Domestic violence is often viewed as a “woman’s problem” by many Australians. As an Australian male I for one do not see domestic violence in this way, I see it as a scourge that affects many, not just women, who unfortunately often take the brunt of the verbal and physical abuse. It affects men as well, children and the elderly too, it is found in all strata’s of society, from the rich to the poor, city and country, and none are immune.
I was heartened to read in yesterdays SMH that three-quarters of Australians believe domestic violence is as much, or more, of a threat in our society than terrorism. Australia presently directs large amounts of money to the fight on terror, but little towards the fight on domestic violence, which is taking place every day in our homes all around the nation, affecting many thousands of our citizens. However I was amazed to read, again in the ‘Herald’, only the day before that, in my home state of NSW, women fleeing domestic violence are being turned away from refuges in droves. A quote from a shelter manager “If you are a woman looking for a bed tonight, you are on a wild goose chase.". NSW only provides 350 beds state wide for the victims of domestic violence, often women and children in a crises situation. Official figures show that there were 28,870 domestic violence assaults reported in the state in the year up to March 2015, many more go unreported. So far this year eight women have allegedly been killed by their partners.
It is high time our politicians tackle the problem of domestic violence head on, the people recognize the problem why don’t our elected representatives

Hi Paul,

Yes, two women are the fatal victims of domestic violence each week.

And I'll bet one of them is Aboriginal.

But I guess that will all be fixed when we change the Constitution :)

There are different levels and intensities of threats: domestic violence, terrorism, flu, AIDS, sharks and car accidents all present different sorts of threats.

Domestic violence is more immediate, up-close and individual, something we can all relate to and which many of us, even in the sheltered cloisters of OLO, may have experienced.

Terrorism seems to be much more distant, not really connected to our daily lives. But don't kid yourself: it's going to be around for many decades yet, certainly all the rest of my lifetime.

It's not a matter or either/or, Paul :)

Joe

Yes Paul, if this Government gave as much of a damn about the deaths from domestic violence as they do about the threat of IS, then maybe more resources could be thrown at the problem.

Maybe the violent death of Phil Walsh at his own home will be a catalyst for real change?

Hi Suse,

Yes, that might make a difference.

The Aboriginal woman just beaten to death in Oodnadatta ? Nah, probably not.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I only see victims and not the colour of their skin, I am sure an aboriginal woman living in Redfern feels pain just as much as a white woman living in Vaucluse, children are also often the victims, not always physically abused, but certainly emotionally abused. I note your cynicism with "But I guess that will all be fixed when we change the Constitution". Not unless we shove the Constitution up the backsides of the perpetrators.
Yes I agree, its not a matter of either/or, its the fact that the majority of Australian now recognise domestic violence as the serious threat that it is, and we need to direct far more resources into tackling the problem than we do presently. If we can devote huge resources to one fight, possible we can also devote the necessary resources to another fight, a fight the majority of Australians recognise as being just as important.

Hi Paul,

You rightly suggest that " .... I am sure an aboriginal woman living in Redfern feels pain just as much as a white woman living in Vaucluse,"

just maybe a bit more often ? And an Aboriginal woman existing in a remote 'community' might be feeling it a bit more, last night and this morning, than an Aboriginal woman in Redfern ?

To put these things in proportion, I respectfully suggest that the ratios might be something like:

* 1 in 100,000 women in Vaucluse;

* 1 in a thousand Aboriginal women in Redfern;

* 1 in every hundred Aboriginal women in a remote 'community' - and that might be just last night.

Here's an outrageous claim: that last night, in every decent-sized remote 'community, at least one Aboriginal woman was brutally bashed by her beloved. Here's another: that last night, in every decent-sized remote 'community', at least one Aboriginal woman or young girl was raped. By people she knew, and had grown up with: i.e. in the 'community'. What do you reckon that does to a woman's psyche ?

Cynical, moi ? About the impact of Constitutional change ? As yet another silver bullet ? You bet.

Joe

I can only wonder just how much of the current kerfuffle about domestic violence is generated by the feminist movement as a weapon, or by journalists, now largely a female [& feminist] profession], generating some copy, & how much is actual fact. Obviously in a country with our population you can find many examples of anything you want every day, if you search hard enough.

I have only seen evidence of one act of domestic violence, & that by a woman. The wife of an acquaintance we were visiting suddenly started hitting him. We were amazed, as there was no loud argument or fight preceding her attack.

He gently restrained her, put her in another room, & came back as if nothing had happened. It was quite bazar. Embarrassed we made our excuses & left, never going back despite many invitations.

It is also my experience that verbal abuse is a weapon used to a much greater extent by the ladies than men, but even then, I have not seen or heard much of it.

Yep, very much a storm in a teacup generated as a weapon, rather than a major happening.

