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.

Sry Houellie, I'm afraid you're talking through your bum.

Well it wouldn't be the first time anti.

Seriously man, all that stuff about comments linking to Emily's list linking to this. Man it was like reading Gerard Henderson waiting for the last paragraph where it all leads to a chance to slam the ALP.

I get it, I sympathise, but there are too many long bows. You've been screwed over, people who make this legislation are with an agenda, yes, but it's not a conspiracy. Like I said, it's an attitude of help the victims (women) without any thoughts or care to how these things can and are misused.

There is only one victim gender man. It's life. Move on.

I think this is a shortcut with penalties. If you lie under oath, you are up for perjury, another court case, and possible jail.
With fines being struck for telling lies, no court case and no jail, for a mother that is possibly lying to protect others.
Sounds fair to me. In these cases there are lies all along the way, I do not see it as a license to tell deliberate lies.

Yeah, fair enough. I'll put it down to the hour of posting and trying to fit too much into the word limit. Having not posted here for a bit I've got used to a less restrictive word limit and edited poorly.

The point about censorship is a serious one, though. The ability to comment on a topic of interest is something that is at the heart of a democratic society. Letters to the Editor have been a feature of newspapers for a very long time and soap-box oratory has an even longer history. Only the worst of repressive regimes have silenced such outlets for expressing dissent and hence, gauging opinion.

The Emily's List group IS secretive - it operates exclusively for a select group and admits no male members or members who fail to commit to any of the five principles it espouses. Look them up on its web site. It continues to exert influence via "mentors" to MPs after they are elected and gives each of its newly elected women MPs a booklet on what the group expects of them. It IS unaccountable - they expressly chose not to affiliate with the ALP in order to avoid such accountability, as well as seeking to circumvent the influence of existing factions, since EL members can belong to both. It DOES use Lakoff's ideas, even to the extent of running workshops on how to use them to "frame the debate". It has the express purpose of achieving a majority of women (EL members) among ALP MPs and already owns the PM, the President (Bligh) and the incoming President. Not to mention Rudd, of course, Mr Populism himself.

The group exists, it is active in trying to manipulate public opinion secretively by using techniques such as muzzling discussion that is unfavourable. No nebulous conspiracy theories here.

The Family Violence bill was opposed by the opposition, mostly because it removes evidenciary requirments and by removing the penalties for deliberate perjury, it encourages it.

What takes place in the family court today is a mystery to me.
I can talk for hours of the purely evil, outcomes in the past.
So very bad, a dad who lost his kids, while court orders existed saying he could see them.
Because his wife,and her then current, there has been many, took the kids and ran.
Courts never acted on the warrants.
It time she got them legal again, never had to explain why.
Stayed in hiding from the dad, told the kids he had died.
Not every woman/man is an Angel.
Courts once, I think now, like a traffic cop, fall for the flash of a leg or eyes.
Anti I will never know your story but I do know your pain.
That dad, one of many life has shown me is my brother.

i prefere generalities on a general forum
and exclusive forums for closed minds[heck let them pay]

so as murmerings of privatised bias
[paid forum club]..dont intrest me

i joined the twitwitters
[for an uncensored right to speak]

so im now

oneunderstands
[i think]

its funny...im fighting post limitations..[of 35o words]
self censoring

and only 4 posts a day here..
self censoring

yet now are chosing to be further limited to 140 characters...[yep its a lol]..i hope will not be limited..in quantity

i also moved back to
the world freeman society
as
in limiting my words..i note
they have become unreadable

[heck i only write them]
im not reading them too..

so i started a new evolution topic there

in light of the massive error..in trying to reply..
[using the..then 2 post limits..that then aplied here]

even with the four
articles presents..it needs the flow broken..
SELF CENSORED}..and then the delayed posting allowance...

well add in..the subscription thingy
and other matters..we most recently noted here at olo

im just taking precautions
[my twiiter..leads them back here
cause here are the bulk of my posts]

self mutilated
[self censored..into gibberish]

but in time..i plan to edit them
into some form of clarity

where im not time and space limited..
[using the twitter to advice of other topics maybe]

dont know..but its just the vibe of it

just like i de-test facebook's vibe
and other paid sites

where the converted
yap with others also so converted
moneyed elites..in their own misama..[like that ex olo posters forum]..the only agreement they have

is dislike of this one's rules

i just dont need more of that
i need people who think
or dare to dream

its funny..how we spend trillions to learn things
like mars..or the hedron colliders..1 mile array
[ie info KNOW-ledge..costs money

so sure..they pay
but it should never cost..to share a new thought

anyhow here is the link
to my first twitted..wit link topic link
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018

All cases that involve separation should go with a DNA for any progeny involved. This is a usual situation running at 40%

579, I don't have the figures at hand but my recollection is that one WA based study into paternity found something like 25% of cases where tests were done the father wasn't the nominated father.

That unfortunately has been touted by some as indicating that 25% (or more) of kid's are not the children of the nominated father. In reality it was for kid's where the dad chose to have the paternity tested, an emotionally difficult, legally awkward and at the time expensive process.

