Brendan O'Neill rightly notes that " important influences (substance abuse, mental illness, ethnicity, and broad societal attitudes to violence) get very little attention in the report despite being avenues that could usefully have been pursued to reduce violence levels." Broad societal attitudes, especially those of the young, can be strongly influenced by the media content they're exposed to every and all day. If that content constantly glamorises the use of violence (it works and it wins), it raises the risk (even later in life) that aggression will be used to solve conflict. Such exposure is not the main cause of the violence used in domestic settings, and nor is it the least, but it is one we could do something about.

Taken directly from the Report
"The terms of reference do not require the Commission to determine why family violence occurs but,
by way of background, they do set out important factors that are relevant:
The causes of family violence are complex and include gender inequality and community
attitudes towards women. Contributing factors may include financial pressures, alcohol
and drug abuse, mental illness and social and economic exclusion."

One would have thought that determining the cause of family violence would have been the primary aim of spending all the time and money. There must be a lot of disappointed people out there. Addressing those causes would go a long way towards reducing the problem at its source instead of reacting to the situation after it has happened.

David

 

" Despite all the money being thrown at this problem,it can be expected to have very little effect in actually reducing domestic violence levels."

The socialists never learn. They continually want to spend money they don't have despite the huge sums that they spent in the past, which have proved ineffectual. Socialists must be the only people not wired to learn from their mistakes. Neither money, nor any other government waste and meddling, will make any difference to domestice violence, which obviously occurs at home. Unless this crime is reported, the perpetrator is arrested, charged and dealt with as with any other crime,nothing can be done. If the victim is not prepared to report the assault, that will not happen. Tut tutting and wasting borrowed money will merely burden us with more useless public servants.

"The feminist line is embedded right through the report and includes the usual redefining of the English language, starting with the sisterhood's own definition of "violence"."

Feminists are amateur politicians with an axe to grind against men in general. They don't have the guts to take on Muslim men with their institualised violence against Muslim women and female white non-Muslim rape victims; and they are not rational enough to help other women, who they generally ignore or look down on. The fact thay they think that they can change the definition of violence, in itself, means they have nothing to contribute. Their "causes of family violence are complex and include gender inequality and community attitudes towards women" is absurd. The 'community' is at least half women, but the femistas struggle to reruit more than a very small percentage of them.

The only people can stop violence are the victims who,must report assaults to ensure the punishment of their tormentors.

I don't believe anyone can dress up domestic violence and present it as a socialist or feminazi agenda, or propaganda.

Simply put, only annus phincters of the first water or knuckle dragging nethrendals, lower than a snake's belly, try to justify it, or try and turn any halfway decent response to it into a waste of taxpayer resources.

Yes, I have heard of domestic violence perpetrated on blokes. And some ladies just can't stop themselves and their viperish never happy tongues?

And should that be the case any man would walk!

That said, if there are issues, real men don't need to resort to their fists to solve it, nor try and morally blackmail a partner via financial control.

Simply put, and given unresolvable conflict, if you love it let it go if it comes back to you it's yours, if it doesn't, it never was!

Other than that, "men" who get their jollies beating on their partners, their kids, their pets, deserve a high velocity projectile between the eyes, except that'd be to good and too easy!
Rhrosty.

    

 

Rhrosty,

 

"I don't believe anyone can dress up domestic violence and present it as a socialist or feminazi agenda, or propaganda."

I don't believe anyone has suggested such a stupid thing. That idea comes from your own mind and overall lack of cognition. Your stupidity is becoming very tiring, as is your language: " only annus phincters of the first water or knuckle dragging nethrendals.." as a description of people you don't agree with (mainly because you can't understand what they are saying) is low-class and ignorant enough; but you can't even spell. It is: anus, not 'annus', sphincter, not 'phincter', and Neanderthal, not 'nethrendal'. Not satisfied with being a nasty name-caller, you also spell worse than a Neanderthal - and they didn't spell, read or write.

"...lower than a snake's belly, try to justify it, or try and turn any halfway decent response to it into a waste of taxpayer resources."

What? Throwing money at a problem that can be solved by individuals, using perfectly adequate laws, is not a waste of taxpayers' money? You are inummerate as well as illiterate.

You are also a hypocrite who claims to be horrified by violence, but who thinks the best cure for the perpetrators of violence is "... a high velocity projectile between the eyes...". The whys and wherefores don't matter to you, just kill 'em.

   

Dv is a problem that has only ever increased under socialist dogma. Parents who have swallowed the idiotic Spock dogmas are now seeing the young brats of kids many of them have created. Teenagers are taught they can have as many relationships as they want with no consequences. Now the more money socialist throw at issues the worse they have become. Look at the billions they have poured into squalors for aboriginals producing more dv, rape, child abuse and hopelessness. The more secular we become the more irrational and rotten fruit. As for encouraging the 'gay' lifestyle where dv is rampant! No solutions will be reached with so many in denial of causes.

Without having seen the report, I don't know what the Victorian government is proposing to spend the taxpayers' money on to minimise domestic violence.

If it's a bunch of slick advertisements to shame men into respecting women, it's unlikely to do much good in a culture that thrives on misogyny and s/exploitation of women as the servants and playthings of men.

I'm putting my money on the untiring work of feminists who are making very slow but sure progress in changing social attitudes to women. For the first time in history, women are taking control of the DV agenda. Female journalists are finally starting to write about the problem from the women's perspective - instead of the traditional male perspective that it's a problem of a few disturbed men that must be solved by the benevolence of some majority of caring, sensitive men.

If the Victorian government doesn't come up with the goods, then so what? Feminists will keep up the good fight for as long as it takes.

A disturbing article. The official response to this issue, makes a classic example of how socially acceptable it became, to burn withes at the stake!

But on a more pragmatic level, it's about the money wasted, to address a problem which is really not going to respond in proportion.

Giving opportunity to the unscrupulous, offering discount mortgages, and other largesse (to victims of crime) (sic) , is a Pandora's box that should not be opened!

A few months ago I suggested to a local magistrate that from my observations in his courtroom that if it wasn't for drugs and alcohol he would be out of a job. No surprise, he agreed with me. According to Victoria police, about 40 percent of DV cases they attend are alcohol related. These factors seem to have been completely ignored by the Royal Commission as well as our Premier. No one in official circles seems to admit that many of today's social problems are caused by alcohol.

David

Killarney

You say that "Without having seen the report, I don't know what the Victorian government is proposing to spend the taxpayers' money on to minimise domestic violence".

You also state that "I'm putting my money on the untiring work of feminists who are making very slow but sure progress in changing social attitudes to women".

On the first point, the article contains a link to the full report (not to mention a summary of the recommendations) so you can see for yourself what is proposed and decide for yourself whether the root causes of domestic violence are being addressed.

The status of women in society only started changing about 150 years ago with the advent of mechanisation and the industrial revolution. Technological change has accelerated since then, with birth control an important development in changing the role and status of women. I think it is likely that technology/science has also facilitated the birth of feminism, with feminism being largely an effect of social change rather than a root cause.

The feminist rhetoric about family violence in this country is unduly concerned with gender inequality and "respect for women", and ignores other important issues. All the equality and respect in the world will be lost on people who are either violent by character, violent through alcohol or drugs, or affected by psychosis or a similar medical condition.

I think the Royal Commission paid too much attention to people with a feminist axe to grind, and came up with a set of expensive solutions that ignored much of the problem.

I don't believe that only 40% of cases of domestic violence are related to alcohol; more likely to be double that; but who knows, with research skills being as dumbed down as all other academic pursuits are these days.

If alcohol were to be introduced today it would be illegal,along with A-class drugs; it is the most dangerous drug of all, because it is socially acceptable,and there is money in it for governments. Claiming that two glasses a day is OK, is like saying that a certain amount of heroin per day is OK. No amount of alcohol is safe: this has been known since the 18th century, when doctors stopped prescribing it for certain illnesses; but the lesson still has not been learned.

All this talk of the dreaded alcohol 'causing' people to bash their loved ones in their own homes makes me wonder what everyone thinks is the cause if the perpetrators aren't drunk at the time of the offenses ? I wouldn't mind betting that it is this sort of domestic violence that rarely gets reported unless the victim is extremely injured or dies.

People affected by mental health problems don't all bash their loved ones either, so it can't be that as the root cause of domestic violence either. Of course, having mental health or alcohol problems certainly will inflame any conflict situations in the home, but there must be something else that happens as well.