Hi Joe,

One person subjected to domestic violence is one person too many. My line is as it has become such a recognised problem for what it is by society, we need to match that recognistion with the necessary resources to tackle the problem effectively, both short term, emergency accomerdation and in the longer term as well. Something all the indicators say we are not doing at present.

Hi Susie,

The death of a high profile person does tend to arouse more than the usual attention the problem would receive.

Domestic violence should be of concern to us all; and there are laws to remedy it. However, to compare it with terrorism is more than a bit of the mark.

Dear Paul,

I agree with you. There are many needs in our
society that should be funded better. Domestic
violence is one of them. The problem for Governments
is to find a balance and equity in what it is going to
fund. All we can do as voters is apply political pressure to
issues that we feel warrant support.

Hi Foxy,

Good point: apply pressure on governments where we feel it is needed. So, when it comes to domestic violence and the deaths of women, far more attention should be focussed on remote 'communities': even though male violence towards women may be part of traditional Aboriginal culture, I don't think it should be allowed, or in any way condoned, nor grossly minimised by some glib comparison with Vaucluse.

But as for 'balance', these are not either/or issues: governments must attend to a host of issues, that's their job.

Regards,

Joe

So that's 49 women murdered in domestic violence so far this year in Australia....how many shark attacks...terrorism deaths?

"Good point: apply pressure on governments where we feel it is needed. So, when it comes to domestic violence and the deaths of women, far more attention should be focussed on remote 'communities': even though male violence towards women may be part of traditional Aboriginal culture, I don't think it should be allowed, or in any way condoned, nor grossly minimised by some glib comparison with Vaucluse."

Oh dear....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-17/funding-withdrawal-puts-indigenous-womens-lives-at-risk/6476132

"A domestic violence shelter servicing 50 Aboriginal communities in the remote north of Western Australia has emerged as the latest project to miss out on funding under the Federal Government's overhaul of Indigenous funding."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/social-services-scraps-funding-for-homeless-and-housing-groups-20141222-12cf67.html

"The Abbott government has quietly signalled a retreat from the homelessness and low-income housing sector."

Get this guy, Loudmouth, who is The Northern Territory manager in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mark Coffey....

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-bureaucrat-flaunts-confederate-flag-in-alice-springs-wins-first-prize-20150707-gi7596.html

"....the Abbott administration's most senior Indigenous affairs bureaucrat in the Northern Territory failed to heed the warning signs.

The Northern Territory manager in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mark Coffey, won the best-dressed prize for turning up to a Beef Breeders' dinner in Alice Springs wearing a shirt emblazoned with the flag beloved by white supremacists."

I reckon Tones wants to get on to Mark Coffey about that....

Hi there PAUL1405...

The rapidly rising levels of alcohol and drug fuelled domestic violence is a real worry. Not only violence occasioned against spouse on spouse, but violence perpetrated against parents, by their useless siblings !

A very timely Topic I believe.

Sometimes Paul, I'm thoroughly ashamed of being male ?

The problem with domestic violence is that it is normally perpetrated behind closed doors, with the woman being too afraid to report the violence. Sadly, often the first that people know of it is when the spouse is seriously injured. Without information the police are powerless.

Using numbers to compare it with terrorism is somewhat nonsensical, as other things such as Flu kill up to 3000 p.a. Traffic kills about 2000 etc. But terrorism has a much more pernicious effect way out of proportion to its scale.

Terrorists and domestic violence,

http://tinyurl.com/nhmujhy

Might as well conflate the two, since that was the intent of the OP.

-To conflate the two in typical *bleep*-stirring, Greens 'Protest Party' style.

To muddy the waters to discredit the very separate and essential policy to inhibit terrorism, the great bulk of which has consensus between the major parties.

Any relationship between terrorism and domestic violence is manifestly preposterous.

Some offenders who perpetuate domestic violence, outside their home environment, behave like model citizens. It's only until they return to the private confines of their home environment, their personalities mysteriously alter, and the hapless spouse cops a battering, often because of some vague 'negative' event, that's occurred at the offenders work ?

Who better to take out your irritation and frustrations upon, especially if you've got a belly full of booze, or high on Ice ? After all the 'little wife' won't alert police, will she ? She better not, otherwise she'll really cop it next time ?

And domestic violence rates among the ' gays' and indigeneous communities. Oh that's right more funding will fix it.

o sung wu, you have seen the stats on rates of perpetration when both parties are asked (or chosen to ignore them when they have been made available during previous discussions) so why continue with the sexist stereotypes?

The lead in the rate of initiation of physical violence against an intimate partner currently lies more with women than men (hardly surprising given the mono vision focus on male initiated DV thats being going on for a long time) and it would be an interesting argument to try and justify the idea that men perpetrate more of the verbal abuse against intimate partners.

Unfortunately many of those supposedly most concerned by DV show little interest in actually resolving it, either I assume because current gender based myths suit their gender wars or out of paternalistic views about the genders.

