The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why has the state government ignored key recommendation from own DV taskforce? > Comments

Why has the state government ignored key recommendation from own DV taskforce? : Comments

By Cassandra Pullos, published 17/2/2017

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's reported remarks urging parties demanding new measures for DV offenders to first discuss the issue, seems to ignore her Government's own DV taskforce recommendations of 2015.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. All
phanto

The statistics (depending on what you read and who is doing the research) are that one in three women will experience some form of gender violence over the course of their lifetime. This does not translate to one in three marriages being violent. The figure is probably more like 5-10% for female DV victims and maybe 1-2% for male DV victims. Maybe these figures could be higher, but overall they are still a lot lower than 33%.

Also, people DO put themselves in positions that leave them at risk of being murdered or robbed. A lot of young men go out on the town in packs and get blind drunk, which often leads to violence. A lot of people get mixed up in organised crime, which increases their odds of being murdered in gang wars. A lot of people strive to build wealth and live lifestyles that show off their wealth. A lot of people travel to poor countries, where their wealth makes them targets for robbery.

The law makes no concessions to the perpetrators. Murder is murder. Theft is theft. Rarely is the victim put on trial.

And to go slightly off topic ... yes, there is an overwhelming tendency for the culture to keep reinforcing the trope that women need romance and marriage (much less now than in previous generations). But if most women were allowed to be honest in all of this cultural brainwashing, the truth is that they marry for all the same reasons that men do - social acceptance, regular sex, mutual child-rearing and a best friend for life.

For every societal warning to women that their man of choice may turn out to be a wife-basher, there are just as many (or more) societal warnings to men that the woman of their choice may turn out to be an emasculating ball-breaker. But they still marry.

loudmouth

Although the second half of your comment went off into some la-la scenarios, I totally agree with your first three paragraphs.
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 20 February 2017 12:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

Only 6% of divorces end up in the Family Law Court.

Out of these, almost all of these 6% of cases award custody and asset distribution on a 50-50 basis (legislation introduced under the Howard government).

From my own experience of supporting friends in divorce procedures involving the FL Court, the judges were impervious to DV allegations and continued harrassment committed by the husbands. In one of these cases, the husband fired his lawyers no less than 4 times, refused to show up to court hearings, abused the court on the occasions he did show up, and abused the Family Law counsellor engaged by the court to do a psychiatric assessment. In addition, the court was shown evidence that he sent almost 60 unanswered text messages in one day to his ex-wife, accusing her of being a liar, a whore, a bitch and a danger to his child.

Yet, under the law, the court had no option but to award a 50-50 custody settlement and a payout to the wife based on a pro-rata assessment of the length of their marriage - two years. His considerable wealth barely suffered a sneeze, while her entire payout went on lawyers fees.

Even though all the professionals involved lost all respect for the husband - on one occasion, the judge completely did his block at him - there was absolutely NO bias shown to either party in the final ruling.

This is why I can't understand why you and so many others keep pushing this Family Law bias argument. There was once a time when wives might have been given more sympathy, because few married women had financial independence, but that time has long gone.

I notice that much of this rhetoric is coming from the US, where the divorce laws are totally medieval compared to most Western countries. In the US, marriage partners can still use high-paid lawyers to push DV allegations to win 100% child custody and take their ex to the cleaners, but this is no longer the case in Australia or most western countries.
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 20 February 2017 1:01:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe we should give them the 'weapons of war'?
I say 'weapons of war' because in a way it's like giving them 'weapons for self defense', but also 'weapons they can use to harm others'.

I'm talking of course about empowering people to understand all the potential situations in a relationship either party may find themselves in.
A basic reference or handbook if you will, of 'fair play', and of how to handle situations when the other half won't 'play fair'.
Based around the idea that it may take a few failed relationships until one learns how to get it right; but also focused on providing enough insight to keep an existing relationship amicable.

