In the paper yesterdsay was a story about a rather lacklustre political candidate in Brisbane who has resiled from previous comments he made to do with the responsibility of women for their own safe behaviour.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/wife-stands-by-her-controversial-man/comments-e6freon6-1226207071797

That's standard fare in today's world of courting the "women's vote", or at least, not incurring the wrath of the very well-funded "women's lobby", which has little to do with women and everything to do with lobbying.

As such, it's not very interesting, but the comments were another story. Among a stream of comments essentially lambasting Mr King for retracting his truthful comment that women who get drunk and wander about the town in the wee hours are asking for trouble, there was one by "disgusted of Brisbane".

She (presumably a she) said, among other things: "Why were comments even turned on for this article?".

Think about that for a second: this person, an Australian in 2011, thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to censor a discussion because it may attract comments negative to her preferred POV.

George Lakoff, a Professor of Linguistics at UCAL Berkeley, calls this "progressive debate framing" and it has become a favourite of Emily's List, the unaccountable and secretive genderist group behind Julia Gillard, Tanya Plibersek, Anna Bligh and every other woman in the ALP.

Does anybody else think that it is acceptable to censor discussions simply because you think the message you're trying to push might be at odds with the views of the general population? Could this be part of the reason the ALP is doing so poorly - those in charge would prefer to simply shut down any discussion of things that are not "on the agenda" and hence they have lost the support of the populace for that agenda?

The recent ramming through of the Family Violence Bill on the guillotine makes it perfectly legal for women to lie under oath in Family Court proceedings, with no possible penalty for doing so.

Is this another example of "framing a debate", in which truth is secondary to achieving your preferred outcome?

How sad. How ethically empty.

What is the circumstances of being allowed to lie under oath. There's something missing there.

579, this is from the explanatory notes for the legislation

"Item 43: Section 117AB

86. Item 43 repeals existing section 117AB of the Act. Section 117AB requires the court to make a mandatory cost order against a party to the proceedings, for some or all of the costs of another party, where the court is satisfied that the first party knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings."

As I said, it gives carte blanche to tell lies about the other parent.

Anti, am I misreading that?

It gives me the impression that they are actually requiring the courts to make the person who lied pay at least part of the other parties costs, still not enough but in isolation an improvement on the old day's where they rarely awarded costs.

I wonder if it would cover deliberate omission of relevant information?

R0bert

Yes, you're mis-reading it, R0bert. the new act repeals S 117AB.

You're starting to sound a little hysterical anti, or maybe trying to tie too many things together.

Really, this argument is presented thus...

I note the unnoteworthiness of the response from feminists to women and responsibility/pragmatism/realism within 200000 miles of the topic of rape.

(So far so good. I like noting the unnoteworthiness myself sometimes)

One random, anonymous commentor, queries, perhaps rhetorically, 'why bother with comments for such topics', and was no doubt shot down with a:Ah, but you commented!, and b:You don't have to read it.

(Meh. Umongst what I can accurately imagine is a potpourri of gender wariors and disgruntled man and woman haters and PC vs Free speach advocates, a pretty uneventful response.)

But wait...

This is "progressive debate framing", apparently favoured by a secretive list of feminist sympathisers. The 'unaccountable and secretive genderist group'. Listen very carefully, I vil say this only ooonce.

'Could this be part of the reason the ALP is doing so poorly'

Now strike me if this isn't the most tenuous of 2000 km bows drawn, wrapped up in an ACA segue!;-)

OK trying to stay with it anti. Segues removed here, we have...

Emilys list members are framing the debate as evidenced by new legislation that women cant be in trouble for lying in the family court.

I'm sorry, while I suspect the legsilation is probably motivated and lobbied for by some mad as a cut snake feminazi, I don't think the world is as linked together as your segues here. I'd bet it's a woman with a history of spousal abuse, now in the 'industry', wanted to stop women being too scared to bring such things up, and doesn't give a toss about the odd man who suffers as a result. Victim supported by token ammendment! A sister!

I note it's unnoteworthiness. Such battles at the fringes of law only matter to those in the front lines.