definition of Domestic Violence and Abuse. Some of these items are considered criminal and other non-criminal. The use of these expanded definitions will be used for; cause for police to enter a residence, specialized Family Law courts issuance of various orders and injunctions, as add on incriminations against the accused in criminal proceedings, as guidelines for those under court ordered restrictions to conform to and as fair and acceptable reason for a woman to contact the authorities or Family Law Courts to initiate a formal investigation. It is important that these new rules will be considered ‘gendered’, therefore a lower standard of proof is needed to take action on these items, as men will face a “gendered” assumption of guilt . The definitions are (with the more contentious ones in bold):[1-Pg188-189]
Emotional abuse
- – blaming the victim for all problems in the relationship, constantly comparing the victim with others to undermine self-esteem and self-worth, sporadic sulking, withdrawing all interest and engagement (for example weeks of silence), emotional blackmail.
Verbal abuse
- – swearing and continual humiliation, either in private or in public, with attacks following clear themes that focus on intelligence, sexuality, body image and capacity as a parent and spouse
Social abuse
- – systematic isolation from family and friends through techniques such as ongoing rudeness to family and friends to alienate them; instigating and controlling the move to a location where the victim has no established social circle or employment opportunities; and forbidding or physically preventing the victim from going out and meeting people.
Economic abuse
- – complete control of all money, including: forbidding access to bank accounts; providing only an inadequate ‘allowance’; not allowing the victim to seek or hold employment; and using all wages earned by the victim for household expenses.
Psychological abuse
- – includes: driving dangerously; destruction of property; abuse of pets in front of family members; making threats regarding custody of any children; asserting that the police and justice system will not assist, support or believe the victim; and denying an individual’s reality.
Spiritual abuse
- – denial and/or misuse of religious beliefs or practices to force victims into subordinate roles; or misuse of religious or spiritual traditions to justify physical violence or other forms of abuse.
Physical abuse
- – includes: direct assault on the body (strangulation or choking, shaking, eye injuries, slapping, pushing, spitting, punching, or kicking); use of weapons including objects; assault of children; locking the victim out of the house; and sleep and food deprivation.
Sexual abuse
- – any form of pressured/unwanted sex or sexual degradation by an intimate partner or ex-partner, such as sexual activity without consent; causing pain during sex; assaulting genitals; coercive sex without protection against pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease; making the victim perform sexual acts unwillingly (including talking explicit photos without their consent); criticising, or using sexually degrading insults.
While almost all of these items would be considered by most people to be rude, inconsiderate or insulting , (though many of these things are absurd) it is not known why these actions would rise to the level of legal court intervention including issuing various protection orders. Many couples have arguments which often times involve several of these listed definitions, so it is unclear why the State would wish to dictate the personal actions of just the father/man (since these are gendered by law). Furthermore, since the National Advisory Council, in both ‘The Plan’ and the ALRC review stand by their gendered system of civil and criminal laws, and never stated that both parties in a relationship are held to the same standards nor are equally culpable under the law, aren’t these definitions in practice just granting women specialized permissions to abuse men without the same consequences that would be faced by their partner? Would the police come and investigate a ‘family abuse’ case if the husband contacted the authorities and stated that his wife was giving him the ‘silent treatment’ and ‘denying his reality’? By the letter of their law, no.
These kinds of polices and gendered laws are not only a violation of the essential civil rights of Australian men, they border on the State sanctioned violation of basic human rights.
National Council’sRecommendations for Legal and Procedural Reforms
The National Advisory Council in conjunction with the ALRC have proposed 187 recommendations for legal reform. Some of them are requests for new courts, some are changes to existing laws and others are proposals for procedural change. The most important items covered discuss new definitions of rape and sexual assault, expanding the State’s powers to issue protection type orders against men more liberally and most controversial of all are the child protection initiatives. Listed below are some of the more controversial recommendations from the National Advisory Council’s Plan and the ALRC. I’ve included a summary list up top, and the longer narrative and references below.
Summary Items:
(References to summary items if not listed here, are referenced in the narrative beneath)
- The State will ensure that a defense against the crime of homicide, must take into consideration the experiences of family violence of the “victim” who murdered their partner.(Standardizing the battered spouse defense in murder cases)
- As gendered civil and criminal laws, police have a greater latitude to enter the premise of a dwelling where they believe domestic or family violence may be occurring if they believe the perpatrator to be a man
- Special Courts, police prosecutors or a domestic violence specialist may submit a ‘No Contact Order’, even if no criminal charges are brought against the ‘accused’
- Special Courts, police prosecutors or a domestic violence specialist may submit a ‘Protection Order’, even if no criminal charges are brought against the ‘accused’
- Special Courts, police prosecutors or a domestic violence specialist may submit an ‘Ouster / Exclusion Order’, even if no criminal charges are brought against the ‘accused’
- An Ouster/Exclusion Order forces a man from his own premises and it is up to him to seek alternative shelter
- The Special Court have the power to amend the lease of the family dwelling to remove the name of the man. This does not release him from his financial responsibility to the residence
- Once a domestic of family violence complaint is lodged against a man, he must be placed on a nationwide Domestic Violence Registry
- The council reiterates its recommendation that calls for only the man to be arrested, and considers any violence the woman committed, except in extreme cases, was in self defense
- The Council recommends reversal of “pro-contact” laws which endorse the relationship between a father and his children. The Council asks that if the State believes the man could commit ‘family violence’ after a domestic violence order is issued, that his parental privilege to his children may be severed indefinitely. This does not release the man from his child support responsibilities
- Women are given priority over men when seeking domestic violence counseling or public services[1-pg78]
- While men constitute the vast majority of homeless in Australia, the council recommends direct action to ensure an end to homelessness among women[1-pg82]
- If a domestic violence order is issued against a man, the council recommends the State find funding (Crisis funding) for their housing, as well as security upgrades to their residence if the mother/wife cannot afford it[1-pg83]
- If the Mother attempts a reconciliation between the children and their father, the Council recommends that the State have the legal authority to remove the children from the mother, and into State care if they believe the father may commit “family violence”
- The Council recommends that legal sexual consent can only be given if a man asks the woman for permission to engage in sexual activity, and receives an affirmative verbal answer
- The Council recommends that silence equals non-consent
- The Council recommends that if a man is accused of rape or sexual assault, and he utilizes the “mistaken-belief” defense, that the onus is on him to prove consent was given
- If a woman has consumed drugs or alcohol prior to a sexual encounter, the Council recommends that she loses her ability to consent to any sexual activities
- The council recommends several changes to the procedures of a criminal case of rape or sexual assault, please see[13-pg40-43] for new recommended procedures
It is important to remember when examining these recommendations, that when they say “abuse or violence” may occur, this is using the expanding “family violence” definitions, and does not consider if the man has ever been tried or convicted for domestic abuse, (though a conviction will strengthen their decision); but only if their have been reports of family violence, if the wife/mother/partner feels safe or the specialized Family Law courts feel that the potential for danger to the female partner and her children are present.
Judicial Homicide Accommodations for Victims of Domestic Violence who Murder their Partner
Section 14 of the ALRC report asks “legislation should ensure that defences to homicide accommodate the experiences of family violence victims who kill, recognising the dynamics and features of family violence.”[13-pg27] The ALRC also recommends that the State must take into serious consideration the family dynamics when pursing a homicide case against “victim of family violence kills the person who was violent.” In essence, the National Council is asking that the battered spouse defense be more readily available for persons who commit murder. (See Sec 31-2 of the ALRC report)
Protection Orders / No Contact Orders
The National Council requests that Protection Orders and No Contact orders be issued with lowered standards of proof, such as an accusation or belief from a court, a police protection specialist or a domestic violence service specialist, that domestic violence has occurred or “might” occur in the future. The allowable reasonings in the consideration for a protection or no contact orders may fall into any violations stated in the expanding definitions of domestic violence.[1-pg188]
“The civil nature of the order allows for a lower standard of proof, making orders easier to obtain than a conviction and can be tailored to each situation, prohibiting behaviour not always covered by the criminal law.”[1- pg100-2]
National Registry of Domestic Violence
The council requests a national registry for those accused, have standing orders against them or have been convicted of domestic violence. Once any protection order or no contact order is issued, the burden of proof lays with the accused to prove that the accusations are false. A conviction is not necessary for these orders, but the orders themselves are legally binding.
“The issues of natural justice, safe transition and continued protection across jurisdictions, as well as supporting efficiency for courts, could be addressed through a national protection order registration scheme. Under this scheme, a domestic and family violence order would be automatically included on the national register upon being made by the relevant court, and subsequent registrations and adaptations in other jurisdictions would also be automatically registered and coordinated in the national registration system.”[1-pg100]
Ouster/Exclusion Orders
“This model assumes that the perpetrators of violence should be held accountable for their actions and removed from the family home, allowing women and children to stay. All Australian jurisdictions now have laws which provide for exclusion orders as a condition of domestic violence orders, allowing the person seeking protection from domestic violence to remain in the family home, while the perpetrator is required to seek other accommodation.”[3]
The National Council examined how best to utilize this order:
“In particular, The Road Home and the Plan of Action focus on the need to increase the application of ‘ouster’ or ‘exclusion’ orders provided for in all State and Territory domestic and family violence laws.”[1-pg85]
These order can force a man from his own property, who then must find alternative housing or shelter, based solely on the an allegation of abuse. The National Council wishes the Australian government to strengthen these ‘ouster’ or ‘exclusion orders’. They want to give social service workers and police prosecutors the legal authority to issue them liberally. ‘The Road Home’, a government report on homelessness explains how this would work.[5-p33]
Another Safe at Home provision, which falls within the scope of the Ouster/Exclusion Orders is increased police powers to detain men without charge and remove them from their property.
“Safe at Home legislation provides police with a considerable extension of their powers to detain a person without charge. Another key feature of the Safe at Home model is that it allows families to stay within the home while the perpetrators are removed.
Preambles within legislation that acknowledge the social realities and dynamics of violence, including the gendered nature of domestic and family violence.”[1 -pg115]
Examination of Exclusion Laws of Fathers from his Children’s Lives
The National Advisory Council believes that a father’s involvement in the life of their child can be considered harmful if they believe that abuse or violence has or will occur, therefore, they wish to revisit the “pro-contact” laws, and initiate a revision to forbid fathers any contact with their children indefinitely, even against the wishes of the mother.
“Under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, it is left to the court to decide how to reconcile the objectives of a child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and the protection of the child from exposure to violence when there is conflict. Section 61DA also states that: “[w]hen making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.”
While the legislation does not necessarily privilege either of the primary considerations, it seems that there have been considerable problems in reconciling the two in practice. Under previous (almost identical) legislation, evidence emerged that a very strong pro-contact culture had arisen and that the “the opportunity for a significant relationship with both parents” took precedence over a history or even recent experiences of violence and abuse. Evidence from the Council’s consultations, and from the judiciary itself, tends to show that such a presumption is inappropriate for a great number of families using the Act.
Firstly, the legislation places the burden of rebutting this presumption on the most vulnerable people who are using the Act (namely women and children escaping violence and abuse). This is because evidence is required to show that there are reasonable grounds that the parent of the child has engaged in abuse, or family violence, or that it is not in the child’s best interests to have shared parental responsibility.
And, finally, the tension between the children’s long-term need to “know their father” in a “pro-contact” culture, over their safety and wellbeing and damage to their neurological development requires early evaluation and review. The Council therefore proposes that any future reform be informed by both empirical research and the views of those involved in the family law system.”[1-pg104-5]
State Intervention Against Mother’s Parental Decisions
Mothers who attempt to enable a relationship between their children and the father, can and will have the state take the children into their custody if the social workers or courts feel like their has been, or will be abuse or violence.
