Thanks to all who put their opinions forward. The general conclusion? That all victims of violence should receive equal recognition and treatment.

For my part, I will never accept sloppy, self-serving research wherever it occurs. That so many scientists do not always challenge sloppy and even fraudulent research reports in the news is often because they are concerned that in so doing they might inadvertently lend some credence to the original report.

However there is also evidence of political interference and the negative consequences of that: poor policy and wastage of public (taxpayers') $$.

I am more concerned about children, but I somehow doubt that Rosie Batty and her enthusiastic bandwagoners, esp. the ABC, would ever agree with children being given equal priority, or even male victims.

Where was the indignant outcry about this child abuse? (link below) Where was that populist weather vane, Malcolm Turnbull?

<'Mummy blogger' charged, accused of injecting ill child with urine, laxative abuse

A woman who has been charged with harming her daughter by injecting her with urine is a prolific "mummy blogger" who wrote in detail about her family's life, particularly the ill health of the child she is accused of harming..>
http://tinyurl.com/zb3vwkz

Bettina Arndt is right to say that, "the domestic violence lobby groups have got away with their distorted campaign for far too long because they have silenced their critics". There are gutless politicians too, though.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-white-ribbon-day-help-change-the-debate/

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

There's a general principle saying:- "we all have the 'LEGAL RIGHT' to defend ourselves and others, against a violent attack".

[There's a High Court judgement; 'Viro & Ors' vs CofA way back when Adam was still in 'three cornered trousers and button up boots', allowing the application of lethal force in order to protect ones self against a violent attack ?]

The precise facts escape me at this time, so I can't use this judgement to support an argument, one way or another ?

Where this general principle stumbles somewhat, there's no allowance for 'how or what' we may use, in order to defend ourselves, only that it's lawful to do so ? In all matters of 'self defence' we're governed (everybody, including the police) by the 'Doctrine of Proportionality'. In other words we may use as much force as reasonable necessary, to abrogate the force offered by the assailant.

A nine stone woman would need to deploy a significantly higher measure of force, to nullify a male assailant who weighs in sixteen stone, than a male victim would need, to negate the force offered by a nine stone woman attacker? Hence a crude example of the 'Doctrine of Proportionality'.

In principle you can defend yourself. I am not arguing that point.

What I am talking about is immediately after, when the unfortunate victim must defend him-/herself in court.

I gave an example (Donald Brooke) from NSW, the sole jurisdiction in Australia where people who defend themselves have some hope through the removal of that despicable reversed standard of proof that applies everywhere else.

Even in NSW the victims who defend themselves are still re-victimised and can easily lose all of their assets defending their actions in court.

The treatment of Donald Brooke by senior police, by some headline-hunting politicians and the media (who went so far as to provide photos of him, his home and Google Maps location) was so shameful that the public eventually rose up and finally secured a merciful end to the saga.

Maybe you agree it shouldn't have taken that.

o sung wu,

In the interests of brevity I should have again drawn your attention to the second sentence below,

"I am only asking for all Australians to have the right to defend themselves in their own home. That the burden of proof is returned to the police and police prosecutor, where it rightfully and usually is in our system of law".

The burden of proof should be returned to the police and police prosecutor, yes?

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

In the interests of brevity, and to answer your question...Yes, Yes, and Yes, !

I'm sorry there old mate, but I'm not sure I follow you ? The burden of proof has NOT shifted, furthermore any offences attendant to any of the assault matters pursuant to this current discussion, are always placed on the Crown, not the accused. The Crown are obliged to prove their case against the accused, to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt.

There are some offences which are classified as 'strict and absolute liability' and they're generally confined to Traffic matters.

However OTB, I believe what you're asserting herein; that some sententious and judgmental police and politicians, like to believe they themselves are empowered to impose their own somewhat 'cockeyed' determination of the legal definition of 'the burden of proof' ? Which everybody knows is quite a comprehensive departure from that which the law has provided, in our system of criminal jurisprudence.

And that my friend, is clearly erroneous and the Courts won't have a bar of it ! I hope my sentiments are clearly aligned with yours OTB, as I've tried to explain !

Just as a bit of info, when the then Shooters' Party moved to assert that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution and that they had to prove that a person who acted in self defence did not fear for their life at that moment, the Greens cried out in outrage and called the Bill a "licence to murder", and they oposed the application of law as it was intended to work.