War Arsenal:
Emotional Blackmail, threatening to kill yourself if your man leaves.
Entrapment: Deliberately misleading your man by secretly not taking contraceptives in an effort to get pregnant.
Insecurities: Blaming a man or acting in a controlling manner towards a man based on a past experience with a previous partner.
Undermining: Deliberately undermining your man in an attempt to keep him trapped and prevent him from leaving.
Irrational Emotional Behavior: Compulsively starting fights and constantly pushing your man away from a feeling of damaged pride or disrespect.
Ultimatums... Insensitive... (Two sides to that story).

This list could go on and on.

There could even be a list for the other side of things.
Build Emotional Trust...
Don't say things you can't take back.
Try your best so you don't have regrets.
When to call it quits.

All that stuff....
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 20 February 2017 2:25:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney it's some years since my own direct experience with the court aspect of it. I'll allow for the possibility that aspects of that may have changed (although I've seen nothing that gives me any confidence that the basic tactics of lawyers has changed). It still appears to be a confrontational system and friends I've spoken to quite recently going through the process seem to be facing many of the same challenges with a system that seems to encourage an adversarial approach. It may be that's more about lawyers maximising their chargeable time than what the courts actually "reward".

I've found it very difficult/impossible to get any sense of having the full story when it comes to the circumstances surrounding some of those publicised partner killings. What I have seen from the broader summaries is that a lot are around the time of a separation or following it.

Not so long since my last dealings with CSA and utter mess that system is. That is a system that takes no account of peoples actual financial situation, how and why they got there etc and can be utterly ruthless in it's application. Another massive source of conflict that all to often seems designed to stop people moving on. That in itself is a long discussion but as a quick summary I think we either need to ditch the system on the basis of the overall harm done or put something in place that reduces the impacts on all involved of choices they can't control. The current system prolongs conflict while often not creating a very uneven responsibility for the financial upkeep of children.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 20 February 2017 5:46:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A large population worldwide is affected by bipolar disorder and the heritability stands at around 80%.

A recent medical research published in Sri Lanka Journal of Psychiatry, which is available on the Sri Lanka Journals Online platform supported by INASP, has assessed the association between family history of bipolar disorder and the risk of violence among patients admitted to the hospital for mania.

The study found a strong correlation between family history and risk of violence.

"Patients with a family history of bipolar disorder were significantly more likely to engage in violence than those without family history," says the lead author of the article Dr Miyuru Chandradasa, of the Department of Psychiatry at University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. "The findings will be helpful in better allocation of resources in hospital wards as patients who are more likely to be violent can be identified at the time of admission and nursing and other care can be arranged for."
Posted by Wolly B, Monday, 20 February 2017 6:27:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney:

That is not the way the figures are presented. The one in three mantra makes no qualifications at all. We are just left to interpret it as a worst case and that is why the figures are presented in a deliberately vague way. The women who do that should be challenged, and by other women, for exaggerating. 5-10 per cent still does not tell us much about the level or frequency of the violence. Either way using words like ‘epidemic’ are either true or meant to manipulate.

Lots of people take risks but they also take responsibility for taking those risks.

“The law makes no concessions to the perpetrators. Murder is murder. Theft is theft. Rarely is the victim put on trial.”

The law makes no concessions for DV perpetrators either and nor should they but the law does not put DV victims on trial either.

“But if most women were allowed to be honest in all of this cultural brainwashing, the truth is that they marry for all the same reasons that men do - social acceptance, regular sex, mutual child-rearing and a best friend for life.”

Women are allowed to be honest – nothing is stopping them except the fear of other women and their families. If they marry for the same reasons as men then why are men not subject to the same brainwashing? Where are the reality shows, movies, drama and fiction aimed at men for the same reasons?

“For every societal warning to women that their man of choice may turn out to be a wife-basher, there are just as many (or more) societal warnings to men that the woman of their choice may turn out to be an emasculating ball-breaker. But they still marry.”

But men should also take responsibility for their decisions whatever the outcome. Both men and women should always take responsibility for their actions even if the outcome is violence.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 20 February 2017 8:10:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy