Hi Joe,

Sorry to hear about your loss. Never give up.
Injustice occurs in court due to lack of resources to examine and fight cases.
I think DV debate should include debate about prevention of DV. To hell with morphing. Understand all possible causes.
I agree about the T shirts.

@Emperor Julian
Morphing into issues related to prevention of DV should not be a problem.
Of course the bashers would not want debate morphing into law that could punish them, especially in retrospect as with child abuse and rape and murder.

Only actual physical assault is DV you say. Really?
Therein is proof where the law is failing to prevent or reduce DV.
The law does not want to know about motives and deterrent, because of the cost.
Leave the alcohol flow eh?

What about murders committed after divorce, 1 day or 3 months after, is that not DV according to Law or according to humanity?
DV versus AVO. What real difference is there?
Dead is dead whichever way, whenever, including when it is is directly linked to previous DV.

@Poirot,
This is from the link you posted in this DV thread. (quote)
The man was invited to a party at the house on Saturday night but was not close to the girl or her mother.

But yes, there is a huge problem.

Where has Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk got it wrong? Why the feminist backlash?

The are victims, so as far as it is possible given the inevitable geographical difficulties, allow them access to services and treat them all the same. What is wrong with that?

Practically speaking, Government cannot continue to be seen to be discriminating by not acknowledging and providing services to all victims.

The Queensland Premier has opened up communication and consultation that will get more people on board. What is wrong with that?

What about the advantage to breaking the cycle of violence? Of being able to intervene before escalation results in serious harm and broken relationships and consequently children denied either parent and even access to 'his' or 'her' parents (ie children's grandparents) and extended family?

What is wrong with this statement? Not mine, but it seems fair enough. Here,

"..let’s be clear, most men and women in Australia are neither perpetrators nor victims and all fair-minded campaigners for gender equality should want just three things:

For all victims of violence to be helped, supported and protected regardless of their gender

For all perpetrators of violence to be held to account for their actions and given the opportunity to reform and redeem themselves, regardless of their gender

For all violence to be prevented and ultimately ended, regardless of the gender of the victim of the perpetrator."

http://talk-about-men.com/tag/annastacia-palaszczuk/ (linked to earlier)

The Qld Premier has taken a significant step in getting more Queenslanders to cooperate and work together. She is trying to be proactive. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a finite pie, and feminists are protecting two things.

1. The immediate slice of pie they get
2. The unilateral exclusive victim status for women, so they get the largest possible share for when the next pie is cooked.

Sharing doesn't come easily to humans.

Poirot

"3 more women dead in 3 days"

No surprise that. If you do more of the same why should you expect a different result?

At least on federal MP, Senator John Madigan, appears to be on the job.

Well the feminists have got their result.

The girls club up here, called the Queensland government, have just announced new laws to remove the man from the house, so the little lady can have it all. No having to go to court, even the extremely biased family court to get your hands on all he's worked for, just ring the cops, claim domestic violence, & he's gone.

It was obvious to any honest person, with half a brain, that this was the objective of the feminists all along, & the girls club have provided, as expected.

Time to swap sides fellows, Sharia law is looking better every day.

"75 women in 2015 in Oz

96% by men"

Poirot, Miranda Devine exposed the misuse of such figures in arguments regarding domestic violence, in her opinion piece in the 30 September edition of the Daily Telly:

"Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer."