Yes and by equality, Liz really means supremacism. Oh she'll claim otherwise, she'll even CLAIM that she does not condone abuse against men or boys.

Yet she's tried unsuccessfully to spin her way out of the fact that the 2009 study she linked to which was the basis of much of the "don't cross the line" campaign in SA which the SA Ombudsmen found was completely misleading and full of fraudulent figures.

I've also proven that she accuses men and boys who disclose being abused of being liars.

Than again when the ideology of her and her ilk is the SCUM Manifesto, you can't really be surprised at the kind of hate-filled savages they turn out to be. When they say equality, what they really mean is priveledge with impunity from any relevent criminal proceedings and accountability. Say hi to the chauvanists of the 21st Century.

We are eunuchs : So you compile telephone directories – that takes a lot of research and writing. Just as you are not prepared to discuss how children will be protected under the new legislation (Darcey's Law) and what further measures are needed to protect them, then I am not prepared to discuss your woman-hating jibes and constant `fathers are the victims’ whingeing. Firstly however its blame the victim (of domestic violence) – “She ran onto my clenched fist your Honour. Then its blame anybody – step-dad, co-habitee, or live-in lover. I get rather tired of the constant whingeing of the “Poor me, its all about me!”, “What about us Poor caring loving Dads” that I see in these columns and have no wish to engage in their self-pitying outpourings. Thats why I have to take time out so often to recover from puking. But then comes the passive anger in snide remarks and invective when they realise, “Flocce non Facere!.”
Bowspearer, - Your allegations of abuse are merely that, allegations, until everyone has the benefit of the testimony of those you claim abused you, that you are tested on your claims under cross-examination, and there is independent corroboration of your evidence. That is the legal and rational way of testing truth and until then, what you allege merely remains that. Why should I believe your statements when you and others are constantly claiming that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse in the courts are all false, although such allegations are never competently investigated.?. But of course you have the monopoly on truth and Godlike insights into falsehoods, I suppose!.
Roscop : You are the perfect propagandist for the sharia laws proposed by the Sharia Parenting Council of Australia and enshrined in the 2006 Act. Would you also like mothers to be stoned to death for leaving their husbands, and perhaps even burnt at the stake if they have the temerity to flee abroad or interstate with their children in order to protect them?. Male Supremacy Rules, OK!.

Chaz, ypou are a prime example of misandry. You claim to be focused on children, yet you ignore the sexist attitudes against males in society which are so deeply entrenched that when underage teenage boys are groomed and raped by women, it is reported in the media as "an affair" (ie "teaching them while they're young"). So much for being against Child abuse, or is it that you are only against it when traditional stereotypes aren't challenged by the dynamics of that particular instance of abuse?

You don't want to listen to or discuss that point because then you'd be force to admit what a sick little sociopath you truly are.

You keep wanting to look at the new laws like some magic bullet, while ignoring not only the way that the current corruption in the Family Law Court system will pervert it from being the dream you claim into a nightmare (please prove me wrong by pointing me to some newly established disciplinary committee for family court judges), but also the way the removal of perjury prosecutions will do the same.

Wanting to do something for the sake of doing it, regardless of how much of a rethink is needed, is worse than doing nothing in many ways.

Bowspearer – arguing about who abuses children most often and in the most severe ways, does little if anything to protect children from such abuse. I have known children who have been abused in ways which you could never imagine and prattling on about `stereotypes’ wouldn’t have saved any of them. Firstly the laws must be in place to do that adequately and comprehensively whoever might be their abusers, and the goodwill of men to enforce those laws. Thereafter there must be moves to develop and improve the detection of offences and prosecution of those laws and for offenders to be placed on a National Register of Violent Offenders, in the same way as pedophiles.
Yes the legal system and the Courts are often morally and ethically bankrupt, idiosyncratic, and at times even Kafkaesque, and are in urgent need of reform but Rome was not built in a day. (But then, I wasn’t Foreman on that job).
But just sitting back saying “Oh its all too hard, and there's too much needs changing, doesn’t get the job done”. I have no time for Shed-squatting, beer swilling experts on Pub Law, bemoaning and constantly whingeing about their lot. It needs action, even in the smallest ways, if children are to be protected and Australia’s great shame of domestic violence and child abuse is to be eradicated.
I suggest you read my earlier posts about definitions of sociopathy before you begin throwing the term around so loosely and in such a derogatory manner. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

ChazP,(1) you tell us that you "have known children who have been abused in ways which you could never imagine". From the way you speak I assume that you are saying the offenders were their biological fathers. I also assume you were present when the fathers were abusing their children and would therefore have been a key witness.Were any of these fathers convicted in a court of maltreatment of their children?

(2)Regarding your comment "...the laws must be in place to do that adequately and comprehensively whoever might be their abusers". Are you talking about introducing laws conforming with summary justice? Seems to me you are.

(3) You make that the suggestion that there should be a national register of offenders. I don't know about the jurisdiction where you live but the government of my domain does maintain a "Maltreaters of Children" register. From what I know about it most cases have the notation "not substantiated". The government does not release any information about this register, not even non-identifying broad statistical data. But that's what the public should have the right to know and easily access on the web. Stats by relationship type would be very useful in arguments with the likes of you.

Oh really Chaz- we live in a society where stereotypes present significant barriers to reporting, in terms of abusers being recognised and victims being believed and even moreso justice, and you’re saying that they and the resulting social attitudes don’t need to be addressed to maximise society’s ability to combat abuse. Do I even need to point out how utterly MORONIC that statement is.

Furthermore, if you were as involved with working child abuse victims as you claim you are, you’d be aware that it all leaves scars and all must be treated seriously. Then again if you actually were involved you wouldn’t be accusing genuine adult survivors of both child and sposal abuse of lying about their abuse. The fact that you would engage in such vile hypocrisy and then have the gall to justify it as righteous because I don’t share your opinion on how to eradicate child abuse, proves just how much of a vile sociopath you truly are!

Furthermore you claim that I want to just sit around and do nothing when I have said nothing of the sort. What I have said is that the proposed changes to Australian Law will actually make things worse. You openly acknowledge the corruption present in the family court while completely failing to recognise that such corruption is almost always justified as being “in the best interests of the child”. Until you fix that corruption, the legislation will only make things worse, not better. We urgently need to address that corruption first and foremost if we're ever to have any hope of legislation like what you're proposing has any hope of being successful as opposed to harmful.

You are the proverbial fool who wishes to build the house of justice on sand while ignoring the children who will be washed out to sea and drowned in the aftermath.