“Secondly, where there is violence, women are commonly unable to meet both the “protective parent” criteria and the criteria for a “friendly parent”, defined as “the willingness of each parent to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent”, and they risk state child protection intervention without a protective stance towards the safety and well-being of their children.”[1-pg105]
Formalized Method of Legal Consent for Sexual Intercourse
Australia is attempting to formalize a method in which it is legally acceptable for a man and a women to engage in sexual intercourse. Specifically, they are seeking to require the man to get verbal consent via requesting the consent to perform various acts which are done per a direct question to the woman. They wish to consider silence as non-consent. The man must, by the proposed rule, receive a verbal affirmative answer as consent.
“Most States and Territories have moved towards a definition of consent that applies a “communicative” model through defining consent as “free agreement” or “free and voluntary agreement”. These new definitions require juries to consider what a complainant has said or done to indicate their free agreement, rather than assume that silence or submission equals consent. Some also stipulate that inactivity and/or silence should be equated with non-consent.
For example, Victoria’s provisions state that: “the fact that a person did not say or do anything to indicate free agreement to a sexual act is normally enough to show that the act took place without that person’s free agreement”.[1-pg110]
Female Agency for Consent
Another adjustment the council wants to enact is a broader scope when the state feels that female agency is no longer hers, such as when drugs or alcohol have been consumed. Furthermore, consent can be removed after the fact if the woman claims she was coerced by the man under a broad range of vague or implied threats.
“A number of jurisdictions have also created lists of vitiating circumstances under which free agreement cannot be said to have been given (such as under force of threat or of physical or economic harm, under the influence of heavy drug or alcohol consumption, or if the complainant is asleep) and has introduced judicial directions to juries to help them apply these modern definitions. Mandatory jury directions are designed to ensure consistency and “formalise good practice”.[1-pg110]
Mistaken-Belief Consent – Burden of Proof on Accused
Accused must show proof of consent when using certain defenses in criminal proceedings such as the “mistaken-belief” defense. “Mistaken-belief” consent means he felt that she gave consent, and she denies giving consent.
“Another contentious aspect of rape law has been the extent to which an accused can claim to have held an honest, though unreasonable, belief in consent.
In the past, an honest, though unreasonable, belief in consent could amount to a complete defence, even if the accused had done nothing to find out whether the complainant was consenting. This provided poor protection for the law’s claim to protect sexual autonomy, placing “the onus on a person approached for sex to indicate lack of consent, instead of requiring the initiator to ascertain whether the other person is consenting”. Trials tended to focus on the complainant’s conduct and mental state rather than on that of the accused, often resulting in re-victimisation of the complainant.
These models represent different approaches to restricting the availability of mistaken-belief defences that are worthy of consideration by other jurisdictions.”[1 -pg111]
Conclusions? I have no conclusions, I have no words to describe how disturbing this stuff is. Let’s hope wiser heads prevail in Australia before any of this becomes law.
References
(1) The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.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
(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
18 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Alek Novy:
Stu:
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
A public thank you to Kyle Lovett. It is easy to see how much work an effort like this requires. You have raised the bar for all of us, Kyle; forced us to dig deeper and work harder.
You have made us all better.
Thank you! I think if we are going to make some headway against these kinds of legal battles that lay ahead of us, no matter what the country, we all need to be ready to dig deeper and work harder than our adversaries, who openly wish to impliment this kind of legalized misandry under the weapon of fear, lies and hate.
We must move beyond the borders of the internet.
Thank you Paul and John for giving a place to expose this kind of hatred.
“Conclusions? I have no conclusions, I have no words to describe how disturbing this stuff is. Let’s hope wiser heads prevail in Australia before any of this becomes law.”
Reading this i had a feeling i’m in Big Brother.
Wiser heads? The problem is 99% of Aussie men are useless, gutless, lazy, selfish and just keep – BY CHOICE – their heads stuck up their arse.This is just the way feminists like it.
With the exception of MRA’s – 0.001% – the rest will deserve these laws.
The average western man is just as childlike and stupid as any feminist.
See the link below for a photo of the typical western male response when discussing the topics of mens/boys rights.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/567775/
Stickers and posters people, we MUST grow the movement.
Damn Kyle, my hat is off to you for yet another blockbuster article but also for the ability to stomach this stuff. I think I might have gone nuts reading about it and then trying to put it into words. All I can say is Damn. Great job.
This stuff is so Alice in Wonderland-ish it is disorienting. It reminds me of a TV commercial here in the states where two boys are texting a grocery list to their dad and they add cake, ice cream, candy etc etc. The old man figures it out quick enough and text back to them to do their homework. Both boys smile when they are found out. In this Australian situation the feminists keep adding candy to the list and NO ONE has the balls to tell them it is ridiculous. How far can this shit go? It is really mind blowing.
To my shame, these horrors are so disturbing that by the time I was half way through this article, I started to feel relief that this was happening in Australia, and not in the United States.
Men, boys, and fathers of Australia. I cannot imagine the pain that you are going through, dispossessed of your humanity at birth.
Damn right Antz……I wish I could rush off to live somewhere comparatively safe…….Sweden maybe.
So Kyle…..remember the other day when I said Gillard was a man hating feminazi scumbag of the highest order…..someone on here disagreed with me……turns out she’s been one of the drivers of this.
Can’t remember who disagreed……but whoever…….told you so
Yes that is pretty much how I feel. To put it another way, the first time I have felt a craving for a blue pill. I simply don’t know quite how to process this. I’m currently embroiled in this situation and my young son
has been removed on an accusation and a failed avo attempt. I have never felt so sober.
Upon taking the red pill, I understood that we men will not be given one ounce of sympathy from people outside the men’s rights movement. It became clear to me when I realized how badly men have had it, and the impending shit-storm that is on the horizon. It is bad enough that most women don’t give a damn about men, but it is also disturbing that most men don’t give a damn about other men.
Sexism has been a one-way street for the past 50 years. You could present this plan to the general public, and a lot of people wouldn’t think twice about it. Most women don’t think they are sexist, or they think sexism against men is okay. Their heads have been filled with feminist lies. Most men don’t care about sexism against men because they don’t value themselves. Men have been beaten down so much that a lot of men will just throw up their hands and not care.