I would suggest that the perpetrator must have an inborn propensity for violence in the first place, whether that was a learned behavior from a violent home environment as a child, or whether they were simply born that way, I don't know.
One thing is certain though, not all those people raised in a violent home turn out to be violent themselves either, so there must be something else involved.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think any money thrown at the problem by the Government must be used to help keep the victims safe, as well as managing or locking up the perpetrators, and trying to educate them in anger management etc before letting them out to start again with a new family...

Suse,

I don't think that anyone, certainly not me, is suggesting that all domestic or other violent assaults are the result of drinking alcohol. Teetotallers are just as capable of violence as drinkers are. So are users of other drugs (alcohol is a drug). Use of any drug, including alcohol, causes permanent changes to the brain. Drinkers, in particular,are either unaware of this, or don't want to know. Therefore, an assailant who has a zero alcohol reading, may still do something he or she would not have done if they were not drinkers. Of course, their actions, as you suggest, might also be the product of innate personality problems, in which case, they should abstain from all drugs and stimulants.

I think it is wrong when a woman and children have to leave their home in fear
while the violent perpetrator gets to stay in the family home

I think at this point, the male should be billed by the government to
pay for the rented accomodation of the wife for the sake of some stability
and a decent temporary residence for the children or at least half the rent
if the wife has a job, but then she still has to pay hefty Childcare fees so she can
keep her job.

Why should the children be homeless, while the man sits there in a big
house with all the furniture and comforts around him.
Its a big thing for a woman to render herself and her children homeless.
Not an easy thing for any of us to do, man or woman to give up your home
To literally become homeless, immediately.

Very good article, Brenden O'Reilly. Especially that pertaining to the idea that domestic violence has become just another cause for the social worker caste, where they hope to expand their departments by promising to solve any social problem, if only the taxpayer will give them a blank cheque.

But I am disappointed in what you did not mention.

You should have pointed out that the Muslim suburb of Auburn was named by the Daily Telegraph newspaper as "the domestic violence capitol of Sydney." There is an obvious connection to violence towards women and the Islamic faith. Which is hardly surprising, when you realise that Islam is a paternalistic and violent religion which sanctifies male superiority, and sanctifies the use of violence towards women. Naturally, the Sisterhood gives Islam a free pass on this. Minorities with victim status with the socialist Left are judged by different standards.

So too, you could have mentioned that aboriginal women are murdered at a rate six times higher than their white sisters. Violence towards women has always been a recognised part of aboriginal culture. But once again, aborigines have victim status so.... "don't mention the war."

If the sisterhood want to prevent rising domestic violence, then banning Islamic immigration would be the right place to start, and it would not cost the taxpayer a penny. But saving the taxpayer money has never been what the socialist Left has ever been about.

Condemning aboriginal men for their extremely high rate of domestic violence is another no no. Once again, aboriginals are a protected species with the socialist Left, and their stone age culture is beyond reproach.

Better to just keep implying that those hated reprobates, white European males, are responsible for everything. And then say that the only way that domestic violence can be solved, is to give social workers lots of money, and then take the socialist path and make males and females absolutely equal in every way, by authoritarian decree.

Oh, and while we are on the subject, perhaps the Sisterhood could take attack our entertainment media for it's promotion of violence and it's denigration of family life?

Violent movies are specifically engineered to appeal to low staus young men, exactly the sorts of males most likely to emulate the on screen antics of the violent role model heroes. These "heroes" always use violence as a first resort to solving their personnel problems, and the only quality that all of them possess is the ability to beat the ever lovin' shiit out of anybody who crosses them. Such a quality is hardly an asset in family life.

So too, the execrable "rap" music "singers" routinely sprout songs sanctifying the use of violence towards women. Females are usually referred to as "hoes" or "bitches" and rap video's usually depict females as nothing more body parts that are the providers of sex and servitude. "Songs" by groups with charming names like "The Murderers", with charming "songs" entitled "Smack My Bitch Up", can be heard by every little boy listening to his radio in prime time.

But naturally, the Sisterhood has a case of acute myopia over that. Why? Well, to start with, this is the culture of black men, who are the victims of white male oppressors, that's why So as an oppressed minority, black males and their culture are beyond reproach. Of course, any fool can see a direct connection between the violent misogynist culture of black males and the results of that culture on black women. But the Sisterhood will never see around their ideological blinkers, and they hope that the rest of the population is too stupid to see past their propaganda.