While DV is used as a means to attack men and gender remains the focus rather than the more significant factors (substance abuse, mental illness etc) are ignored it will be very difficult to progress the issue much further. While more than half of perpetrated DV is completely missing from public policy and anti-DV messages because of sexist stereotypes and an unwillingness to accept women has fully human capable of both great goodness and some pretty vile behaviour further progress is hindered.

DV is a real problem, the size of the problem is though very hard to determine though because of the sick gender games some are determined to play with the issue rather than a principled stance against all of it.

R0bert

I'm sorry Robert, of course you're right. Domestic Violence is not confined to males alone but females as well. In my experience DV perpetrated by males is generally far more physically violent than that occasioned by females ? Of course there's no one size suits all ?

In fact I've witnessed shocking physical injuries against a male victim (who was well known to police), but his wretched spouse (previously a DV victim herself) beat him half to death (whilst he was completely inebriated, and in bed) with a tomahawk, to a point she was charged with attempted murder. Speaking of which, she was ultimately convicted on one count of 'malicious wounding', and still didn't serve a single day in gaol ?

Robert, though I've witnessed, and been involved in many DV matters, I have no answers to the problem, neither would any other copper, if he or she were completely honest ? The worst (in my mind at least), is DV against a parent by a teenage sibling, I've seen some truly awful injuries, which defy one's imagination, to inflict such pain and fear on one's own mother ?

Hasbeen you describe domestic violence; "Yep, very much a storm in a teacup generated as a weapon, rather than a major happening."
Based on your own limited experiences and personal bias against those "feminists". That would be like me saying cyclones are not a problem in Australia because I have lived here for over 60 years and never been subjected to a cyclone in my lifetime, cyclones are a beat up by a minority of wingers up north.

Beach wrong as usual. there was no such intention on my part at all. I was surprised that given the amount of attention "the war on terror" is given by both the politicians and the media such a high percentage of Australians believe domestic violence is as much, or more, of a threat in our society than terrorism. You simple represent a minority opinion from the extreme right. I suppose you are miffed that it was a male who started this thread and not one of our female posters, who you would have attacked as some lefty feminists fruit loop. that is your usual style.

o sung wu, you rightly point out DV is affecting all strata's of society. A good friend of ours, white middle class, 3 kids, living in a neat house in a neat suburb of Sydney. She put up with a violent husband for years, the black eyes, the bruisers, always making excuses for him. Sometimes she would blame herself, she provoked him. It took her a lot of courage to leave him, but she eventually did, and the kids hated their father.

Paul1405,

The Greens have nothing new or constructive to offer on domestic violence or terrorism. The Greens are just casting around for diversions and smokescreens.

Anything but talking about the continuing scandals affecting the CFMEU that the Greens are buddied up with, and competing with Labor for that union's affections and election funds.

Beach, I fail to see the link between The Greens, the CFMEU and domestic violence, as a goosestepper from the ultra right you would favour a regime that outlawed all trade unions? Ho hum, nothing new there. You cleverly hide your own political affiliations on the forum, but your green paranoia is irrational. And how is Jim these days?

"And domestic violence rates among the ' gays' and indigeneous communities" Runner. you forgot to add the hypocrites from the "happy clappers." What is the relidious money grabbers doing on the score of domestic violence, encouraging it, telling husbands to "smite thee chattel (wife) if she do thee wrong!" That was the bible message given to one member from a church preacher! In other words give her a quick back hander if she continues to complain about the amount of money you give to the church (from personal experience), fortunately the fellow who was given this religious bit of nonsense eventually seen the light and ditched the money grabbers before they financially crucified him.

Interesting point, Paul:

So what ARE the different rates of domestic violence and killings for:

* ladies from Vaucluse

* gays

* Aboriginal women in Redfern

* Aboriginal women in remote 'communities' ?

If you concede that there would be very different rates for each of those categories, and that it is very likely that those differences indicate different social situation, each requiring some sort of different response rom all political parties, including from the Greens, then what do you propose should be the Greens' practical measures to deal with the most extreme, urgent, glaring types of domestic violence across Australia, i.e. in remote Aboriginal 'communities' ?

Just asking :)

Joe

Paul1405, "I fail to see the link between The Greens, the CFMEU and domestic violence"

I fail to see your link between domestic violence and terrorism. Although I did my level best and succeeded in finding what you must have been referring to. See here,

http://tinyurl.com/nhmujhy

What I am saying is that:

- the Greens have nothing, nil, nada that is new or worthwhile to contribute to dpmestic violence or terrorism discussion. The Greens are highly predictable as political opportunists on both. *Bleep* stirring and no ideas; and,

- it is only to be expected that the Greens, especially the deceitful NSW 'Watermelon' Greens, would be finding any excuse to avoid the real issues that confront the Greens', such as the Greens and Labor's dependence on the scurrilous CFMEU for political donations.