While things have been going downhill for a long time, I believe things will get better. A cornered animal can only take so much abuse before it starts ripping apart anything that seems to be the least bit threatening. The feminazis and their henchmen have pushed too hard for too long, and their day of reckoning is approaching. How are they going to defeat a group of people who have nothing left to lose? They can’t and won’t because we will stand up and take back what is rightfully ours in this world.
I hope my comment didn’t depress people even more after reading the information presented in this article. I believe that we are approaching the time when things are darkest before the dawn. I believe in everyone who is a part of the AVFM family and other parts of the MRM to never back down and fight for our futures down to the last breaths in our bodies.
You are correct Robert. Just last night I spoke to a guy at work about the plan, and told him some of the things it includes. He was laughing as I told him. This guy owned his own house and has about 300 grand in investments…….all his……before his girlfriend moved in with him. He paid thousands for a prenup agreement……..and I pointed out that it is not worth the paper it’s printed on because any claims of DV render it null and void….and DV will be…..sitting in silence watching tv and not talking to your wife……..or…..refusing to let her blow all your savings away on fashion and cosmetics and shoes and handbags.
His wife had no assets…and some debts coming into the relationship. And he as laughing as I told him about the horrors in the plan……like for some reason he is exempt.
He’s hardly exempt……..I figure the more a guy has……the less exempt he will be……more motivation for the woman to abuse these laws……especially when she owns nothing…..and there is a prenup which excludes all his assets that he owned prior to co-habitating…..these laws are a gold mine for her.
I suggested he seriously consider booting her ass out before it’s too late. He laughed again.
I’ve shown some of these articles to a friend who lives in the US and he had the same reaction: He said it wouldn’t go to such lengths there and things wouldn’t get that bad “because rich white men won’t allow themselves to be subjugated and will put their foot down” and “because crazy right-wingers keep women in line with religion”. They are truly hopeless, which is why I don’t bother with sheeple anymore, I only talk to the guys who have gone through the meat grinder.
Great work, Kyle.
“….procedural reforms aimed at improving the experience of giving evidence (such as introducing alternative arrangements for giving evidence and prohibiting or limiting the extent to which the accused, or the defendant, can directly cross-examine the victim…..”
And there goes a basic civil liberty that men in the U.S. risked being hung for,necessary to a just and free society. The fundamental right to face your accuser in court. Next it’s the right to know what you have been charged with.
But, oh no, us MRA’s are just “paranoid morons”. Don’t listen to us. This isn’t a totalitarian encroachment on civil liberties or anything.
The feminists pushing this shit through are so fucking stupid. The government’s gonna go “Thanks ladies.” and turn around and have your stupid asses under the jackboot next. I hope you are following the Golden Rule and doing unto men as you’d have them do unto you here,because they will. Men with much more power than any of us, much more power than any of you are rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee, sharpening the axe for your heads after they finish with us at your behest.
I hope you enjoy all your new “power”,bitches,because they’re coming for you next.
Oh yeah, they can’t see it coming. And you know what, when they are coming for the women……men won’t care……after what they have done to us…..I’ll be rubbing my hands together when they come for them.
Eventually all liberties, and laws protecting rights……all rights…..everybody’s rights…..will be done away with under the slogan of protecting women and children from the bogey man. When there is no rights left….and nothing left to steal from men……they will have their day.
“He laughed again.” BINGO! Men are the problem, the male ego…
This is why I only do sticker and poster runs, I got tired of these silly men with their – big ego – attitude.
Yes, he thinks it will be all those other guys that cop it. He’s wrong, but even if he was right……nobody matters except him……if it’s not him….it’s funny……laugh.
But lets face it…..it’s not Aussie guys…..it’s all guys. What western country….and some not western countries too…….are not sliding into the same shit hole. India is probably right up there with the worst of the worse. We have heaps of indians at work…..I can’t see how they can have so many there when the population of indians in Oz would be a couple of percent…..but work is about 30 percent Indians….and most strike me as the biggest sheeple manginas and white knights that ever walked the earth. Doesn’t surprise me at all that men are throwing other men of moving trains over there for upsetting a woman by getting on the wrong carriage.
Sweden, UK, USA, most of Europe……all pathetic manginas collectively. I reckon for every anti feminist man…..there is 10 white knights and manginas. Maybe there is something in the feminist goal to reduce men to 10% after all……only thing is it will probably be the biggest mangina 10%…..but us MRAs would certainly be the first on the chopping block
You guys in the US had it worse than us until these proposed laws popped up. But believe me……if these laws get introduced here in Oz…..it won’t be long before they migrate to the US. Testing grounds here.
You guys have one presidential candidate that would veto all new unconstitutional laws…..and attempt to repeal all existing unconstitutional laws…….everybody else in the running…..would continue the slide into feminist tyranny……just a matter of how fast…….Obama being the fastest. There is only one guy that will save your asses………so no matter what you think of any of his policies……if you don’t want laws like these in your country…….you know who to vote for……that alone is reason enough. Your not going to be enjoying life no matter what any other candidate promises…..or gives……if you lose your rights…..and you will…with all the other you will. You will even lose the right to complain about it on here
Well said, this silly man you talk about will come crying to us when the shit hits the fan.
How old do you think he was?
I find the young guys seem to get this this better then the oldies.
He’s 40yo
40 Hmm not really old.
Oh well he has made his bed…
That’s something to look forward to at least. It seems to me that the young guys are addicted to sex…..but allergic to relationships. They seem to think women are entitled princesses and bitches…with desirable holes. Feminism can complain out this all they like……but they done this.
My predictions are coming true about them ramping up the hate. The good side is that the tipping point has got to come……the tipping point being when the majority of men are aware of how little rights they have. No matter how focused on sex and pussy a young guy is…..surely most are not going to want to get into a committed relationship if they know what that means legally. It’s up to us to make sure they know.
My stepson had a girlfriend a while back that was coming over all the time for ages……she was his shadow. And she started complaining about him spending too much time with his friends…..his sports……blah blah blah. He put up with it for a while……but then dumped her like a hot potatoe…..and didn’t seem to suffer any emotional trauma at all. She on the other hand was an emotional wreck….stalking and harrassing him, begging and pleading. He had all the indifference of a rock.