Secondly, the entertainment media is absolutely infested with Lefties. Joe McCarthy was right. It is very uplifting wandering around pretending that you are a look-at-me do gooder who is the pinnacle of moral perfection, all you have to do is to ignore the fact that your own industry has all the morals of the tobacco industry, in selling a dangerous product to societies most immature and vulnerable.

LEGO That is telling it like it is, no PC BS. It is a pity that writers of these reports didn't grasp the nettle and do likewise.

David

Domestic violence has been around since the beginning of time, long before TV , gaming etc, and it occurs in all levels of society, in all countries, and amongst all races and religions.

So, there is no point trying to point the finger at any one group.
Violence occurs everywhere.
The main common denominator- human adult males.

Child neglect has been around since the beginning of time, long before TV , gaming etc, and it occurs in all levels of society, in all countries, and amongst all races and religions.

So, there is no point trying to point the finger at any one group.
Violence occurs everywhere.
The main common denominator- mothers ie human adult women (and their invitees for a drug-fuelled shag).

The Offenders
http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children

The Costs
http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/effects-child-abuse-and-neglect-children-and-adolescents

Wait a bit, while it makes so much sense to target child neglect and abuse and it is the only way to interrupt the cycle, that doesn't fit well with the middle class educated feminist elite, the fleas on fleas, the the gravy train, who have had their noses planted firmly in the trough of taxpayers' $$ for decades.

A 17 year old Muslim youth had to be told by a magistrate in Geelong recently that he, as the 'man' of the house did not have the right to beat his younger sister for not watching the TV channel he thought she should, even though this little prick claimed that he could because he was a Muslim. There is no man in this household: just the girl, her mother and the teenage thug. However, the matter was reported,the thug resisted arrest, but he was brought to book because the incident WAS REPORTED. If the women of a Muslim household are prepared to go to the law because they are not prepared to tolerate a traditional Koranic walloping in Australia where the ONLY law - Western secular common and statute law - applies, the there is no reason for non-Muslim, average Australian women not to do the same thing. The public figures who are concerned with domestic violence, as they should be, must stop excusing women victims for not helping themselves in the first place. How many times are police offices assaulted or abused by a female victim when they manhandle her tormenter? Many, many. The would rather take their revenge on people who are there to protect them (often called by the the victim herself), rather than on their abusive old man. The law can only help those who help themselves.

I have never claimed to be horrified by all violence, given for some situations there is no other choice, like returning controlled fire when fired on.

But I'm against rank brutality, and as a first and only remedy. Or as any kind of remedy in personal relationships or animal control.

I mean you've all heard of horse whispers and just using natural stress mechanisms to herd herd animals, without ever needing to resort to brutality or the whip.

I mean you can get more out of companion animal with a little TLC than all the whip cracking profanity.

We have all heard of horses who've run themselves into the ground for a master given to treating them with kindness, or loyal dogs who've sacrificed their lives for a loved master. None more so than the dogs who located mines. And at times paid for it with their lives!

Children raised in violent homes, often go on to repeat that example as adults.

For some uncontrolled violence is their first and only remedy, particularly those that get their jollies beating up women, kids and putting the boot into the family pet.

And suggesting an appropriate and patently deserved remedial solution is just not the same as implementing it personally.

At the end of the day, one has to chose to let go of their control as a conscious act!

For some (adrenaline junkies) it's connected to the rush of adrenaline that goes with it? Or lunacy!

Without question, one is entitled under circumstances (battered wife syndrome) to use lethal force as an appropriate survival response.

As an armed civilian I've helped brutalized women escape such circumstances and would do it again in a heartbeat.
Rhrosty.

It's been ages since I've bothered to join the know-it-alls that routinely decry responses and negate developments in DV practices, while crying 'It isn't men like me' who do it.

Everyone has an answer - if only the victims would behave differently - or chose non-violent men. My if only's would be if only the victim had a lawyer - or rights! If only at the first point of contact, the victim was given quality advice as to help them IDENTIFY DV - because most dont. If only we taught people to identify NARCISSISM (and other personality types) so that the charm mask could be spotted quickly. If only we taught financial management? If only we knocked that empathy right out of empaths or at least taught them self preservation so they aren't meat for the conmen/women of the world.

If only we, society, acted to prevent damage, instead of ignoring children's voices and reports for so long that it takes years to come forward. Or perhaps regarding incest as the terrible crime it is instead of putting it in the too hard basket because of the nature of the Adversarial legal system.

