Let me persist with my original point. The following sections of the Queensland Criminal Code may help those who are interested to better understand the use of the term "reasonable" as I was discussing yesterday. I understand all too well that reasonableness is not often a common factor in family violence situations but when the threat of violence (or actual violence) and the the resulting fear are considered later in the somewhat calmer context of a court,be it a family court or criminal sitting, one issue that must be considered is whether or not the fears (and any response) was indeed reasonable when considering all the circumstances of the case. I shall say no more on the issue....

260 Preventing a breach of the peace
It is lawful for any person who witnesses a breach of the peace
to interfere to prevent the continuance or renewal of it, and to
use such force as is reasonably necessary for such prevention
and is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be
apprehended from such continuance or renewal........
271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault
(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked
the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the
assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence
against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not
such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable
apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the
person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable
grounds, that the person cannot otherwise preserve the person
defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for
the person to use any such force to the assailant as is
necessary for defence, even though such force may cause
death or grievous bodily harm.

Brian T

Thank you for the clarification. You have reminded me that I have observed the word 'reasonable' used in matters of law many times. I think the author was overreacting to the word's inclusion.

However, in one of your examples the words "When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not PROVOKED the assault...."

My ex husband used to blame me for his behaviour. For example, he would say he was provoked into hitting me because I would not obey him or agree with him or whatever. I have no doubt that had I pursued legal redress for his behaviour, he would've claimed provocation and it being the late seventies/early eighties I have no doubt that he would've won. I had no real evidence of abuse - just my word.

So looking at Family Law today - how would I prove 'reasonable' fear of someone who is clever, manipulative, forceful and determined. I think I would still cut my losses and leave just as I did 20 years ago.

Thanks, Brian T, for the bits of the criminal code. But the important element of the concept of reasonableness is that it must be based on fact. And any reliance on assumption must be limited to those that have a substantial validity as a substitute for fact. And this should shape any conclusions that are to be drawn from such an assemblage of facts and assumptions.

There is no place in reasonableness for preconceived notions, conceit, or outright prejudice, bigotry or zealotry, let alone for misstatements of fact. Yet the entire edifice of family law is based on such a litany of errors of fact, preconceptions and anti-male prejudice that no action under that legislation can possibly amount to a reasonable, or proportionate, response to the circumstances.

If the legislation assumes that one in three marriages is characterised by domestic violence, and all of that violence is contributed by males and is life threatening, then the response of the legislation is disproportionate to the facts.

And it must be said that in the one area where women have had fairly close to free reign, they have not produced a more balanced or considerate legal framework, as the gender advocates have sought to imply. Indeed, they have produced a legal framework that is every bit as extreme and unjust as some of the worst historical excesses of exclusive male lawmaking.

It is not a case of "giving enough rope to hang oneself" because the giving, on the part of the male community, was mostly done in utmost good faith with a sincere desire for improved justice and equity. But the lesson is still the same. By the deeds of women kind do we know them.

Perseus, I've never checked myself (the Paul Hogan test) but to outward appearances Nicholson is male and he had a major impact on the shape of family law. I rejoiced the day he retired.

Maximus, I had anger about that situation. My initial thought when I saw she was in trouble was not dismay. On reflection though she did better than several marriage councellors in that at least the magistrate identified my ex's "lack of capacity for honesty" and noted that she had engineered the situation she was complaining about. The failing was in leaving scope for the ex to continue the push rather than in stopping it there and then. My ex may well have done what she did even if the initial application had been tossed out. When I spend the time to think aout it I prefer to save my anger for those who deliberately manipulate the system Nicholsen, my ex, her solicitor and others. People who have clear choices between right and wrong and choose wrong.

R0bert

The article continues the misleading bitch-whistle politics women's groups have tried since this round of FL reform started in 2003.

In the legislation "reasonable" relates to the emotion "fear", not a level of violence. Reasonable violence is an oxymoron.

Consider this example - a woman with an anxiety disorder is married to a man who has never been violent in his life (meeting the author's VLRC definition). This woman falls in love with a co-worker and leaves the marriage. On the Net she sees an unsubstantiated statement that violence can occur just after a person leaves a relationship. She becomes fearful.

If "reasonable" were not in the legislation, the existence of the woman's "fear" alone would be sufficient for the Court process to be one dimensional. Her ex-husband is held accountable for that "fear" - i.e. equal mediation is prohibited, the man loses contact with his children, and incurs ongoing financial penalties.

But, by considering whether this woman's fear is "reasonable" given her husband's historic behaviour and attitudes, the Court judges him as an individual and not as a stereotype.

Since I have a few words left - let's look at who lobbied for what in the Family Law debate.

Father's groups supported:

- A wide definition of Family Violence such as that of VLRC.

- Further extension of definition to include damage caused by malicious lies told to other parties - e.g. children, family, friends, govt. agencies.

- Investigation of all Family Violence claims and, if prosecutable evidence of Violence exists, referral to other Courts for charging (currently claims aren't even investigated!). But if investigation finds prosecutable evidence that the claims themselves were perjury these cases should also be referred for charging.

- Change to section 121 so people can disclose their experiences (to the same level as other Courts), allowing informed discussion about what happens in Family Court.

Women's lobby groups opposed all these because it will catch out more of their members. Readers can judge who is serious about family violence, and who is being cynical and has something to hide.

Part 1

Listening to early hours radio this morning, I heard a man who returned to Uni to qualify as a primary school teacher. Very commendable of him, after all there is a dearth of male primary school teachers and they are much needed.

He was talking about his induction day – when asked to introduce himself – the female facilitator informed that ‘Primary Schools would ALWAYS be controlled by women’.

I thought, ‘what the’ as you do and wondered why sooo much hostility on the part of this woman. Of course, it didn’t take me long to realise that it is all about the ‘P’ word. No, not THAT ‘P’ word, silly; ‘P’ for POWER, who has too much and who doesn’t have enough and the resultant subversiveness by those who don’t have enough POWER.

Freud was always obsessed about sex – as a woman I have never envied a man for his jiggly bits, but I have resented the automatic authority that many men appear to have whether they have earned it or not.

Now, this power imbalance would go a long way to explain PART of the female bias in Family Law.

R0bert and I have already discussed the traditional view of women as the primary care giver, which is reinforced by paternalist men and women.