I’ll have to remember to tell him…….if these new laws come in…..and he gets into a live in situation in the future….spending too much time with his friends and playing sport will be domestic violence…….and so will just about everything else including breathing.
It’s going to be a real joke in the future watching the women complain about commitment phobic guys. Maybe the guys will start telling them the truth instead of other excuses………..it’s the laws.
As the great Tom Leykis would say kick them to the curb or DTB.
Tom Leykis- Living with a B@#$% (Full Episode) – below
Having a high maintenance woman in your life is a energy draining life sucking experience. What the gov’t is ending up doing here is making all women high-maintenance by default. If she is unhappy in the relationship you are a criminal. Only a stupid or wildly ignorant person would accept that much liability with such limited rewards. Find out where the cut off for Common-Law is and ALWAYS dump them well before, make sure you let her and everybody else know why.
Let women have the stupid or willfully ignorant men to “take care” of them.
All women are going to be jail bait now.
Women’s attitudes are getting more awful by the day. I can’t stand to be around them. They have little value besides their vaginas, and even their vaginas are losing value quickly. They don’t know anything with regards to being a girlfriend, mother, or wife. They just want to sink their hooks into an unsuspecting man whom they can use as a meal ticket until the cash flow stops. Young men see women differently than most older men. I understand that women are my competition and they will not hesitate to cut my throat when I turn my back on them.
Now let’s be fair Robert……the only thing of value they have is their vaginas……my god…..I’ve never heard such bullshit in my life.
Most have an enterable mouth too……and a good 10% like anal sex as well. Geez
I see the product of women looking the other way after 50 plus years of man-hating, barren and single at 40.
Nah, there is sperm banks……and than they marry the government.
Bring on the toasters. Problem solved.
Oh no, i forgot, female toasters have rights too, I can just see it now, whole new feminist income stream, protecting fembots from domestic abuse, oppression and the patriarchy.
OT
Mom Found Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity In Son’s Death
“Rochester was accused of using blankets and a plastic bag to smother 6-month-old Rylan because she believed he was autistic. He died on June 1, 2010. She pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to first-degree murder and child abuse resulting in death.
According to her arrest warrant, Rochester told a police detective that she thought her son “was showing signs of autism” and she attempted to suffocate Rylan with a plastic bag before putting blankets over his head the night before he died.
She confessed to killing Rylan saying that, “When you have a child with autism, your life is ruined … financially and emotionally.” She stated she felt like she couldn’t take care of Rylan, according to the arrest affidavit.”
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30188425/detail.html
Women are not accountable for anything.
A new age abortion at 6?
The next step will be for a wife to kill her husband and use the “autism defense”.
HA!
ohh…
“prohibiting or limiting the extent to which the accused, or the defendant, can directly cross-examine the victim…..”
I have to tell you guys who are not in the academic world, this is already reality on college campuses.
link for more information:
http://thefire.org/cases/dueprocess/
On many campuses, if a female accuses a male of “saying something he shouldn’t have said,” or of any worse crime,
1- the identity of the accuser will not be initially disclosed to the man;
2- nor will the nature of his alleged “crime” (but a coy description will be given);
3- not until he signs a declaration either “agreeing” that he committed the “crime” or “contesting” that;
4- the man will be prohibited from announcing, to anyone, that he’s being “charged,” ensuring his complete isolation (because it’s all “confidential”);
5- the man’s ability to cross-examine may be curtailed in any hearing;
6- the rules of evidence will not be enforced;
7- heresay evidence will be allowed;
8- the man’s name will be published if he is “guilty” — but not the name of his accuser, the nature of his “crime,” nor any other mitigating or contextual information.
The laying of the charges will be facilitated by special college tribunals and specialized officers of the college; there will be no financial charge to the complainant and— key!– no penalty for laying an unsubstantiated charge. Posters abound on campuses, inviting people to take advantage of this system.
Wake up Australia, the shit wave is going to land on Bondi Beach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
Much thanks Kyle.
Either everyone wakes up to this nightmare or I wake up from it.
Exceptional writing and one of the most throughly researched articles I have ever read. Feminists will already be disputing this, ON REDDIT. They will not come play here.
I have a thought, how much more fleecing and criminalization can the western male take? It’s as if we are being set up for criminalization for lack of participation. How is it humanly possible to penalize men who are going there own way? I fear we all know the answer. One day they may decide to criminalize men who opt-out of there assigned and expected roll (silent servitude). What is happening in Africa may be a taste of things to come in western society.
This is great work your doing.
Seeing the feminists as a few radicals given a bully pulpit that they are will hopefully let men know that we don’t need large numbers to affect change.
We are already affecting change.
This is a reaction to the changes Howard made. It will fail because it’s open bald faced biggotry.
Now they have to justify biggotry and if that isn’t enough, the MRM will have to pass something like an ERA in Australia.
It will pass because most people are lazy and stupid.
Staggering stuff. Hats off to Lyle for being the distinguished reporter.
Reaction: this is the worst of the worst European and North-american man-hating, all rolled into one. Evidently, Aus is to become a vast Dystopia.
DECLARE A SEX STRIKE OF UNLIMITED DURATION.
I’ve called for this before. Men have no power in any sexual negotiation if they don’t have the right to say “no”. Until they begin actually exercising that right it’s erosion will continue.
Large numbers of men not initiating sexual contact and THEN saying “no” to the eventual requests/demands from women would be a very enlightening process. For many!
THAT would be a movement with immense power.
Well, it’s either a sex strike or mass evacuation of the male population, followed by a naval blockade, followed by aerial bombardment. Said bombardment to target infection sites so that the virus is weakened.
We’ll have to quarantine the whole island. Four, five hundred years, I suspect. Pity we can’t load the wallabees onto the evacuation ships, no time, but I insist we save the koalas.