As Julia Gillard said and she would have known having had the treacherous Greens as her unreliable, headline-hunting sidekicks, the Greens are just a protest party, nothing more.

Media viewers are often seeing federal government political news rather than state government news stories. Federal governments deal with overseas affairs. Media constantly talking about stuff that has little to do with people's lives, The media are no more than a redirection, distraction from our own personal lives.
I would say Australian's enjoyable lives are going backwards. Teenagers are held in school longer than previous generations were held in school. Education is a concern yet governments reply is to throw more money at the problem as if a lack of education was the problem.
Politicians and media are concerned with overseas events, populations are redirected away from their own concerns. How well does the tactic work? An answer could be that forum readings are concerned with politicians behaviours and not what politicians are supposed to do. Yet federal politicians "prime ministers are often seen travelling overseas". The media focuses on the wrong group of politicians. A real looking after a population media should focus on state politicians. Please no more nightly repeating corruption news story scandals to anecdotally prove state governments are real, elected to govern people to control money decision makers.

Not sure about the res if you, but I'm sick and tired of my taxes being used to fund this sought of self induced problem. I'm not a violent person, so why should I be funding this.

If a person hooks up with a nutter, or even worse has kids to them, then more fool them. Drugs are also a huge contributor to the problem.

If the authorities stopped their softly softly approach to dealing with thugs then chances are this would go a long way towards addressing the problem. Of case the other contributor I suspect is multiculturalism but if we dare say this we are tagged as being racist.

Hi there REHCTUB...

BUTCH your last paragraph is pretty right. Until the judiciary start to impose much tougher penalties, it's the old revolving door story ? That is until the violence becomes so severe, the injuries so significant, the presiding member has no other option, but to impose a gaol sentence.

Until the whole thing happens again, and the circumstances remain the same, only the names are different. No BUTCH, the problem is not one for police, it's the judiciary who's at fault, and until they collectively wake up to themselves, and stop this softly softly approach with repeat DV offenders, nothing will ever change ?

Hi, o sung wu,

I understand where you and butch are coming from with jail and sentencing etc. Something we all have to cope with is the cost, and butch says "sick and tired of my taxes being used to fund this sought of self induced problem." I would ask, the massive number of children subjected to DV, did they self induce it, no. The prison costs in NSW now stand at $300/day for adults, and a staggering $600/day for juveniles. As the numbers incarcerated increase so does the cost. We can't have it both ways, if we are going to lock more people up for longer periods taxpayers will have to meet that additional cost.

G'day there PAUL1405...

Of course that's the downside regrettably ? Punishment cost's us all money in one way or the other. I'm not really sure what other measures we can take ? We as a society MUST protect victims of DV, particularly women and children. A really complex issue for the whole community ? Apparently it's worsening as the availability of alcohol and drugs become easier to obtain. I don't know Paul I really don't ?

It would go completely against my grain to strike a female, whatever she did. I've been assaulted on numerous occasions at work, and believe me, once they deploy those sharp talons some of them have, they can really rip your face to pieces ! They use everything, when they completely 'lose it', even the smallest of them !!

I don't see how much can be achieved where the focus is always on gender. That is ideologically-driven, aimed at shoring up guvvy grants, careers and bureaucratic pyramids, career politicians too. It results in poor science, problems in coordinating effort and in effectively and efficiently applying taxpayers money.

There is a need to examine violence generally and by independent, national research.

There are fundamentals that are being missed. There must be, because the problem is not responding as well or as quickly to the millions of taxpayers $$ that have been tipped into it annually and over many years.

It has been noted for instance, that as the number of women who abuse alcohol and other drugs has increased, so too have the reports of females committing serious crimes, including violence. However it would be to fall into researcher error again (a common fault of feminist research) to blame drugs without that national research into violence and its causes.

Men, women, Aborigines, young people etc. are all sociological concepts and arguments about them are speculative and divert attention from the one salient fact: All domestic violence has a perpetrator.

So does all violence in the streets, on the road, in the trains, in police custody - anywhere. Those who perpetrate violence, a form of bullying, are enemies polluting everyone’s life when they create an environment for us all that everyone knows accommodates the interests of the violent.

The answer is to treat enemies as enemies – that means no do-gooders focusing in how to help them. Just a harsh regime devoted to crushing them whenever they stick their heads above the parapet. No parole boards. No soft judges and magistrates. Violating an order to keep away from a person or a designated shelter: Ten years minimum. Violent assault wherever it happens – a wife thumped in the home, a pedestrian king-hit in the street, a traveller roughed up in a train, a youngster assaulted by a street gang – decades of gaol for a single offence. Sexual coercion up to and including rape – decades in gaol exposed to sensitivity training by old lags.

Funding is required not for programmes to help the violent but for designated shelters for the victims, indeed for anyone at all who seeks safety from violence, without having to wait for visible damage.