So, instead of knocking the RC's findings, and the Government's response, which still wont fix it all, what's your solution?

As for the definition of 'violence', I've had a long history of learning about this topic and it is really complicated to think through and understand just how financial, emotional and social abuse etc work hand-in-hand with actual violence to control and coerce the target to provide far more to the perpetrator/controller/beneficiary of undue entitlement. So defining Dv to your satisfaction is going to be a challenge. Family terrorism perhaps?

Perhaps this case, from the US, might explain a bit.

http://www.fosters.com/article/20160410/NEWS/160419950/-1/FOSNEWS

Susieoncrack shrilly screamed that "there is no point in blaming any one group for all violence", before she blamed one specific group for all violence. Nice one, Susie. With Leftist logic like that, you can appreciate why I had to abandon the Leftist worldview and started thinking straight. I can only hope that you can stimulate some neuronal activity in your rapidly atrophying brain, and do the same thing one day.

Please note leftist logic. Unable to formulate even a miserable paragraph of reasoned argument to support her view, Susie resorts to a sneery one liner that was so badly thought out that she could not even see the clear contradiction in her own slogan. Susie's miserable response is just so typical of the trendy lefty class. They are so convinced that they are right that they have never even thought about what they believe. They just parrot slogans and think that this will impress people.

Sorry to destroy your child like faith in a fairytale ideology that is going to Save The World, Susie. But unlike your good and naive self, I prefer to use facts and reason to analyse social problems.

Why can't you woman up and admit that Islam is a male dominated religion which openly preaches violence towards women to keep them in their place? Wife beating in sanctified in the Koran. And it is not Mormons attacking women in Cologne, raping scores of British schoolgirls in Rotherham, or selling sex slaves in Syria. But if it was Mormons, everybody knows you would be screaming abuse at Mormons and everything they stand for. Why does Islam get a free pass?

And if you really don't think that the media images and messages affect human behaviour, then you must support the idea that tobacco companies should be able to advertise their wares in children's comics. Using your logic, tobacco has been around for 500 years, and people from every race, religion and culture smokes tobacco, so the blame lies with "all people." Therefore, tobacco advertising executives are innocent souls because the media can not influence children's behaviour.

Cotter, "family terrorist"

Erin Pizzey Speaks at the Domestic Violence 2014 Symposium in Toronto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnUwxxijr3g

and

The Emotional Terrorist by Erin Pizzey
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-10.htm#prone

and

The Erin Pizzey Interview
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-11.htm#interview

On-the-beach. focused on two words.

Prizzy identified Narcissism/personality disorder - without naming them. She identifies a Family Systems background, predating coercive, controlling violence (where Violence = the combination of all behaviours of control not just actual physical violence).

http://www.powerandcontrolfilm.com/the-topics/academics/evan-stark/ will give you a clue, and there's lots more.

Family Systems remains in child protection,Family Courts etc.

It's complicated to truly understand the machinations of behaviours, cause effect and impact on children and others. Start with the unrepresented position of victims in criminal matters, where a world of intrigue awaits.

Prizzy varies between 'children who grow up in bad environments may end up as family terrorists, mainly women - she's playing to her audience. like Ardnt. Many only look at violence by men, against women. I want people to stop taking sides,look to solutions, stop victim blaming. In dysfunction, people can be all three accuser, victim and perpetrator, and it changes over time.

Domestic and Family Violence isn't a lefty issue.

Here's a poor analogy - the best i can do.Think cancer. You know its out there, you hope you never get it, but by crikey you learn a whole challenging complex world if diagnosed. DV's out there for other people, not people like us who 'love each other, took vows, built a life'. DV's like cancer in that it sneaks up, you cant see it, you dont recognise it. When you do you hope it isnt too late, that interventions will work. Imagine if you go to the specialist and he says 'no, you are not a party to this - only the cancer is covered under 'the rule of law'. And so all those assumptions and expectations one has about all those services out there may be very different from reality. Sorry about the lousy analogy, but it really is far more complicated than one expects. The victims aren't the feminists - they are usually individuals, who have no idea how they got into the mess, why the perp is alternately loving kind and apologetic, then abusive. It does you head in -as it is supposed to.

I have always held the opinion that to solve a problem, first you must identify the causes, because until then we are throwing billions into treating the symptoms while ignoring the causes.

Yet another huge waste of tax payers dollars we simply no longer have.

What's the next avoidable problem we can waste our taxes on.

After reading "Cotter's" two posts, I have absolutely no idea what he/she is talking about, other than domestic violence exists, there appears to be no solution, and it is not a "lefty" issue.

Well Cotter, it is a lefty issue if lefties use increasing domestic violence as an excuse to demand more money, more buildings full of counsellors, social workers, and psychologists to supposedly combat it.

If domestic violence is rising, it is pertinent to ask why. Perpetrators can be male or female, but as with almost all perpetrators of physical violence, the most common offenders are male. An unknown proportion of males have controlling personalities which vary from mildly controlling to extremely controlling. Such men exude an aura of strength that some female personality types are attracted to.

Such male behaviour in western societies (depending upon degree of control) is generally considered to be socially repugnant. It is therefore the duty of our media to reinforce this message that violence towards spouses is unacceptable, as a way of mitigating this behaviour. News media does this but entertainment media generally does the opposite. Whereas entertainment media does not directly support domestic violence, it does overwhelmingly support the idea that real men are violent men. Reinforcing that concept in males who have mild controlling personalities will reinforce their belief that their behaviour is correct and socially acceptable.

That culture can mitigate or reinforce anti social behaviour is a fact. Muslim societies are breeding grounds for controlling male personalities because Islam is an extremely patriarchal culture which preaches and sanctifies male dominance of females. Unsurprisingly, Muslim suburbs in western countries are renowned for domestic violence, and violence towards females in general.

There is no "solution" domestic violence Cotter, but it can be mitigated.

First, demand that our entertainment media tone down the glorification of violent behaviour. Second, recognise that Islam has values, attitudes and behaviours diametrically opposed to western ones, and stop importing Muslims. Domestic violence in Islam is directly ordained and sanctioned by Mohammed. More Muslims means more domestic violence. And no amount of money is going to change that.

Lego, unsure re confusion. Reread? Research to fill in the blanks you don't get? Ask?

Those buildings full of counsellors can assist the victims, who often lose everything - looks, health, physical capacity, brain injuries, clothes, belongings, financial assets, children, family, home, job, then get beaten in the courts. Are you saying you think they dont deserve help to recover from the greatest con - that its safe to leave?

Murdered men,women and children, and those who kill leave behind an insurmountable legacy of pain and life impacts - financial, emotional, families torn apart, should those people be permitted to see counsellors? Is BEING a counsellor a leftie job then? Or is it who pays that worries you? Everyone's definition of words is subject to perception?

I take your point about religions being male dominated, woman-must-obey-man organisations - but while stop at Islam? All major churches are male run, house perpetrators and cover for them. Indeed God himself is generally depicted as a male, atrocities are frequently committed in His name. Modern media is certainly helping our young to believe negotiation is best done by the more powerful but the idea has always been 'some violence is excusable' and many believe DV falls into that category.

Is it 'leftie' to say to the megabucks media industry must be controlled? The porn industry? Child sexual exploitation? Banks? Politicians? Courts? How's that working for you? Are you a Rightie'

The conversation might improve if people stepped of of their entrenched soapboxes of wisdom. If people didn't know what they were getting into, then couldn't get out, how does blaming them help? Once they left, most don't find freedom, more purgatory, blame, criticism, lousy laws, negative outcomes. If lucky, a damned good service/counsellor can help them work through, learn and never make the same mistake again. Now, perhaps if we tattoo a danger sign on perps heads....

Great to judge if you've never been there. Great to stay stuck in a singular mindset if your story is the only one that counts. Life is nothing if not a learning experience.

To Mr Cotter.

I am a homophobic, Islamophobic, Human Induced Climate Change denying, racist redneck. And I am proud of that.

The point of Brendan's article was the predictable way in which leftist social workers always scream for more taxpayer money to solve every social ill. Not that they are any good at doing so. Buggin's Law of Social workers states that, "Social problems increase in direct proportion to the numbers of social workers employed to solve them." I sometimes wonder if multiculturalism was specifically designed by the public service to create as many social problems as possible, in order to create job opportunities and empire building in the public service. You know, the more Gypsies, Lebanese, Muslims, Pacific Islanders and black Africans allowed to immigrate to Australia, the more police, public defenders, lawyers, prison officers, security guards, parole officers, ASIO officers, SWAT teams, social workers, and welfare dispensers are needed.