Geez mate, take it easy. Aussies are a relaxed, easy-going, fun-loving people who know how to have a good time. And we are honest, say it like it is. Do you really think that we would let them get away with this? You Seppos take everything so seriously. Haven’t you been watching any of those tourist commercials with cuddly koala bears, bounding kangaroos, happy smiling faces and golden sunsets and painting Australia as an idyllic Southern Wonderland of fun, sun and hedonism? And what about our Paul Hogan, a man’s man? Oprah Winfrey knows that Aussie men are HOT HOT HOT! Get over yourselves! You’re just jealous. /sarcasm
“In reality, gendering civil and criminal laws is much like what State sponsored racial profiling would be, in that it demands the civil and criminal authorities presume there is a reasonable assumption of guilt of a person based solely on a human characteristic, in this case their sex… It is nothing less than a State mandated segregation of its citizens legal rights, which violates not only Australian laws and charters, but Article 55 of the United Nations Charter to which Australia is a signatory nation.[14]”
In the UK the new “equalities legislation” is steering lawmakers away from discrimination based on sex… whereas in Australia “The Plan” is encouraging all to move toward discrimination based on sex.
PS. small typo: “On page 95 of the Plan, the council lists out how they want wish to establish…”
I’m a little confused, I posted this article to Reddit’s Australia sub and it received 7 downvotes and 1 comment, which simply said “zzzzzzzzz” I get the impression that perhaps this is too much reading to bother with for them?
Even if they are indifferent, drastic changes to the law like these should be at least a curiosity, no? It’s not like we are making this up, so I’m confused. Are we that far removed from caring that an article that spells out the removal of many civil rights for men too boring to even glance at? Liberal or conservative, these changes should be of concern to everyone. I bet you replace man with black and woman with white, this would be an major news story.
But why are men somehow less than worthy of concern?
The blue pill is strong medicine. Write an article of the same length about getting pussy, or, conversely, about the fact that women are under represented among rocket scientists and rugby players and they will be all over it.
That is our challenge, but we are slowly eating away at it.
ROFLMAO.
Excellent!
I just went over to Reddit to see if I could find your post, but can’t find it. I can only suggest, without having read it, that the reason for the downvotes is that your article comes across, to them, as critical of Australians. This is an absolute no-no. Australians absolutely loath criticism. Their fixation with being relaxed and easy-going is directed at constraining conduct within safe bounds such that horrible, nasty inconveniences like truth don’t get to raise their ugly heads.
Pull your head in. Replace the word “Australia” with “America”, and you will get a thousand upvotes and happy smileys.
aussie aussie aussie!
oi?
That’s a shame. Civil Rights violations here in the US are in some ways more regressive. Hate knows no borders; but as I am married to a Canadian, I have been on the receiving end of anti-Americanism IRL by a few of her old friends. My user name on Reddit is Qanan, you should be able to find it that way.
Canadians often see themselves as honorary Aussies. They go to great lengths to distinguish themselves from Americans, and take great pleasure in receiving pats on the head for this from Aussies.
I’m afraid Codebuster is correct on this matter.
Also, let’s not forget that web responders are a self-selected group. Keep your eyes on what the population (Edith Everidge??) is up to.
Personally, i am not buying codebusters interpretation. The article is on the mensrights reddit with significant approval and upvoting. I suspect that if it were on the main reddit, and about America, it would be generally ignored as well.
There is nothing in my mind that distinguishes Australians as that much different than anyone else. They eat the blue pill, too.
I posted the child abuse article you did to a facebook page that deals specifically with child abuse in Australia.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AustVoices4Children/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_activity
Not a single like or comment in a pretty busy group with over a thousand members. Nothing.
Our problem is the blue pill, not Australians. But it does not matter in the end. We are a very high ranking website in AUS and growing all the time. There are people there catching on. We just have to keep doing what we are doing, never sweating small details.
We need to be a bit patient, Kyle. This series of articles is shocking and very heavy material for Australians. We’re not a politically active population, unlike the US where everyone has an opinion. This is perhaps why we’re so easily exploited. The silence you’re hearing is culturally congenital apathy.
Australians are not primed to respond to confronting truths like this exposé. We feel pretty much isolated from the issues of the world – no-one attacks us, our borders are oceans, our land is vast and empty, our resources are seemingly endless, and for the most part we look to ourselves. Seriously, it’ll take time for what you’ve uncovered to sink in.
Take heart, as there does appear to be a growing disquiet amongst men. It is simmering just below the surface but it is unmistakeable. The men I know have had it up to the eyeballs with feminism. I don’t know how long it will take for responsible and intelligent men in this country to internalise the injustice of The Plan, but they’ll not remain silent when they do.
Whether or not we can change it is another matter.
this one is for the guys with their head up their asses:
“women have rights, men have responsibilities”
discuss
Hi Kyle,
Excellent article.
I recently sent a link via facebook to some younger Ozzie guys I know and not a peep of response. They’d apparently prefer to spend time posting brainless frat boy humor than engaging with men’s issues.
These are university educated guys, so not short of some braincells, but their attitude is awfully screwed up.
My overall impression is a lot of young Ozzie guys are deeply in denial and so full of macho bullshit that they wouldn’t recognize their own vulnerability if it stared them in the face.
I reckon it’s only after having been shafted might they wake up and smell the coffee.
Of course by then the damage has been done to them.
Some fires will light, others not… we dont have to sweat it. Look for the fires that take ahold and fan the flames.
Kyle, i suspect it may be as you suggested- a little too much reading for simple minds. Small bytes work a charm for these folks. I’m sure there’s a dozen other reasons for the apathy there…
In the meantime my inbox is crowded with people sharing your recent articles, many of whom have been made aware of the work of AvFM for the first time. This is a process that is still unfolding, it will be a few weeks and months before we can determine the impact.
Yours and JTO’s further elaboration on the subject have helped to drive the nail deeper for anyone wanting to read carefully. My advice FWIW, keep following and fanning the spotfires in the same way Paul has done so effectively…
Don’t underestimate the enemy or the battle ahead, folks.
Don’t overstate the readiness of victims to react.
In Canada, 30 years ago, the entire male population was disenfranchised in single year by one malevalent female politician, with regard to fathers’ rights; and the criminal code was “genderized” to bias it against all men (at least, with respect to police protocols of arrest and charge).
It was engineered by a single-note activist, a lesbian man-hater with no Justice or even political experience, who had been promoted to the office of Solicitor General (Min. of Justice), in a single province, with no prior warning, in isolation from the cabinet, by a lazy party leader, who had just been elected to office as part of a 3-way split in the electorate (i.e., he represented a minority of the voters).
As male reporters stood by, mouths open, not a peep from their lips, she vowed she’d ignore public opinion and conducted a raid on mens rights that is equivalent to rounding up European Jews in cattlecars and handing their property to their blue-eyed Aryan neighbors.
Similarly, kangaroo courts were set up nationally and in all 10 provinces, to detour around established Justice, the Criminal Code and common law, and due process, to attack non-minority males for a variety of perceived “human rights violations,” including a frontal attack on freedom of speech and the press, where white males could not even claim to be victims of discrimination, with no rules of evidence in play, with no safeguard against malicious accusation, with demonstrated bias, with oceans of free legal support for the complainers, and with fines and prison time available as deterrence.
Today, these kangaroos have sunk their teeth into each and every college and university campus in the country, monitoring the social environment, making sure that a parallel HR structure exists on campus, molding young minds, and encouraging women and visible minorities to lay charges.
For prosecuting the most politicised, genderized, and freedom-hating charges, they have close to a 100% conviction rate.
THIS is the precedent for what Aussie uber-feminism is trying to do. Australians must understand the gravity and warn the male population. Males are NOT PROGRAMMED to worry about their rights, to complain, to fight back, to organize into a social movement as a sex, to vocalize their discontent, or to name the name of the enemy in public. There is no political party that codifies this for them.
Do not believe that Australia is less vulnerable than Sweden, it’s only a matter of degree and time.
Wow. This was actually painful to read, as what is being proposed grates against every concept of justice in my being. Were I a younger and more naive man, I would not believe it was possible. Alas, life has taught me otherwise.
Keep up the good work. It must have taken a strong stomach and steely nerves just to put the information to paper. We need more strong, determined warriors for justice if we are to put this insane world to rights.
Kyle,
Incredible work. The amount of research and effort involved is reflected by your well written articles. Hats off to you sir.
Will the Aussie man wake up ?
Most definitely some will and some will ignore it until it happens to them. Then there will be those who willingly keep their heads in the sand and ask why is this happening.
As Justicer pointed out above this happened here in Ont. back when Marion Boyd was appointed AG. She had no legal education behind her. The hyena Boyd rammed laws through the Ont parliament which destroyed men’s rights to be equal.
What is currently happening in OZ seems to be a re-vamped super strength version of what has and is still happening here in Canada / developed countries. The future of OZ lays in the hands of the people who are willing to wake up and hold their government responsible.
Without your work and others here at AVfM these hyenas would still be quietly at work getting their misandric laws ratified while nations and their elected representatives are asleep at the wheel.
Now there is a clear and well documented body of evidence exposing who started the slippery misandric slide for the citizens of OZ.
Special courts, special regulations, special people as long as you’ve got the xx gene if not you’re a criminal. Presumption of guilt, loss of due process. The list of suggestions made by these hyenas reads like a page from Stalin’s playbook.
Again Kyle et al outstanding effort and results, many thanks.
Yaaas. The Hyena’s current profile is here:
http://www.marionboyd.net/index.htm
One mistake in what I wrote above.The assault on men started around 1993, so it’s 20 years old, not 30.
I believe Miss Boyd had a crack at polluting the “Human Rights” Commission of Ontario and earned money at it; however, that’s not alluded to in her online profile.
I mention this because most of the postStalinist and 3rd-world fervor of the HRCs is derived from feminist involvements in Canadian politics, not just “white-liberal multiculturalism.”
Justicer,
I have been doing some thinking about that HRC stuff of late.
Here is an excerpt from it :
“Special programs
14. (1) A right under Part I is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 14 (1).”
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm#BK16
So what I read from this is that women’s groups / social , government services / resources were exempt from being declared discriminatory due to the classification of women being a disadvantaged demographic.
Now here we are some 20 years on down the road and we have a substantial body of evidence illustrating that men are now the underprivileged / disadvantaged citizens who are facing the hardship.
This applies to every single area of Cdn services ( U.S., UK etc ) from the municipal to the federal.
So the question I ask myself is “how can MRM use the designation of disadvantaged to rectify the current situation?”
We can’t count on our elected representatives to do what’s right they already have failed miserably ( Harper,McGuilty, Horwath et al ) and are continuing to do so without a second thought about present, or long term ramifications.
From my experiences and research the only politician I have ever seen who was willing to speak out about men’s issues was Senator Ann Cool from Ont.
The Honourable ( and I don’t call many political figures honourable ) Senator is on record slamming the hyena Boyd about her pussy pass for holmolka which was met with at best a mediocre response / indifference from the rest of the politicians present during that hearing. She is also on record saying the data coming out about d.v. is inflated. ( I paraphrase her words )
How do we, as men, use what has been used against us to bring the pendulum back to center ?
Personally I believe it is going to take a few things.
1) Some very large class action lawsuits on at least the provincial and federal levels. Large class action lawsuits almost always make the news. This would at the very least bring the topic into the public’s eye which would encourage discussion about men’s rights / issues as long as the main stream media did their jobs.
2) Some very well placed billboards and advertising space in newspapers. Not only do we need men but we need to tap into the mothers,sisters, and wives of men. Encourage them to raise their voices and add to our own. Encourage them to start writing / calling their local representatives demanding answers as to why men are not being protected, and offered government services to the same degree as women.
3) Make it very public. If the politicians want to continue to turn a blind eye, fine your name goes up on a billboard as being sexist and discriminatory. ( nothing motivates a politician like being exposed for their discriminatory actions )
4) The news media if they aren’t willing to do an unbiased job of reporting the truth hit them where it hurts, their subscription lists, their advertisers, reduce their ability to generate profit and then perhaps we might see more stories holding politician’s / governmental feet to the fire in regards to men’s issues.
