Minister Elis rationally indisputably lied to parliament when she
said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth (she MUST know that is false; hence she lied).

Yet when George Christensen, MP for Dawson made the mild (by parliamentary standards) comment in relation to that lie, "Do some homework, Minister. The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament-", the Deputy Speaker made him withdraw his remark!

So Elis is allowed to lie; Christensen not allowed to truthfully call her to account for lying.

A great article.

It is possible that the minister is so immersed in propaganda that she does not realise that her comments were false. The lie is built on other lies and dodgy definitions and widely supported by vested interests. The minister may be negligent rather than lying.

R0bert

'The resulting clogging up of the court system will mean that cases of serious violence and abuse will not be given the time, attention and resources they deserve.'

This is the most important bit. In fact it will also lead to an exacerbation of the problem of abuse of the court system due to longer waiting times.

'As anyone who has been on the receiving end of false allegations can attest, the impacts are utterly devastating.'

Yes, but for fathers mostly. The governmnet leans more to protecting children. This is understandable. Ethically and politically.

I see legislation in this area swinging back and forth, back and forth, and really, this is how I see it panning out.

Whoever is the primary carer of the children is in pole position.

There will continue to be abuses of process, lawyers using dirty tactics, and fathers losing contact, and this is inevitable when one party in proceedings gets a leg up, but in the end this isn't such a bad result for the children. They get continuity in their lives and their primary carer has a huge advantage in remaining so.

But the trouble is when the primary carer is emotionally or mentally unstable, and the secondary carer isn't allowed to balance this out and be some kind of relief valve and ameliorate the damage.

So, sure we are leaning towards shutting out fathers if there is a sniff of abuse regardless of the veracity with the aim of protecting children, but what about the opposite problem when the 100% custody goes to an emotional terrorist who just happened to be in the pole position of primary carer, and what you're effectively doing is throwing out possibly the only stabilising influence in the children's lives.

The law will only ever be fair when men and women are equally primary carers and primary earners.

Actually maybe not even then. People are more readily willing to believe a man is abusive than a woman. Statements by Ms Ellis don't help in this area. Neither do does this constant misinformation about domestic violence...

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/

A comment on (1) men's and women's experiences of family violence.

Just as the Minister noted, among men and women who are physically assaulted, women are far more likely than men to be assaulted by someone known to them. Among the men physically assaulted each year, in the most recent incident close to 70% were assaulted by a stranger. In contrast, among the female victims of physical assault, 24% were assaulted by a stranger (ABS 2006: 30). Using the raw numbers in Table 2, among men, about 330,000 of the most recent incidents involved a perpetrator who was a stranger. Among women in contrast, about 57,000 of the most recent incidents involved a stranger.

Thus, women are more likely than men to be assaulted by persons known to them than by strangers. Indeed, women are more likely than men to be assaulted by a partner or ex-partner than by any other category of perpetrator. Among female victims of assault, the category of perpetrator most likely to have inflicted the assault is male current or previous partners (31%). In contrast, among men, less than 5% were assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner, and men are most likely to be assaulted by male strangers.

Andresen stresses that among all men and women, roughly similar numbers experienced physical assault in the last year by someone known to them. This is true. However, for male victims of assault, ‘persons known to them’ largely comprise men they know and male family members or friends.

Andresen fails to acknowledge that when men are assaulted by someone they know, this is most likely to be a *male* acquaintance. Among men assaulted by someone they know who was other than a partner or ex-partner, in 142,100 of the most recent incidents this involved a male acquaintance (summing the figures for male family members or friends and male other known persons), while in 45,300 of the most recent incidents it involved a female acquaintance.

In writing about “family violence”, Andresen hides the fact that men’s experiences of ‘family violence’ are still largely experiences of violence by *other men*.

A comment on (2) false allegations of abuse.

Andresen cites evidence only that people in Australia, and various categories of professionals, *believe* that false allegations of violence and abuse are common. However, the actual evidence says otherwise. I’ve summarised the research evidence in two fact sheets, available online:

http://xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-2-myth-women%E2%80%99s-false-accusations-domestic-violence-and-misuse-protection-orders

http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-1-myth-false-accusations-child-abuse

There is no credible evidence that false allegations of violence or abuse are routine in family law proceedings. As the fact sheets state in relation to child abuse for example, allegations of child abuse are rare; false allegations are rare; false allegations are made by fathers and mothers at equal rates; the child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence; and allegations of child abuse rarely result in the denial of parental contact.

I provide a more scholarly assessment of these and other issues in this published journal article: http://www.xyonline.net/content/fathers-rights-and-defence-paternal-authority-australia.

Sincerely,

Dr Michael Flood.

'In writing about “family violence”, Andresen hides the fact that men’s experiences of ‘family violence’ are still largely experiences of violence by *other men*'

Oh, well that makes it ok then. They had it coming.

Each man is responsible for the violence of other individual men.

Good to see you still pedalling that stuff Michael.

I wonder if sexual abuse by men of little boys counts in Michael's eyes. I wonder at what age male victims of violence start to become responsible for that violence due to their gender.