Just because one group of people are more likely to suffer a specific crime is no reason to enact laws that only protect that majority group. Nor is it a reason to enforce a law, that is written generally, in such a way to protect only that one group. It is irrelevant whether the minority is 49% or 1%. It is irrelevant whether the minority is women, Christians, blacks, the aged, or men.

Anyone trying to argue that violence against female children is in any way better or worse - or more or less important - than violence against male children is encouraging a sick society. It does not matter the age of the person. Even when the child grows into adulthood this fact does not change. Anyone trying to argue that violence against females is in any way better or worse - or more or less important - than violence against males is encouraging a sick society.

To listen only to a small group in society in order to correct injustices in the society is highly unlikely to lead to a just society.

Any psychologically healthy person is more interested in what they perceive as their own interests than anything else. Try as they might to intellectually separate themselves from those interests, their mindset will be coloured by self-interest. People are not dispassionate computers, thank goodness.

Any group of psychologically healthy people having a common interest or goal will inevitably reflect and emphasise the common aspects of self-interest. In this way, societies were initially formed and in this way societies are held together. The smaller the group and the more common the interest, the more focused will be the mindset of self-interest. This is not to be scorned, for it is simply a reflection of the healthy minds in the group.

A small group of sportsmen will reflect the interests of their sport.
A small group of police chiefs will reflect the interests of police chiefs. A small group of judges will reflect the interests of judges. A small group of feminists will reflect the interests of feminism.

To counter the self-interest of a small group within society having a disproportionate effect, it is always necessary to give many people the best practicable access to valid information, and to opposing views on information, and then to ask them the way forward. That sounds like a mandate for democracy, which certainly has its faults, but it is not a political statement, rather it is a fact of how to disperse the effect of personal self-interest so that all people, can be served by society.

ChazP, thanks for responding to my challenge even though it was in a half baked manner. The challenge was for you point to a case that when compared to the case I spoke about supports your argument that the Family Court was biased towards fathers.

In the case I referred you to, the Mother was found to be VIOLENT, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children. You can’t get much more damning than that. This mother was given UNSUPERVISED SOLE custody of the children she had committed offenses against and a good father was denied access. I am sure you and your mob were not up in arms over the court's decision..so much for your even-handed concern for "The Best Interests of the Child".

You come back making glib reference to three reported cases. Well I think I know the Tasmanian case you allude to. Yes hysterical women’s groups were up in arms over the courts decision and it would not surprise me if you were in the vanguard.)

You say that the Tasmanian case is a case where a convicted or known paedophile was given joint custody. The father was not a convicted or a known paedophile. Though he had been found guilty sometime earlier of committing 3 offenses relating to child pornography being on his laptop. Also the court found that the father had invited one of his daughters into bed and had demonstrated affection in a way (what way?) that was inappropriate for a child at that age. ChazP, you mischaracterised the treatment the father received in the Family Court. He was not given joint custody. What the father was given was adult SUPERVISED weekend (alternate weekend is the norm for most cases ) access.

ChapZ, just looking at each of the two cases side by side, I don't think anyone could can say the family court treats fathers more generously than it does mothers. I think if anything they show things to be the other way around.

http://www.news.com.au/national/girls-ordered-to-spend-weekends-with-sex-offender-father/story-e6frfkvr-1225840653601

chazp are you sure you are not liz45 posting under another name?you appear to take the same stand which is very narrow-minded and do not appear to give credit to others` views.
I would hope that your "Sharia Parenting" was a typo error and not aluding to "Sharia Law"where hands can be chopped off from thieves,well! I guess it is somewhere near the mark where fathers are routinely "Chopped off" from their childrens lives on heresay and false acusations.
What proof do you have that all 240000 fathers elect to stay out of their childrens lives to avoid CSA payments?,and how do you know they all go to the pub or go on fishing trips with their mates?
In actual fact I am in a mediator role and on a daily basis support not only deprived fathers,but also women,and most sadly,deprived grandparents,and in my experience very few men walk away from parental responsibility,they are forced to give in through lack of finances that it takes to fight the government agencies,lawyers,and NGO`s who place impossible obstacles in their way to prevent them having a meaningful place in their children`s lives.
liz`s and your commentary and attitude epitomises the vile and stealthy rise of radical feminism that has pervaded our society and operates at taxpayer expense right from the top of government downwards.This is evidenced for starters by the existance of The Minister For Womens Affairs and various departments under her direct,or indirect control.
Family violence,in fact,any violence MUST be punished with severity by Civil Law,and not by The Family Court when it is proven "Beyond Reasonable Doubt",and not by heresay and non provable false accusation
Please stop beating the old anti-male drum
Posted by PAUL H.

ChazP:"There should not be a problem with convicted violent offenders, nor where DVOs, and AVOs are in place."

Except that the vast majority of DVOs/AVOs are "accepted without admission", meaning the reality of the allegations is never tested.

It's nice of you to confirm that you approve of witch hunts. It's also nice to know that you're not in charge of any kind of decision-making process...

Douglas : “Just because one group of people are more likely to suffer a specific crime is no reason to enact laws that only protect that majority group. Nor is it a reason to enforce a law, that is written generally, in such a way to protect only that one group”. – Yet that is exactly what the Family Law Act 2066 did.
“Anyone trying to argue that violence against females is in any way better or worse - or more or less important - than violence against males is encouraging a sick society.” – the proposed amendments are not arguing that. It is a grossly false presumption that it is discriminatory against men.
“To counter the self-interest of a small group within society having a disproportionate effect, etc” – the self interest group in this instance are children, who the present law has failed to protect from abuse and even death and has violated their rights. In your book therefore, children should not be offered such protection.
PaulH – 240,000 fathers refers to statistics published by the CSA where the taxpayers are funding the financial support of children and fathers are making no payment towards the children’s upkeep.
“... any violence MUST be punished with severity by Civil Law” – Family Law is `Civil Law’ and its standard of proof is `On a balance of probabilities’.
“..The Minister For Women’s Affairs” was created in recognition of the discrimination against, inequalities, and oppression which all females experience in our society. It is not about radical feminism, but about ensuring that 50% of the population of this country are treated justly and fairly. Of course its natural that Reactionary Men’s Rights and Privileges supporters and advocates would oppose such moves. Privilege and power are always protected by those who enjoy such advantages.
Antiseptic - " the vast majority of DVOs/AVOs are "accepted without admission", meaning the reality of the allegations is never tested.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves in a Court of Law. If they choose not to, then it is an admission of their guilt.