I am looking at youtube as well, while I am computer challenged, the thought of calling and recording my local politicians, asking them what they are doing to ensure men are treated in a fair and equitable manner by our government entities then posting their replies on youtube holds a certain amount of interest for me. I know damn well for a fact that Canada is a single party consent recording country and posted related literature on that issue in another comment a few weeks ago.
Again the problem then becomes how to get it out to the masses? How can it be helped to go viral?
Where do we find more reporters with journalistic integrity like Barbra Kay to help carry our voice to the masses? Are there any male journalists with a shred of journalistic integrity around ?
One last thing Justicer I am disappointed that I missed the opportunity to benefit from your educational expertise. The skills I would have learned would be so very useful today.
Nice post, Danny, very nice.
To attempt an answer, yes, the clause you cite from the RSO document is a “notwithstanding clause,” so to speak. It means that fairness and equity are suspended for the implementation of Affimative Action, etc. Favoritism is legal if the favorites are not white males. This is a widely used device in North America.
Solutions can be various. For example, a class-action suit is excellent if the people want to fund it. But they are terribly expensive and take ages to resolve. Also, you’d have to find a lawyer who wanted to be seen as an MRA. Good luck with that.
Feminism terrorises each and every political formation in Canada. They are all equally useless and venal — fems are, after all, 51% of the voting public, and politicians assume that no woman is ever going to vote to roll back female privilege.
So it takes a militant male movement, entirely outside the social and political structure. This can only be built by dedicated and patient activists who are not afraid of the Bitch whom the nameplate on the door identifies as Your Boss.
Justicer,
Thanks.
In regards to the expenses involved in what I have proposed I think it could all be started with a single move.
We need to establish a charitable organization to address men’s issues. Make it well known it is about all men’s issues, not “angry white men” issues.
The reason why I see it needs to have charity classification is to ensure they can receive monies from government’s / big business and secondly to make sure none of the money donated / raised isn’t taxed and a portion of it ends up in the hands of hyenas and white knights.
As for lawyers, well my experience with them leads me to believe that they are motivated by money / fame and not altruistic intentions. Yes a class action would be expensive but the payout for such a case would as well be large. I do not delude myself into believing that it would be an immediate solution, we are not going to be able to get rid of 50 yrs worth of damage overnight.
Which lawyer(s) would I place my bet on as far as who would take on a case such as that ? I see two possibilities. first a young recently graduated law student still full of piss and vinegar ready to change the world through the courts or secondly, a close to retirement lawyer who wants to end his career with a bang. Where to find them ? Anybody’s guess is as good as mine.
But perhaps it needn’t be a class action lawsuit maybe the answer lies in a large single person lawsuit. ( think along the lines of the Caledonia couples recent lawsuit for 7 million.) Their lawsuit received plenty of media attention and they had McGuilty , Fantino and the Ont. Gov against the ropes so well that the crown didn’t even bother to mount a defence.
That being said with an international charity lobbying for men’s rights it gives men the voice of many instead of small pockets here and there raising their voice. The burdens would be distributed and lessened for each of those small relatively independent groups.
If such a charitable organization were to be created the stream of money could be generated via the creation of things like ” the prostrate cancer day planner ” to sit along side the pink ribbon ones we see at almost every cashier counter. We could have donate your pennies containers at every hardware store and in every beer store. Poker games organized with the proceeds going to said international mens charity.
Online auctions again proceeds going to an international men’s charity, etc.
So maybe we don’t need to find a lawyer to do a lawsuit at first maybe what we need is a lawyer to create the founding documents for a men’s charity.
Then move on from there.
(BTW Paul if you’re listening, if you have the ability to have AVfM classed as a charity you can bet I would be hitting every damn store to get donation jars put up for the cause.)
sticker:
if she’s not happy, you’re breaking the law
I,m GTFO! Last man out turn off the lights!
The humpty-dumpty-esque redefining of “domestic violence” to mean whatever they want it to mean is incredible – especially when you work through all the possible situations/behaviour it describes and think back on previous girlfriends/wives/partners and wonder just how many times you have been a victim of “domestic violence”.
“In reality, gendering civil and criminal laws is much like what State sponsored racial profiling would be, in that it demands the civil and criminal authorities presume there is a reasonable assumption of guilt of a person based solely on a human characteristic, in this case their sex.”
That is a superficial comparison.
The essential difference is that one is assuming that supposed inclinations of certain groups justify unequal rights, and the other is the claim that we ought to evade the facts of reality when it comes to the allocation of public resources.
To draw on the writing of Walter Williams:
Let’s say an 18 year-old weighs 140 pounds and is nonathletic. The other 18 year- old next to him weighs 220 pounds an is very athletic. As a public University football scout, is it racist for me to assume that 220lb guy has a better chance of making the NFL?
If I am a police officer in charge of keeping the peace in a certain area and I see a group of young people and a group of old people both wearing sunglasses, crossing the road, am I a bigot for offering my help to one group ahead of the other under the assumption that that one group has better eyesight than the other?
Since the chances for a black man of having a heart attack are significantly higher than a white man, should it be illegal for their Obamacare-mandated doctor to make this distinction by ordering more thorough screening for the black man? Or should the doctor be compelled to act against his best judgement by wasting finite resources and time by giving every one the same testing as the sickest and most vulnerable among us — such as testing an a healthy 6-year old girl in the same way as the 38 year old male? I supposed a heart attack is preferable to committing the sin of political incorrectness, correct?
Nothing is an absolute indicator of risk. We all make decisions based on imperfect information. But these decisions need to be made if we want to live at all. What most people call racism is simply fear, and often that fear is justified.
If you are alarmed by what you see as ‘racial profiling’, your anger should be directed at the source, which is either propaganda or reality. Be angry at the snake-oil salesmen, or be angry at those people of that group whose actions give that group a bad name, but not at the others who are simply acting on the information that they have — for their own safety and the interests of those they are responsible for.
To associate racial profiling with what’s being criticized here only diminishes the strength of your article.