DWG,

I appreciate your point however,the 1914 Crimes Act referred to Crimes against the commonwealth not individuals.

Also The Franklin Dam was stopped when Hawke agreed to use the section of the Constitution which gave the Federal Govt preferential jurisdiction.
Regardless of who signed the veto it's legitimacy stems from acts emanating from the sections in the constitution regarding treaties.

Whistler
I would be very wary about referencing a news paper on very much at all.
In fact unless the news paper article is the subject of a court case it has little or no standing.

Notwithstanding that the same legal principal applies unless it's specifically mentioned it doesn't exist in law.
The fact that men set up the states it bears no real bearing on current situation. The issue is what the current state legislatures do.

There are a myriard of gender preferential legislation and specifically regulations. The latter determines how the law is applied.

Of course you are correct when you lay the blame on the (religiously influenced) culture. My point was to eliminate All legal discrimination and then ENFORCE it. By removing ALL legal discrimination the pro man lobby would be emperors with out clothes.
*Eventually* the attitudes would change, and attitudes to violence would change.

Anti,
I was talking about DV and in the work place, outside of these control would largely be a matter of time and cultural change.

As discussed your agenda is clearly wider than WRD and personal.

As I stated earlier on in the piece, "equity & equality are the means to reducing domestic violence". As a person that has been through the family law system & experienced the corruption first hand, I stated then, "I do not negotiate with terrorist's." I maintain that statement to the day I die. As long as women are the owners of the law & given the right to psychologically abuse men & the children, the Catholic paedophile cult are maintaining their full support to hold men hostage, ransom & vilified for the sake of the government's religious mental illness, I will not & do not expect any man to negotiate with that sort of terrorist organization. The law's are at fault & the true lobbying child molester's are holding their ground for the sake of cowardliness.

Antiwomen, it doesn't help your case to lie repeatedly. I'm not afraid of men, least of all losers like you.

<< men suffer victimisation at 3-4 times the rate of women >>

Indeed - and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by other men. No matter what diversionary tactics you deploy, you can't obscure that simple fact.

Whistler,
"dwg Australia's Constitution wasn't enacted by Australians, it's an act of the British Parliament.

"ENACTMENT", yeah not a single argument can be raised against that.

Preliminarily "DRAFTED", in a little AUSTRALIAN country town called Tenterfield by Australians, What do you think the significance of Tenterfield is in Australian History and as far as my memory of the passed down facts of that preliminary draft there was a woman or two there as well, the wives of the men.

Now ENACTMENT is the reason that Australia didn't need a Bill of Rights because ALL ENACTMENTS of the British Parliament were to be governed by the British Bill of Rights.

So What did The Australia Act do when it removed the Right of Appeal to the British Privy Council?
It removed ALL rights and Governments have eroded right after right since then.

As far as the lowering of violence to women by men I will refer you to Foxy's link http://www.dadsontheair.net/doweignoreviolenceagainstmen/

All violence has got to go and the gender argument must stop because arguments under the DV laws in NSW are DV

Thanks
From Dave

The Australian Institute of Criminology has some summary stats on assault at http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx

There is also summary info on DV rates by the NSW Police at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb89.pdf/$file/cjb89.pdf which while built around gender also looks at other issues such as age of the victim, location, time of day, day of the week, day of the month, month of the year etc) and has some coverage of non-DV assaults. Very seriously limited by the rates at which people report assaults but worth a read. On page 10 there is some material on the relationship between the predictors of social disadvantage and rates of domestic assault.

I've not spotted any attempts to answer my question earlier in the thread as to why gender baxsed campaigns are somehow better than a race based one. A quote which is relevat from the previous reference "Police data suggest that Indigenous Australians are far more likely to become victims of domestic assault or to be
offenders of domestic assault than non-Indigenous Australians."
Now which of the supporters of the current single gender anti-violence campaigns would find it acceptbale to have a single race anti-violence campaign? Any takers?

R0bert

Child abuse and neglect has been called Australia's greatest social problem bar none and it is worsening. The incidence is far higher in single parent households, which are mainly women.

Should there be a baby blue ribbon and a special day for all women to feel collectively responsible and sign an oath, just as men should feel collective guilt and sign an oath on WRD?

To answer Examinator, the only way to avoid the fragmentation of resources and effort and to ensure proper national study and coordination is to drop the emphasis on gender, and regard it all as Intimate Relationship Violence (IRP) or just Relationship Violence RV).

WRD is about gender politics. It does more to prop up women's groups and the DV industry than anything else.