I know your article is about censorship but the question "What is a child?" is very interesting.
Some Australian States allow children (under eighteen years of age)to drive motor vehicles.
And when I pass the sign that says "Slow down when children present" does that mean that I do not have to slow down for those students who are not children (over eighteen years of age).
What a confusion we live in.

Thanks Bob

Anti,

The yanks effectively suspended or removed habeas corpus, not for genuine reasons, but for convenience. Formerly, this was a pillar of their justice system.

Just because a new law is unconstitutional, demeaning to those it supports and insulting to the population it is aimed at is obviously no reason for lawmakers to make of law not merely an ass but a laughingstock.

Where shall we go next.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter:"Where shall we go next."

We'll see more "anticipatory" laws used to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals to a fair defence. We'll see further reversals of the onus of proof. We'll see ever more intrusion into the lives of individuals "for their own good".

Why will we see these things? Because they make State control easier. "Ahah", you say, but the State has always sought easier modes of implementing its rules, what has changed? In a nutshell, the rise of Feminist women to positions of legislative and bureaucratic power. Combining "mother knows best" authoritarianism with a sense of entitled elitism leads directly to the outcome that any kid who tries to talk back to Mum is very familiar with: "go to your room and come out when you're ready to apologise." "But I didn't do it." "I'm not interested, just go. If you argue you'll only make me mad"

The AIHW released its report into child abuse and neglect today. Guess which group perpetrates overwhelmingly the greatest amount of substantiated emotional and physical abuse and neglect? Yep, you got it: it's mothers, especially single mothers, but followed closely by those in relationships with their child's father. Across the country, about 40% of all substantiated cases involve single mothers.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859

Given that our nation has bought wholesale into the notion of "woman as victim", it's hard to see much being done to help the kids into the future.

Well I hope people bother to read both the reports you've linked Antiseptic so that they can consider all of the information in comparison to what you are attempting to portray.

Also, this article is about, "A child is defined by age, which is not always consistent with the age of consent, or age of majority". I don't see how your posts relate to it.

Pynchme:"I hope people bother to read both the reports you've linked"

So do I. here are the links again so noone has to go searching

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859

http://www.agd.sa.gov.au/news/pdfs/Intervention%20Orders%20(Prevention%20of%20Abuse)%20Report.pdf

From the first link above: "Single parent—female and two parent intact families had the highest proportions of substantiations across all jurisdictions" just as I said above. It goes on to say: "it is important to note that single parent—female families are over-represented when compared to the family structure haracteristics of the Australian general population(ABS 2008)".

Ah, so it's because there are so many more single parent-female families is it? Actually, no, it isn't; I checked the ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4442.0 and it says:"Of the 5.9 million families in Australia in 2006-07, 85% (5.0 million) were couple families, 14% (808,000) were one parent families"

Just to make that clear, the 14% of single parent-females are responsible for 40% of the substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, while the 85% of couple families are responsible for another 35%.

IOW, children in single parent-female families are nearly 6 times as likely to experience abuse as those in couple families.

If they're aboriginal, a similar disparity exists, with indigenous kids about 7 times as likely as white kids to experience abuse.

Perhaps you could tell me why, if Aboriginal abuse figures warranted the drastic interventions we have seen, a similar intervention is not warranted for the children of single mothers?

You might also tell me why the SA AVO legislation only mentions males as perpetrators of violence when it is obvious from the AIHW report that far more violence, especially against vulnerable kids, is done by women?

Antiseptic.

First of all those reports don't say what you purport. That's why I hope people read them thoroughly.

Btb: Something that you might not have noticed, or chose to ignore, is that the definitions of child abuse have changed and broadened. One of my concerns is that the definition of child sexual abuse has changed in such a way that children are less likely than ever to obtain safety and justice. Doesn't look like feminists are in charge of this sort of thing after all; more's the pity.

Anyway - one report is on family configuration. The other is on the proportions of victims of different types of abuse. Neither report details perpetrators and factors that constitute or contribute to types of abuse.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/stanley5.pdf

http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/fatalassault2008.pdf

Regardless of family configuration or sex of the perpetrator (mostly male btw) the characteristics most closely associated with fatal child abuse are: domestic violence (50%) ; drug and alcohol use (approx. 38%) ; other criminal activity (approx. 38%); mental illness as well as poverty and unemployment.

This essay investigates violence and child abuse by women:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs8/fitzroy.pdf

Australian reports on child deaths as a result of physical abuse:
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/6/0/%7B66025EB4-DC26-4B37-803B-BCC1EA184951%7Dti53.pdf

Parallel research from Canada:
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/1/74