Laws of any sort just enable courts to deal with offenders after the act; they prevent nothing.

As for AVOs, there was a reminder last night that that Kirralie Smith, creator of 'Binary', has an AVO against her, and is being dragged through the punishment process, all because her "violence" was to call a man a man while that man calls himself a 'woman'.

The law makers and law administrators in Hickstralia are a joke - a very nasty joke.

A few years ago. our local Probus club was given a talk by the local Chief Magistrate and amongst those subjects mentioned was domestic violence.

After the talk, I engaged with him on the matter. I had recently had occasion to sit in the court listening to other matters, but domestic violence cases had also caught my attention. I opined that if it wasn't for the influence of drugs and alcohol in the area of domestic violence, he would be out of a job. He agreed with me.

Why are those advocates for help to those suffering from domestic violence not doing more to treat the cause, rather than concentrating on the victims. Men should be encouraged to go straight home to the little woman who has prepared tea for him, rather than going to the pub for a "few" beers with his mates and forgetting what time it is and arriving home with a skin full.

The same thing goes for the sporting clubs after the match is over. these men can be all lovey dovey with their woman until they get a ring on her finger, but then all bets are off.

Arndt's portrayal of DAVIA's influence on the UN report regarding parental alienation lacks concrete evidence.

The UN report by Reem Alsalem, which she neglected to cite accurately, explicitly underlines the gendered misuse of the concept of parental alienation, predominantly against mothers. Arndt's claim about DAVIA's role in retracting this report is unsubstantiated.

Regarding the coercive control laws in Australia, Arndt's assertion that these laws are designed to specifically target men is not only baseless but irresponsibly misleading. The objective of these laws, as clearly stated in public statements and legal texts, is to combat domestic violence in its various forms, including physical, sexual, psychological, and financial abuse. To frame them as an attack on men is to distort their purpose and ignore the significant body of evidence linking coercive control to intimate partner violence.

Arndt's commentary on police misidentification in domestic violence cases is an oversimplification of a complex issue. While there is a legitimate need for better police training and response in handling these sensitive cases, suggesting a systemic conspiracy to only charge men is not only unfounded but also detracts from the critical issue at hand - the need for effective and fair handling of domestic violence incidents.

The selective interpretation of the BOSCAR study is another point of concern. While Arndt claims that coercive control does not predict future violence, the study's actual findings indicate a high prevalence of coercive control behaviours in domestic violence incidents. Arndt's misrepresenting of the findings to support her narrative is intellectually dishonest and undermines the seriousness of domestic abuse issues.

Finally, Arndt's overall tone and the use of charged language reveal an apparent bias, casting a shadow over the credibility of her arguments. As a writer, she bears a responsibility to present information accurately and impartially - a standard she has failed to meet in this instance.

Same old, same old attack the victim rubbish. On and on and on. Anyone else would get tired of flogging this dead horse.

It is written, know the truth and the truth will set you free. This author has no interest in the truth, just a broken record repartition, ideological imperative.

We have space age unbeatable lie detection resisted to the last member of the legal fraternity. Why? because the truth is of little concern, but winning is!
Alan B.

The only way to win against the "pendulum of legal decisions", by the legal fraternity - well known to have its upper echelon members elbows deep in the paedophile networks world wide, is to return fire. Getting AVO's/DVO's put on the non custodial parent is a fait accompli, especially if that parent is male. The statistics never mention the rising number of abusive, drug addled, alchoholic and drop kick mothers - only ever reporting on the figures of abusive, violent "males" (that's the gender of Homo sapiens with testicles intact, functioning penis and such). The sooner a Royal Commission is convened into the Family Law Court, Child Support Agency and the myriad misanthrope agencies hanging off the festering teat that is the "in the best interests of the child" industry. Once and for all times, investigating the roots and bias of 50 years of entrenched man bashing and emasculation by the establishment, along with the failed social experiment that it is...the better.

I like the overwhelming bulk of males, was able to arrive at a amicable settlement and largely unfettered access to my kids.

It's the legal profession and grubs like the author that need to sh#t stir to obtain fees. That's all this is about.

My advice, forget the legal profession and sort out your own arrangements. And when you have agreed and ticked all the boxes, involve the legal profession to rubber stamp your agreement.

Remember, there's not prospect of reconciliation, so, just accept that and simply work on an outcome that does the least harm to the kids/meat in the sandwich.
Alan B.