Lefties are renowned for supporting fashionable causes, Refugees, Republics, Reconciliation, as well as anti racism. But they really get worked up over any proposal to censor the entertainment media. Australia once had strict censorship of the media, almost non existent firearm laws, a racially homogenous population, and very low crime rates. Today we have almost no censorship of the media, very strict firearm laws, multiculturalism, and a violent crime rate that our grandparents would never have thought possible. Think their might be some connections there?

I stopped at Islam because Islam is the worst religion for sanctioning male violence towards women by a very large margin. No other religion sanctifies wife beating as a religious instruction. No other religion blames women for being raped, or punishes women for being raped. With the examples of Cologne, Rotherham, Sweden, and Syria as glaring examples, every feminist in the western world should be screaming that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to western countries. But no, what the Left Sisterhood wants is for the taxpayer to pay to solve the predictable and avoidable social problems which they and their comrades habitually create.

Now we have the Victorian government throwing $500,000,000 at the problem with a minimal amount aimed at prevention. Smart lad, our Premier not.

David

Lego,

Not a fan of multiculturalism myself. Liked assimilation better, when all races were required to learn to speak English. Learn about all races, but fit in, dont come here and set up enclaves that carry on long-standing feuds. Accept our laws, obey our rules, as your country would expect of us if we were there. It was a simpler time. Or did it just appear so? So who's at fault for permitting our culture, new though it was, be so overtaken? Cant blame just those dratted feminists! Look at the law. too many businessmen/legal people in politics.

The Government could do much better in setting the example of what behaviour is required here. However, since we are completely pathetic at holding perpetrators accountable via criminal law (despite what the great untested assumers believe) we can hardly say 'if you come here, dont bash your family or we'll chuck you out!'

Despite all the issues, my point is we cant take our anger out on well-intentioned people, following social norms, who got into relationships hoping for love, family etc, stayed too long, learned about parenting with an abuser / personality disordered person, was harmed etc. How do we get life-experience wisdom into the heads of people?

There are two types of social worker. The first wants you to feel better about having the problem. The second wants to show you how to fix the problem.

My particular beef is with research (generally limited, biased, controlled questioning that frequently misses the real points) and the resultant inability to hear the real stories of real people because they are just anecdotal - therefore politicians and bureaucrats dont have to actually fix the recurrent problem. Yet so many functions include the voices of the downtrodden - like entertainment - but not for actual action and positive change

As the Euros are discovering, if the wages in country "A" are one tenth of what they are in a North European country, and you give the inhabitants of country "A" a right to travel to North Europe, they are going to do just that. "Integration" can never be achieved where very large numbers of people from cultures with diametrically opposed value systems to the host population, are simply allowed to flood in. Birds of a feather just keep flocking together, no matter what well intentioned people like yourself would like.

Islam is a violent "religion" which gives holy sanction to wife beating, and creates justifications for rape. In Europe now, numerous Islamic ethnic ghettoes are being set up where the laws and customs of the host country are ignored. Why be a minority in one country when you can be a majority in your own area and have your own laws and customs the pre eminent ones? Domestic violence in European countries will increase because we have imported large numbers of people who think that beating your wife or daughter is morally right. And that women who do not follow the dictates of Islam deserve to be raped, and if they are raped, it is their own fault.

How you equate the entertainment industry with "the downtrodden" is beyond me. People are not born with moral values. What the majority of people regard as correct behaviour is inculcated into them over time from their parents, teachers, religious leaders, and the role model heroes which their culture holds up to them for emulation. Young men are being increasingly exposed to violent role model heroes in the media at a time in their lives, when they are less inclined to accept the values of their parents and community leaders. If the entertainment media continues to tell young men that Real Men are violent men, who use violence as a first resort in solving their personnel problems, then eventually that will become the new cultural norm.

No amount of taxpayer money for social programs combating domestic violence will change that.

Too right LEGO as I've always said, take out those who's religion/beliefs allow wife bashing/rape, take away the drug 'F' idiots, the women who get great satisfaction out of tormenting their X partner and the indigenous cases, do we actually have a domestic violence problem.

This is just another avoidable issue that is placing additional burden on our dwindling tax revenues, which simply means less for other important funding necessities.

We are continually pissing money away on avoidable issues like this at an alarming rate and something is going to give.