I hope this author's academic research is more reliable than this post.

I took the trouble to look at the policy she criticises, and found that:
- the policy does not so much as mention the idea of 'hate crime';
- the policy acknowledges that not all DV is perpetrated by women.

However, the policy states that 'domestic and family violence and sexual assault ... are gendered crimes – that is they have an unequal impact on women'. Does Ms Wilson deny this?

To deny that the great majority of DV crimes are committed against women is simply dishonest.To try to address violence against women without understanding the history of unequal gender relations in our society would be a complete waste of time.

None of this is to argue that there should not also be action against all forms of violence, in the home or elsewhere.

"The core debate on Australia's response to climate change has been the Garnaut Climate Change Review, led by Professor Ross Garnaut. It was commissioned by the Rudd government in 2007 to conduct an independent study of the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy"

It was a deceitful act to tell us that Garnaut, an ex-ALP adviser and committed alarmist, was "independent".

There is no debate, when has anyone seen in Australia, skeptics and alarmists on at the same time? Skeptics constantly challenge and are willing to address the science and issues, the alarmists refuse all contact and refuse to debate at all, claiming it will give oxygen to skeptics

This whole promotion by the ALP and the lies and underhanded behavior have had the expected outcome in the community, disbelief.

So what does the government do?

Wind up the attack, get the climate committee out there, Flannery and company, another "independent" sell.

Attack skeptics, demonize them, the ABC is running one to two opinion pieces daily, which pull no punches and are just scathing of anyone not a full blown alarmist.

Yet the people, 53% of them now reject the government's position and tax.

You know, maybe attacking and demonizing Australians might not be the best way to convince them.

Do you think it's not obvious to everyone that if you avoid the confrontation and just constantly snipe with extremely well funded resources, using BOM, CSIRO, ABC and all the other well funded organizations, that something is not quite right?

if it's so obvious, so clear, so simple .. then get on with it and actually have a debate publicly, not this ongoing refusal by scientists to do any more than slag off at skeptics.

The government and the climate industry lack credibility and it is clear that they are in it for their own benefit and profit.

I have read this article three times, but I still cannot work out what this article is about in terms of a sustained argument.

It comes across as a mere chronology of a few policy approaches and announcements by Aust and a few other western nations, and then tells us about the demise of Labor and unpopularity of the carbon tax in the last paragraph.

Careful there Jo, I think your bias is showing, or at least peeking through a little.

Quote, "Sadly, Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan has reversed public support for action on global warming, damaged her leadership and delivered Labor its lowest primary support on record. Opposition leader, Tony Abbott is now the closest he has been to Gillard as preferred prime minister. Gillard's personal support has gone from its best since she became Prime Minister in June 2010 to her worst. Since Gillard announced her intention to introduce a carbon tax from July 2011, initial positive Australian support for action on global warming, has turned negative".

Why would you be sad that the Oz people have displayed a dislike for a liar? Your analysis of global warming belief by the Oz people, & the need for a new tax, doesn't hold water too well either, when you realise that Julia considered it necessary to lie about her plans to get elected.

There is now more than enough evidence to indicate that the planet is now taking a hand in the global warming debate, & the news is all bad for the proponents of the theory.

Yes I know that academia has become dependant on the flow of global warming funds. This is a mistake. I would suggest you cure that addiction, & do it quickly. As the natural cycle of cooling continues, the public are going to become very harsh in their judgement of those they consider perpetuated the con.

It's time to jump off the gravy train, before the inevitable crash, you may still be able to save some credibility.

Chris, the technique is called "framing", you set up one after the other, positives, then a negative, that you want turned into a positive, you didn't bite the expected way though .. so it's poorly done.

probably works better on people susceptible to alarmist thinking .. we'll see.

The one big Anglicized country that is not mentioned is the USA, which has dumped any carbon policies, apart from the EPA attempting to do something, and I do believe Canada just elected a government who are opposed to carbon policies, and who intend to dismantle those in place .. no mention of that, but that would then not fit the "frame-up"

rpg,

yes, the evidence used is selective and merely geared to a biased posiiton.

If one is going to mention Canada, they might want to also do further homework. for instance, Alberta has its owns carbon tax but opposes a nationwide carbon tax (and a Cap and Trade system) because the province belives that a local carbon tax keeps the money in the province and a national system and/or a trading system will see revenue lost.

in other words, there are many positiosn wihtin federal nations, and there are many nations with different attitudes towards a carbon tax for many reasons, which suggests that different arguments be included in any piece trying to inform readers of the merits of a carbon tax.