Overcrowding in gaols? End it by ending the war on drugs. No need to waste gaol space on people who take, sell, carry or distribute drugs – taking drugs is a voluntary decision and it’s up to the user to take responsibility for consequences which are amply advertised. Best personal solution – don’t touch the stuff. Best social solution – flood the market and the price will drop through the floor and will no longer fund criminals.

Hi Jules,

Your suggestions -

"Overcrowding in gaols? End it by ending the war on drugs. No need to waste gaol space on people who take, sell, carry or distribute drugs – taking drugs is a voluntary decision and it’s up to the user to take responsibility for consequences which are amply advertised. Best personal solution – don’t touch the stuff. Best social solution – flood the market and the price will drop through the floor and will no longer fund criminals..... "

might run into some problems: after all, ice is precisely a drug which leads to violence, and probably particularly domestic violence. And the more there is of it, the more people will use it, that's the point. And the more use, the more violence. I don't think people will go off it if it's cheaper. I don't think that's how it works.

Yes, of course, users should take responsibility for their actions. I'm sure the gods looking down from Olympus would agree with you. But cops all over Australia might argue the toss.

Domestic tensions + boredom + ice + lower prices = social disaster.

Joe

Re Loudmouth:

Making drugs cheap would not put people off using them. Rather the contrary. However it would put people off pushing them, and fighting over turf with other pushers, and spending a fortune importing them and importing weapons to protect their territory. More significantly the streets would become a buyers’ market which would in turn cut sharply back on the downstream crimes of users to fund their habit.

Poisons Acts: There are many laws regarding poison which would cover most currently illegal drugs. Think of potassium cyanide, KCN. There are laws against selling KCN to minors, to slipping it into someone’s drink, to leaving it unprotected, to disguising it as something harmless. Nobody would smash-and-grab raid a pharmacy to steal KCN, or nick it from hospital dispensaries.

Another good riddance along with the war on drugs would be the criminal corruption surrounding illegal drug supply, involving bent law enforcers, bent dispensers, bent pollies. An additional good riddance would be the bullying of human beings by officials to fight the war on drugs.

An essential companion to the decriminalisation of drugs would be a serious war on assault, with savage gaol sentences (in the multiple decades scale) for violence against anyone including a spouse – to be trebled if the offence is shown to be due to voluntary alcohol or drug intoxication or brain damage caused by taking or sniffing anything from Ice to Tarzan’s Grip.

Hi Jules,

" .... the streets would become a buyers’ market which would in turn cut sharply back on the downstream crimes of users to fund their habit."

Yes, with cheaper ice, burglaries may become fewer. With legal ice, the power of crime gangs may be reduced. Yes, indeed. But The rates of unprovoked violence, coward punches, and domestic violence, including violence against children, may massively increase.

So deaths from ice may massively increase, not necessarily amongst the ladies of Vaucluse, but most certainly amongst Indigenous people in country towns and remote 'communities'. I suspect that many of the thrill crimes around Adelaide, car chases through the Hills, innovative ways to break into homes, arson, random violence against strangers, etc. are possibly the outcomes of the use of ice. I'm surprised that an intelligent person such as yourself can't see the extreme dangers of cheaper ice.

On the other hand, with that satellite about to pass by Pluto, we may catch a glimpse of you. Wave if you see it :)

Joe

I don't think Loudmouth noticed my last paragraph. Replace the war on drugs with a war on violent criminals Not just violent crime with all sorts of silly programmes to make violent criminals nicer by appealing to them, but direct, in the face, war against the criminals themselves. whether their violence is in remote Australia or Vaucluse or anywhere in between.

Violent crime may be caused by anything from socioeconomic factors or nasty drugs to mental disorders, a rich field for social engineers and psychobabblers, but whatever the cause it won't happen if violent criminals don't commit it. Target the violent criminals, sweep the rubbish out of the homes and off the streets and into prison. At the same time remove the cash incentive to peddle drugs.

Also fund refuges, and step up the government ads, like the "No means NO" ads, stressing that assaulting people in the home is not just part of a "domestic", offenders are violent criminals and will be pursued until locked up. For decades. Without parole.

Ice, ISIS – a bit of onomatopoeia. One is the pointy end of the drug trade, the other is he pointy end of Islam.

"the extreme dangers of cheaper ice"

A certainty and will be facilitated by existing immigration and multiculturalism policies that will result in the Mexican drug cartels becoming established in Australia.

Just as the feared Russian Mafia has taken over the Gold Coast (and doubless other centres), and how the Calibrian Mafia became so entrenched to make Australia one of the major success stories of the Calibrian 'Ndrangheta mafia, worldwide.

Australia authorities desperately need legal means that facilitate the prompt export of the imports who bring their toxic values, traditions, political and social systems with them.

Meanwhile, The ABC gives oxygen to the tearful spin of a known thug. 'Stranded' they say and it's all the (Abbott!) government's fault . Gosh, hand out the Kleenex.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-13/stranded-rebels-boss-in-court-battle-to-return-to-australia/6607356

Well might the public be asking whose side the ABC is on.

Hi Otb,

That last bit - it makes me think that offering people dual citizenship is not such a bad idea: they bugger up, go overseas and bingo ! - their Australian citizenship is cancelled. Goodbye.

Jules,

Ice creates violent criminals. More ice, more violent criminals. Not just that, but violent and reckless behaviour, car chases, head-ons, etc., leading to more pointless deaths.

So it might be precisely the sort of drug of which the supply has to be crippled and crushed, perhaps with a bit of 'extreme force', precisely in order to massively force up the price and thereby (apart from provoking an increase in burglaries and the bashing of old women) reducing demand. On the whole, if the price is forced up, fewer people would even start getting on ice.

But maybe it's all a bit late for that :)

Joe

Human wilfulness creates violent criminals who choose voluntarily to soup themselves up with Ice (and other disinhibiting substances like alcohol). The choice is between a war against substances and a war against scum who exercise their free will to bash others, or to take substances that embolden them to bash others.

The war against substances has failed everywhere and every time it has been pursued. The Royal Commission is being tried because the war against substances has failed. It won't hear any accounts of solving the criminal violence problem without going to war against the criminally violent for their violence itself, because it's never been tried. Endless drug busts, and the trade continues. One can hope the Royal Commssion will not waste much time on projects for throwing resources into working with the bashers to try to get them to agree to be nice, and on trying to protect their victims with a refuge archipelago.

The war won't be won without identifying the bashers and sweeping them into the trash can of prison.

Joe (Loudmouth), ".. dual citizenship is not such a bad idea: they bugger up, go overseas and bingo ! - their Australian citizenship is cancelled. Goodbye"

Agreed. There are plenty of us with dual citizenship who would applaud it too.

Just talking about 'Ice', there are legions of fools in any society and they will experiment with any illicit substance. Anything is better than working, apparently. Worse, the idiots gather together ensuring there is an effective distribution network.

ATM, the very best thing the authorities can do is be proactive in all ways possible to slow the Mexican drug cartels becoming established in Australia. It is essential too that the toxic imports are ejected ASAP. Initiatives necessary to protect the community include making decisions of Immigration officials final, non-appealable.

Paul, the out of control prison costs are due to them being more likened to a holiday camp rather than a prison.

I used to serve a prison from one of my shops. As an example only, Mon Tue, Wed, Thu, and Sat night meals were a choice of a meat dish (casserole, curry, mince (lasagna bolognaise) or a steak, either braised or grilled (better quality of cause) then there was either a seafood or chicken dish or, there were also glutinen free options along with vegetarian or even very specialized meals for this with intollerences. Fri night was usually a BBQ and Sun a roast night, two choices which would alternate between roast chicken, pork, lamb (yes lamb) or beef. It was a joke.

If I were in charge, ONE, prison would be reserved for real crimes, or thugs like these and TWO, it would literally be a hole in the ground.

The meals would be mince (very cheap at that) made a few different ways. Of cause, if they complained, then don't do the crime.

As it is now we have some offending simp,y because prison life is a better alternative. We also spend less on our seniors than we do on our prisoners. So there is the first step towards saving our taxes for better uses.

The authorities should arrange a viewing window at mealtimes so the age pensioners and self-supporting retirees (the majority live like church mice) can drool.

Hi Rehctub,

I'm inclined to agree with you, not just in connection with domestic violence but all crimes of violence, as well as serious crimes of theft.

As it happens, South Australia is in need of projects which might employ as many people as possible. As well, some regions desperately need enterprises, not least Oodnadatta. With plenty of room out there, not only could a prison be spread out, with low-cost corrugated-iron cells separated for privacy, and local cooks could prepare mince meals daily with little trouble. Mince and mashed potatoes - mmmm, two of the essential food groups. Day after day.

For more violent prisoners, an annexe could be built, say, thirty kilometres away. Plenty of room out towards Lake Eyre.

Or the whole prison could be built out there, perhaps even as a semi-open prison (with endless sight-seeing possibilities for the more adventurous), where prisoners could mix freely, and beat the daylights out of each other to their hearts' content.

SA could take in the more violent prisoners from other States, on a lucrative contract basis, and boost its employment rate considerably. Win-win !

Joe

Great to see the focus moving to the real solution to the domestic violence problem along with other violence. Some opponents of war against violent criminals plead that they will learn criminal techniques when inside and will be angry and embittered when they emerge. If that's the case they have emerged too soon. These days there are lockable GPS trackers and if after emerging they go within 30 miles of a former victim it's straight back to prison for another decade or two. Hopefully at the Royal Commission someone will raise the question of going after the violent criminals themselves.