Much of that debate occurred during a period where there was a proposal being pushed that paternity testing could only occur with the consent of both nominated parents or with a court order. Part of the justification was that the mothers privacy was being breached if the nominated father discovered that he wasn't the biological father and from memory because part of the DNA belonged to the mother it was theft if she didn't consent.

I don't know if there are easy answers. Clearly some people would rather not know if the kid's they think are their offspring are not so, mandatory testing has hassles. Likewise a father seeking paternity testing is providing a bitter ex with a great tool to use against him with the kid's if he's wrong.

R0bert

That is a case of lying, and fraud. There's a case now where the woman has to pay back $ 13,000. The alleged father got a sample from one of his alleged sons and had it tested. He was paying something like $ 700 / mth to her. That is fraud.

Antiseptic,

I disagree that you have tried to fit too much into your opening post.

I happen to have had no exposure to this area of the law, yet your explanation of this legislative change, and its implications, seems perfectly clear to me.

I am only posting to draw to viewers' attention that the effective immunity granted for perjury, and the consequent effective encouragement thereto that you have exposed, was once, if not still, a feature of workers' compensation hearings. That immunity for perjury meant that bogus claims for lump sum settlements could be made with no downside risk on the part of the claimant. All a claimant caught out in a lie had to say was: "Well, it was worth a try, Your Honour". There was no penalty for having provably attempted to rip the system off.

That immunity for perjury may in large measure account for workers' compensation schemes having been effectively sent broke, to the detriment of remaining employers and employees.

"disgusted of Brisbane", with her comment of "Why were comments even turned on for this article?" highlights the fact that the MSM exercises selectivity with respect to the feedback it allows itself, and those favoured in the use thereof, thus in turn explaining why major political parties are finding themselves increasingly right out of touch with the general public.

I saw a similar thing happen yesterday in respect to Julie Bishop's call for studies in an Asian language to be made compulsory for all school students. Here's twitter userID 'GrogsGamut' s observation on the feedback, as if it was in some way a surprise: http://twitter.com/#!/GrogsGamut/status/140658101446643712

A seeming contempt for the fact that significant numbers of people may have a different view, coupled with a desire to shut down discussion if those different views gain expression. Much as used to be attempted not so long ago by some on OLO no longer present.

579, a very ugly form of fraud given the emotional loadings around biological parenting. Unfortunately when it comes to family law there seems to be a fairly wide spread acceptance of fraud and lies.

Not a situation I've been in but for some it's devestating to find that they have spent their lives raising and funding someone elses kid's beliving that they were their own. That does not necessarily devalue the bonds that have been formed with those children but for many the genetic part is very important and to be robbed of it by lies is beyond contempt.

R0bert

Forrest, thanks for that comment, I hadn't considered the old compo laws, but I can recall how it worked.

I think we can expect a great deal more of this sort of thing around gender issues from the Emily's List/Greens Coalition. If one is determined to create outcomes that contradict the facts, then there are two ways to proceed - either spend a great deal of effort on changing the circumstances that create the facts that are inconvenient, or simply tell lies and pretend the facts don't matter.

Feminists have consistently chosen the latter path, so it's hardly surprising they would want to enshrine that ability in as many laws as possible.

There's no coincidence that Gillard is known widely as Juliar - she was a founding member of Emily's List, too.

On the issue of Asian languages, I agree with Bishop. Both of my kids study Japanese, as did I as a child, but didn't continue with it, foolishly. They will be well placed to take part in the Asian Century, I hope.

talking of censorship lol

i posted 4 question on this

http://iheard.com.au/?gclid=CJ_tspb13KwCFYSBpAodNF65JQ#

wanna bet it do get censored

thats why i post here
and link back here

why go to new forums
heck why bother getting extra censure

soon all we will get is things
like that cancer site

that censors your posts..to help along their moneyed adgena

nice web site
http://iheard.com.au/?gclid=CJ_tspb13KwCFYSBpAodNF65JQ#
how much of my tax..?
did my ciggie taxes pay for that?

of course they did

what did i ask
the same as i asked here

woodsmoke is number 1 cause of cancer
diesal micro particulate number two
smoking ciggies 3

[used different wording]

next i asked re the social costs
and that smoking r5elatred is only 800 million
bot 30 billion

next re the pictures and proof that thats from smoking
ie not frost bite nor drinking softdrink..to make them black teeth

and the other ones...were one in 4 only can get cancer
and another one

but my point is they wont all appear..there
i just know they will fiddle with it
or drop them as irrelivant..
or not advancing their paid adgenda

never the less they will count my 6 visites as hits
to say look our idea works....lol

plus they got my details
clever aint it

to clever by half
thats why i post here

and if not elsewhere..linking back to here
or there]..[you know that other site i previously favoured
till the kids began their destractions..and the elites got on with their adgendas

just like the lol
""i heard' site..lol
who hear only what they want to hear

here? hear...censore if you must..
it invalidates your point..your only point scoring

and that
has its karmic payback in hell

why censore?