Let's see now, one one hand we have Barbara Biggs a journalist whose expertise claims rely on her alleged molestation as a child and her radical feminist beliefs, and on the other side we have the Australian judiciary and legal profession.

Ms Biggs is arguing the radical feminist mantra that everyone but them has to be 're-educated' (funny how the extreme Left and extreme Right rely on the same solutions).

The example of the female (of course!) speaker who held that there was some ancient legal precedent that women and children lie is utter hogwash, so easily dismissed by onyone who knows anything about our legal system.

Another things, how could it possibly be that the thousand of talented men and women lawyers and judges in Australia would ever go along with the sort of foul plot against women and children that this journalist would have us believe. Fair go!

There are victims who fall between the gaps and that is horrendous. Equally there are people who feel the Courts have done them wrong and quite possibly some of these allegations may have some basis in fact. Much of this has to do with the inherent complexity of family relationships and over-stretched helping resources.

But 're-education' of judges and overturning of our system of law to suit radical feminist beliefs is quite another matter indeed.

I am not surprised that Ms Biggs did not impress the convention she skoke at because lawyers are always unimpressed with rhetoric and jingoism.

Ms Biggs was miffed by her reception. So what? Bluff doesn't always allow a speaker to wing it through, huh?

Has anyone who has posted here ever even met a judge? Listened to more than a 10 second sound bite? Or read a judgement or two?

Judge's don't spring completely formed out of a stack of law books complete with wigs and gowns. Most have families with children, they all have mothers and fathers. Some have been victims of crime, or know someone who is a victim of crime. They read newspapers, they watch TV, they have friends who are not lawyers and judges.

And what do judge's have to 'work with' when it comes to justice? They have to meet community expectations, something they they actually try to do. They often have interpret and apply incredibly difficult to understand acts of parliament.

Many judges would dearly love to be able to tailor sentencing regimes better for the offenders before them, but they are also limited by the systems put in place by elected governments, who nearly all want to spend as little on justice as possible while expecting the system to work to benefit the community.

Most judges could earn more money staying in private practice as barristers or solicitors than they can by accepting appointment to the bench.

They also must live with the fact that every judgement that they make, with the exception of the absolutely elevated justices of the High Court, can be appealed to a higher court, and that these higher courts can sometimes deal brutally with their decisions. Judges work under major scrutiny and they cannot hide their work.

Lastly, nearly everyone who appears before them have their own agendas. Judges have no agenda, except justice. They have nothing to gain by not applying justice fairly.

And no, I am not a lawyer, I am not related to a judge, I have just had more experience than many people to see judges at work.

So next time you may be tempted to judge judges, ask yourself if you could do a better job with the available tools and systems?

I agree with you completely Hamlet.

JamesH and TurnRightthenLeft,

You both make points about the number of guilty men who go free, or innocent men convicted by the legal system, but you're both missing an important point about the radical feminist agenda. Radical feminists like Barbara Biggs see ALL men as guilty of sexual violence. An innocent man going to jail is of no consequence to them because as far as they're concerned he, like all men, IS a sexual predator, but perhaps just hadn't had the opportunity to prey upon a women or child YET. In other words, an innocent man who goes to jail is just saving a women or child from certain abuse anyway.

Now you know what Barbara means by 're-education'.

Barbara,
you are brave and unflinching.
most men do not abuse, but some men do.
most women do not abuse, but some women do.
it is uncomfortable for any of us to recognise that children are abused and mostly their abusers get away with it. judges are no different from the rest of us, they would prefer to believe it did not happen, but, sometimes, it does.
gender politics have no place here, this is about children. The only reason the lesser numbers of female judges matter when it comes to child abuse, is that women are conditioned much more than men to regard the treatment of children as their direct responsibility.
Barbara, I admire you, those men who automatically assume that any criticism of some men is directed at all men do themselves and their sex a disservice. Do not allow their foolish and defensive comments to deflect you in your fight to protect boys and girls.

ena, Barbera appears to be advocating for the assumption that a "male" accused of abuse be treated as guilty with little opportunity to defend themselves. She dismisses out of hand the very real behaviours that turn family law into a nightmare for so many caught in it's web.

If her article had included at least some of the other side of the picture, calls for serious consequences for those who make false claims of abuse (child or DV) in the family law system then it might have carried some weight. As it stands its more of the same genderised junk that creates the divide. Barbera appears to be one of the feminists that is hurting the cause of those who want equality rather than a special deal.

David Latimer, it is the same JamesH but you might also consider that I'm the same R0bert who has been abused by maximus and others for defending moderate feminists. Barbera appears to be pushing an agenda that should be offensive to all who want equality. She is not protecting children, rather advocating for a system where the most unscrupulous parent wins (as long as that parent is female).

An accusation by someone with an axe to grind and who stands to gain materially if the accusation is believed is not proof and needs to be tested as thoroughly as any other accusation.

R0bert

One of the extraordinary things to me is the assumption that it should be judges who should be deciding the fates of children, fathers and mothers. Just think who judges are? They are career lawyers with old school WASP connections.

They’d probably barely recognize their own kids if they came across them in the street. When these career-liars were home they probably started and ended their fathering by doing little more than beating whichever of their kids their wives told them they had to punish. That is, of course, if the kids were there – most of the year they would be away at boarding school from the youngest legal age one can send ones children away from home. And these guys almost certainly got the same treatment themselves when they were kids – who are they to judge good fatherhood? Most of them probably wouldn’t know a good father if they fell across one