People understand there is no problem with husband gently hitting wife is she disobay him in major dicisions to do with children or homelife or other major problems in the house. Hitting must only be gentle with hand only and no wepons or anything else. Husband must be kind always to wife otherwise she leave him. But if wife is bad he must teach her lessons by gentle hitting only. Husband is ruler of house and wife and children.

Misanthrope,

Are you having us on ? That's the most appallingly ignorant contribution I've seen so far. My god, are you eight years old ?

You really need to try to get into the 21st century: husband and wife are equals in the home. Neither should hit the other.

In fact, since men are usually physically stronger than women, it is much more reprehensible (look it up) for a man to be such a gutless and weak creature as to feel the need to hit a woman.

But in backward societies, it seems that men can hit women - why ? Because they can. They're stronger. That's the logic of the animal world, not that of a modern human society.

Joe

Loudmouth's rebuttal of misanthrope refers to something I have come across in Western and Moslem apologetics for Islam which replaces principle and justice with *degree* by quoting hopefully from Islamic texts that Islam doesn't advocate harsh cruelty to wives but gentle chastisement to emphasise to women that under Islam they are nothing, scarcely a higher form of life than infidel dogs like us.

See for example http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/7483/does-the-quran-allow-husbands-punish-their-wives

You don't understand my way of living with my family loudmouth. Our sacred book teach us to obay our lord and our teachers. And wife who does not follow husbands ruling must be punished gently with hands only. What is your problem with that loudmouth? Woman must be looked after carefully by the husband in all ways.Children must be looked after by the father in all ways, what is wrong with that I ask you that? The wife and the children must obay the father all the time.It is the father who guides his whole family to follow the proper rules of living carefully. If mistake is made, wife must be punished gently with hand also. If child is wrong must be punished carfully to! No problem with this loudmouth?

Misanthrope,

You espouse a vile philosophy, one which is totally out of step with the modern world, in which men and women are equal in all matters. Obviously you do not believe that men and women should have equal rights, and that is your excuse for the bashing of women. Presumably as long as none of their bruises show ?

There is no place in modern societies for the bashing of women, no matter how 'gentle' you do it. Can your women bash men 'gently' ? No ? Then your anti-feminist brutality is repugnant to most decent people in a decent society.

I really don't know if you are a child or actually a grown-up spouting such dreadful rubbish. In a way, I hope you are just a child, because at least, that suggests you have time to learn, to learn to love and respect women above all.

Joe

Misanthrope,

Is this the sort of thing your 'sacred book' teaches you ?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/17/man-found-guilty-of-sex-offences-over-12-year-old-daughters-marriage

If so, it has no place in Australia, and never will.

As a feminist noted recently, the opposite of a feminist is an @rsehole. This father certainly is. I hope the world is a better place by the time he gets out, a world fit for feminists and for their taken-for-granted equality of rights for women.

Joe

Mrs or MIss loudmouth you are the nasty one here and very rude and insulting to. Probably is why you have no place to argument with me. How long have you being a racest? Many years I think. If you are a real man your must be very weak man very weak man for sure only way to discuss my opinion is to be rude to me. Your are very weak rude person I know.

Here are some remarks directed to misanthrope and to Fifth Columnists generally, conceding that Loudmouth may have been rude and I may be about to be also:

Do you know what the values of the Enlightenment are? Or care?

Do you unequivocally uphold the following freedoms of every adult individual which arose from the Enlightenment and the best moral values leading to it?

• Freedom to hold any religion s/he wishes
• Freedom to shun, disobey or leave any religion s/he wishes
• Freedom of voluntarily sexual or marital relations with any adult s/he and the other person wishes
• Freedom from enforced marital or sexual relations s/he does not want
• Equal legal rights irrespective of gender or ancestry
• Freedom of anyone – man or woman – to disobey another person’s demands without physical punishment
• Freedom to uphold, reject, criticise, insult or revile any religion by speech or publication
• Freedom of association. And from it.
• Freedom of assembly. And from it.

Do you commit yourself to accepting, even in the teeth of any person or cult seeking to coerce you otherwise, all the abovementioned personal freedoms for yourself and everyone else?

If so you belong in a free and decent society and Loudmouth hjas misunderstood you. If not you don’t and he hasn't.

Misanthrope,

Rude ? It's called 'freedom of speech', and you and I are equally entitled to it. You're entitled to spout your ghastly anti-woman rubbish, and I'm entitled to criticise you for it.

Every woman should have the same rights as I do. Do you disagree with that ?

I love fishing expeditions :)

Joe

misanthrope, you're forgetting this is Australia and that garbage should be left at the front gate as it has no place here mate.

Haven't you figured it out yet?

Misanthrope is parodying extremist views. He's taking the piss out of misogynists and coincidentally out of all the people who took him seriously.

I had a good laugh, and then an even better laugh at all the posters firing up with righteous indignation over parody. God I love the internet.

