I certainly agree that abuse of children in any form is deplorable.Consideration of human rights of the sexually abused child should be hand in hand with the man or woman who has been falsely accused of sexual abuse. In todays world it has become easy to accuse simply to reap the benefit of the compensation that is payable by the accused or the government should the accusing party win the one sided court process. Even as a married person and raising children he or she cannot become a normal human again.Surely this person has human rights and enough to allow him and her to live a good and just life on this earth.
In Queensland we have a Government that hides it's mistakes by refusing appeals even when there is clear and precise evidence of a miscarriage of justice.A refusal is referred to the legislation that says they do not even have to give a reason.Gutless government hiding behind the cries of innocence even whilst the corruption is rampant and has been since Goss was in power.
I am not sure that a change of government will make a difference in the short term but I am sure that more Queenslanders and Australians all will support any legislation that considers both sides of the coin as opposed to the one eyed,one sided legislation that exists in this state and in most of Australia.
Sexual abuse allegations should only be considered by a panel of Judges in the District Court and never by a emotional jury that could easily be made up of persons who barely have the capacity to read or write let alone decide on the guilt or innocence of a person where emotion alone can sway a jury devoid of the capacity to decide on facts.
Both sides need Human Rights
Angryant47

The implication to be drawn from the first post “does this apply to the unborn - and the not quite dead yet?

If it doesn't apply, then this is an exercise in hypocrisy.”

Is not hypocrisy at all.

The unborn, presumably not merely the “still only imagined” but the fetal, do not have rights above or in preference to the woman in whose body they are developing.

To ascribe “rights” to an “unborn” which curtailed the right of decision of a pregnant lady to obtain an abortion would be to subordinate the lady to the status of a support system for a uterus.

And such denigration of a lady would be the real hypocrisy, not the loss of an unborn.

To the matters of family abuse

Changing the jurisdiction (to some supposed Bill of Rights) will make no difference.

Abuse is a matter of attitude. Laws can only address the behaviour which stems form attitudes.

Regulating the behavior will do nothing for the attitudes.

The more I see of a lax social attitude to anti-social behavior, the more I am coming to realize:

Notions of “education” are too slow and too expensive to effectively permeate the social consciousness, regardless what the will-of-the wisps might say.

Only by making individuals personally accountable and painfully discomforted and penalized for their lapses of “attitude driven” behaviors will we ever see any serious shifts in "behavior modification" take place.

In short, if you want to fix the problem, ignore all the "extenuating circumstance" excuses and just bang the offenders up for long prison terms in correctional institutions which are there to “correct” and "punish" and not just to “pander” to the inmates.

Sorry col rouge, but without outside intervention and assuming the woman/pregnancy are reasonably healthy then 9 months after conception a human life which began at conception moves from the womb into the outside world. The Feminists were all in favour of men who cause a miscarriage while assaulting or murdering a pregnant woman, be charged with murdering the unborn child as well. You can't have it both ways. This has already happened. Men have been charged & successfully convicted of the double murder, of both, mother and unborn child. There have also been successful convictions for both the assault on the mother & murder of the unborn child.

People have been talking about our aging population causing a huge economic problem for more than a decade, with not enough young working taxpayers to afford all the retirees. At what age do we decide that human beings become an inconvenience? Should we exterminate the women or the men? The extremists or the majority conformists?

Feminists are also against an unwilling father being able to force a woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. Ditto on him being forced to pay child support for a human life he did not want to be responsible for.

Why can't men have the right to kill people they find inconvenient?

The rest of your post is excellent. I agree wholeheartedly that feminism is extremely antisocial and all of them should be punished for their crimes ASAP.

Robert, Once upon a time, long ago and far away. I thought as you do that "white night" is the way to go.

I found out that i was wrong. 1, in the family court almost all women lie/exaggerate about their former husband, whereas the man is forthright/truthful, result the cynical judges believe that both parties are lying, go for what appears to be a fair/neutral position in between what they think are the 2 extreme positions and hey presto, your children get screwed.

2, same everywhere else, the feminist propaganda has been so entrenched for so long almost everybody instinctively agrees with it, when not one single word of it ever was true. Have you read "the myth of male power"? Be honest the first thing that pops into your head whenever you hear a story about some women being abused by a bloke, is, (probably true), (very common), (he should be locked up); Whereas whenever a man talks about being abused or his children neglected/abused everybody leaps in defense of "motherhood and apple pie", every excuse/sob story is trotted out, usually leading to the old mantra "jobs for the girls" "we need more social talkers".

The time is long past due for some totally, open, present in the moment, fearless, honesty.

"Evil prospers while good men do nothing"

Every single silver lining, that feminists point to as some kind of achievement, has dark storm clouds attached to it, and it not us men who suffer, but our children.

But lets lighten the mood with a joke. Q, What does WMD stand for? A, Women's Movement Delegation. copyright the formersnag 2003.

Formersnag, I've not worked how much much of what you say to take at face value. Are your comments mirroring what some womens advocates do (and agreed some do) or are you serious with those comments?

I'm quite against behaving as badly as I think my opponents do. Because some say the villest things about men/fathers etc does not mean that I need to return serve. I sleep better that way and when there are bystanders it's easier for them to tell who is behaving badly. I don't see any reason to believe that men lie and misuse the system more than women nor do I see a reason to believe the reverse. I can see that where there are rewards for a particular behaviour it might become more prevelant (get the kids and you get everything and visa versa) does impact on human choices.

In my own case I chose to tell the truth in the face of assorted lies, the magistrate observed that my ex "lacked a capacity for honesty". No obvious difference to the legal outcome but I can live with myself and I can always hope for karma. I've known women who have been badly ripped by men playing the game, it's not onesided.

Continuing to try and make it a gender issue just leaves people feeling that they have to choose sides.

Divorced men are all too often portrayed as angry women haters, I don't see how playing to the stereotype helps.

R0bert

Robert, you may take every word at face value. I tell jokes occasionally, or use sarcasm to make a point, but i have never lied, either by exaggerating a half truth or making anything up as women do. Nor have i been advocating that we copy the women/feminists and make stuff up.

Every comment/post of mine is not even what i think/believe or considered/informed opinion, but ugly facts or inconvenient truths that i have found in books, not written by feminazis, backed up by real, personal experiences.

EG, female legal aid staff, deliberately giving men false legal advice on matters of family/dv law because the media, their lecturers, whoever, told them, that "all men are liars/bastards" including you, robert, eyeinthesky, myself, all of us, without exception. I can assure you the venom you saw from chazP & bobtwat is perfectly normal, their hatred knows no bounds.

I am merely advocating that as far as the gender wars are concerned those women who could be termed moderate, are the "silent majority". They are not in the trenches lobbing bombs at us, the only women active in the feminist movement are the extremists.

The consequences of feminism are child abuse, the whole of our children abused, and nothing but paedophilia, regardless of whether it has occurred directly or indirectly. We must stop being polite and call them Lesbian, Feminazi, Paedophiles because that is what they have achieved, that is what they are.