Ah Chaz,

'your callous sadistic comments were in regard to children who have been killed'

Correction; They were in regard to defining shouting as domestic violence.

'what are a few children's lives sacrificed on the altar of the paramountcy and inalienability of Father's Rights.'

Correction; 100% success is not possible, this should be accepted. I support the inalineable right of Children to have contact with their mother and father in cases where shouting (ie abuse under the new definition) has taken place.

'Killing a child is a long way from shouting at a partner or a child.'

My point exactly ChazP. SO why is shouting equated with abuse for the purpose of denying children the right to see a parent? That's what the expanded definitions of abuse in the law really achieve.

'Thats the way you are! - Face it.'
Correction; I have never raised a hand to any of my partners, or to any woman at all for that matter. I have in the past been slapped, kicked, punched, threatened with a knife and had glasses thrown at me by one of my partners.

'Take responsibility for your bad behaviours.'
Just what proof do you have that any of the posters have behaved in any way violently? It's plain obvious to anyone reading that you see all men as a single entity. All men as abusers. I feel really sorry for you.

Your arguments are about as sophisticated as Senator Conroy stating if you don't agree with a universal government controlled internet filter you are pro-child porn and paedophilia. Do you listen to Alan Jones and read The Tele and watch ACA for all your news?

Piper,

'This not along the lines of she made me beat her is it? No? Good good then, nuff said.'

Nope, it's

'You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a female ever did something wrong'

Houel:“…widening the definition of abuse = lower burden of proof, conflates reasonably sane normal people under temporary stress with pathological abusers.”

R says 'Well said. What BS. Just ignore the cases of entrenched DV why dont we?

"this is about saying 'NO' to bad parents" except in your world and the world of those you side with, it's only about saying 'NO' to bad male parents'. Oops. Cant find where I said anything like that. you presume and you are way wrong. those I sidewith? you mean 'not R. H. J, V? Oh, and A. i never side with A.

'You are so blinded by your own journey that you refuse to see that the experience of many others has been different.' And your right to your inane analysis is none of my business.

Do you really want to increase the levels of abuse and killings? ..your desperate quest to try and slip maternal bias in through the back door of the family court.
I see, so the inevitable men's only capacity is to kill and abuse if thwarted....Hmmm. Why am I not surprised.

Chatting with senior police today, they disclosed how hard it is to get cases through the legal system, and why the recorded crime rate is down, and child abuse cases frequently unsubstantiated. Sexual assault of children is low priority.
So all you 'experts' who play with the stats that suit you, understand that you are playing with the tip of the iceberg.

For the last time, when I say parents, I MEAN PARENTS, BOTH GENDERS WHO ABUSE. AND AS FOR WIDENING THE DEFINITIONS - the behaviours have always been there, you just can't bear to be outed. For everyone's sake, please stop shouting as if the world will turn over and people will lose their kids because of it. it is abusive, but unlikely to lose of parental rights by itself.

Whoever 'analysed my life reality and work' boring..predictable and still irrelevent and wrong. Alcohol and/or drugs. No. Just an overgrown bully who demanded the family obeyed with his rule, or else he got REALLY cruel

'Oops. Cant find where I said anything like that. you presume and you are way wrong.'

Oh really? You've actually even gone a step further and accused all the posters that disagree with you of being abusive in their relationships....

cotter; 'you just can't bear to be outed'

WTF?

chaz; 'Thats the way you are! - Face it.
Take responsibility for your bad behaviours.'

Double WTF?

Personal attacks and accusations of abuse with no evidence to total strangers. I'd say that's a pathology. It's is clear as day you two hate men. Are all people who oppose the death penalty murderers?

'it is abusive, but unlikely to lose of parental rights by itself.'

So why is the widened definition even there then? Why will it protect children more if it will only ever be used in cases where actual real abuse is proven anyway? If you can prove real abuse, why do you need shouting to be contained in the definition? Because you cant prove abuse, so instead you lower the burden of proof rather than committing more resources.

If shouting is abusive there are millions of mothers the world over who are abusive, who shout at their kids all the time. In fact I would say EVERY SINGLE PARENT has shouted at their kids at least once a year.

'You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a female ever did something wrong'”

You won that round Houel. But I’ll be back.

Comments in the article at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11280

are very relevant to this thread. It add's another dimension to the proposed emphasis on DV allegations which should make it clear to all but the most determined that these changes are not gender neutral.

"Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).
Advertisement

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report).

Racial, or in this case gender-profiling, of offenders is controversial in law enforcement procedures, but to upgrade it into legislation is nothing short of extraordinary. It creates an obvious bias in the minds of judges and magistrates that a particular class of defendants is more likely to be guilty by reason of his gender or race than would be the case if he were of a different gender or race (and likewise the other gender or race more likely to be innocent).

In the case of the Family Law Act, its only possible application would be to prejudice fathers in parenting disputes since the Court would be required to assume that fathers are more likely to be abusive toward their children than mothers. To suggest that courts are somehow able to discard such bias in determining individual cases, while maintaining the general rule as to which groups are most likely to commit certain offences, is naïve and stupid. And if the bias is to somehow be withheld in the determination of individual cases, then why legislatively prescribe it in the first place?"

R0bert

Antiseptic – Your claim to having research experience is notably the only one. There are clearly others on this thread who are speaking with great authority on matters on which they have neither knowledge nor experience. As a matter of interest I have extensive experience of undertaking research for governmental and non-governmental bodies and am well acquainted with research ethics and methodology.

I am equally contemptuous of the simplistic and unqualified misrepresentation of child abuse statistics and the garbage research on `Men’s Issues’ which emanates from the UWS and which is used by FR groups and supporters.

Robert – I do not make sidesteps. I just simply will not follow your pathetic attempts to control and direct this debate and to discuss what happens to be important to you.

Houle : “SO why is shouting equated with abuse for the purpose of denying children the right to see a parent? That's what the expanded definitions of abuse in the law really achieve.”.
Where in the Proposed legislation (Para 4(1AB)(c) - Definition of Exposed (to family violence) is there any reference to `Shouting’ which you are so obsessed about.?.
“Overhears threats of death or personal injury” and “sees or hears an assault...” are not `Shouting’ at a child.

Robert : Where in the `Definition of Family Member‘ Subsect 4(1) in the proposed legislation is there any reference to any gender?. It is your own gender bias and preferences which are showing. Are all those Feminists out to get you?.

Can you explain to me how working class Mums in North Sydney suburbs, Townsville, Adelaide Toowoomba etc be the fire-breathing Feminist Dragons which you all fear so much and where are all those “Feminist Ideologues” which Sue Price claims are lurking around every street corner.?. It is these Mums and their kids who are suffering the ravages of the ill-conceived Shared Parenting laws and I am yet to meet one of them who would know and promote Feminist Ideology . I’d bet you keep your bedroom lights on all night in case those Feminist Bogeymen come and get you.!.