Hi Toni,

Yeah, I agree - nobody could be that backward. Misanthrope, whoever she is, got me there :) I apologise to anybody offended by my assuming that such opinions were genuine: primitive, brutal and vile.

Cheers,

Joe

Who knows whether misanthrope is for real or just Toni Lavis or someone playing funny fellers? But it's a nonsense to suggest that nobody can be that backward. 1500 million Moslems can be for a start if they follow the immutable word of Allah in their own holy books. See these for openers:

http://www.hraicjk.org/punishment_of_muslim_women.html

http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/7483/does-the-quran-allow-husbands-punish-their-wives

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/003-wife-beating.htm

http://thechroniclesofislam.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/maintaining-discipline-in-islamic-home.html

//I apologise to anybody offended by my assuming that such opinions were genuine//

No need to apologise; you've not offended anybody. Getting fooled by a skilled parodyer doesn't reflect badly on you; conversely it reflects well on the parodyer; who by cleverly adopting the guise of someone primitive, brutal and vile has managed to fly under your radar.

Frankly, I'd be a bit more concerned that you can fly under the radar by pretending to be a piece of shyt and thus gain acceptance. How many decent, caring people might have smuggled themselves in to positions of power by pretending to be pricks, when they're not really pricks at all? One shudders to think of a parliament full of pricks pretending not to be and vice versa.

//Who knows whether misanthrope is for real or just Toni Lavis//

I'm not him/her/it, and she/he/it is not me. I wish I was, because he/she/it has taken you all on fantastic ride and I am not that creative.

//1500 million Moslems can be for a start if they follow the immutable word of Allah in their own holy books.//

Do 1500 million Moslems all read the Koran in exactly the same way? I'm curious because I was raised on the same Christian Bible as those weird Hillsong people, and I would sooner sever an important artery than admit any sort of kinship with those lunatics. Their interpretation of scripture makes a mockery of the Catholic values I was brought up with, and I don't think they have any more right to call themselves Christians than Satanists.

Does every single one of the 1.5 billion Moslems in the world read their holy book in exactly the same way, or is there difference of opinion like you find in Christianity? Are there Moslems who dislike other Moslems because they're a bit too happy-clappy and a bit too Tory? I don't know, but it certainly seems a more reasonable hypothesis than assuming all Moslems are drones and incapable of independent thought.

Hi Toni,

Yes 'Misanthrope' has a gift for parody and caricature. But surely not even Muslims - the great majority of Muslims - would be so backward as to believe or practise what she wrote.

Surely, as you say, just as believers in every faith, including atheists, pick and choose to a large extent, and not all that consciously, most Muslims put aside the violent rubbish of the post-Mecca surahs and loosely let the earlier verses guide their lives: pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, donate to good causes, treat each other equally, live and let live, and so on.

I'm confident that most Muslims would laugh at the assertions that 'Misanthrope' purports to make in support of brutality and gender inequality. I'm sure most would agree with the 32nd verse of the fifth Surah 'The Table Spread', that

" .... We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption [such as selling one's daughter ?] in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. ...... ' (Pickthall edition)

Of course, a more civilized version of that would suggest that it is not enough to save one life (and then do whatever one likes), one must do whatever one can to continue always to save lives, to live a life in which one does not ever take another's, nor in any way to be brutal to women or children.

As - I'm sure - most ordinary Muslims aspire to do very day. Ordinary decent Muslims would not bash women or children, just because they can, or just because they can scrape up some distorted justification for it in an obscure part of one of their books. They are more civilized than that.

Cheers,

Joe

The Royal Commission's first first cab off the rank is gambling. Another meaningless c_o_r_r_e_l_a_t_i_o_n - bones for criminology and sociology and psychology wonks and social engineers to pick at. Anything other than the actual crime and those who choose to commit it, who are immediately vulnerable to savage state reprisals to sweep them out of public and private space. One can bet that they'll scrape the barrel for the whole gamut of evils (non-religious of course - no PC sacred cows) other than the violence itself. Are they going to address the only evil that has a 1_0_0_% correlation with violent crime - violent criminals?

Well, there you go, Jules - most Muslims would have nothing to do with gambling, so to the extent that violent and brutal behaviour has anything to do with gambling (and I'm not sure how), then that's one more reason to suggest that no decent Muslim would ever mistreat his wife or children, or use the Koran to justify such barbarism.

So it's even more clear that Misanthrope's parody is an attempt to portray Islamic practices as primitive, brutal and backward, even if she does not mention Islam. She is clearly trying to incite readers against what she - admittedly correctly - portrays as pig-ignorant and out-dated behaviour, as if it's somehow acceptable.

I'm sure we would all condemn any such behaviour as domestic violence, even if someone attempts to tart them up as religious practice (which, surely, they could never be, not with any sort of civilized religion).

Cheers,

Joe