I caught part of a segment on SKY channel earlier and they were doing a piece on Bettina Arndt, calling for her Order of Australia Medal to be revoked.

http://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126749266001

I have several questions:
'Did she win the Award fair and square, and if she did how can anyone propose to take what she earned on a basis of merit away?

I think it's similar to the Margaret Court saga.
Simply because she holds an opinion that others disagree with, the narrative of the social engineers demand this person be shunned, blacklisted and punished for stepping off their 'politically correct' reservation.

Why give her the medal in the first place?
- If they later say 'You don't deserve it after all'?

Was it only given on the basis that 'If you ever hold a different opinion to us we'll publicly punish and shame you worse than if you'd never gotten the medal in the first place'?

Are awards now simply a right to blackmail or have control over people?

This topic isn't necessarily about either of these two women, it's about the actions of those who disagree with their views and don't think they have a right to share them.

Ironically, this 'control' from advocates against domestic violence is no different whatsoever to the type of control measures advocates against domestic violence say they are fighting against.

- Think about that.

The vicious, bitchy attack on Bettina Arndt was started by Batty Rose. Non stop virtue signalling and turning personal tragedies into job opportunities is passe, and Batty Rose is probably suffering from recognition deprivation. Getting stuck into another woman who was nominated for and was granted, an award, is pretty low grade and says more about Batty Rose than it does about her target.

Simply put, had the killer been of a different ethnicity or religion the press would demanded people wait to see if 'mental health' was a factor in these murders. Considering close to 50% of this type of murder is done by mothers I think it was reasonable for the Policeman and Bettina to advise caution and look at all aspects. It could well turn out he was a controlling murderous maniac. It is also the case men denied the right of access to their own kids by women who sometimes lie can be pushed to desperation. I am not sure that simple facts and commonsense should be 'controversial' except by those who hate males.

Surely this is an example of hate speech by the back door.

No matter which door it uses, the perpetrates should be prosecuted.

As I said on another thread that awarding Bettina Arndt an O of A “for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men”, is nonsense. Now she has tried to mitigate, and by inference, justify the actions of Rowan Baxter in murdering his three children and their mother. Disgraceful!

lefties again using these murders to push their cause. I suppose they did it with the bushfire deaths. In time they always get caught out.

Yer, but look I've got to wonder about madam "aren't".
Chumming up to pedophiles as she did, is no work for journalism. It's the job of psychologists and psychiatrists.
I saw the interview in question and was horrified with her chummy approach.
There's got to be limits, and I think she passed it there.

As for the order of Australia, my thinking is she should stay attached to it. And in the future, consider more carefully social norms, by keeping in the square, which is one that doesn't appear to condone pedophilia and murder. Both are inexcusable.

Dan

'Yer, but look I've got to wonder about madam "aren't".
Chumming up to pedophiles as she did, is no work for journalism. It's the job of psychologists and psychiatrists.
I saw the interview in question and was horrified with her chummy approach.
There's got to be limits, and I think she passed it there.'

then maybe she would make a good democrat Dan.

Mind you they never took the award away from Jane Caro who the abc use to promote some pretty vile views. Still as usual one rule for regressives and others held to a much higher standard.

My intention when putting this up wasn't to focus on the sad events relating to Hannah and Rowan Baxter, nor was it specifically about whatever Bettina did or didn't say.

It was more about how awards aren't just given on a basis of merit which cannot be taken away, but given on a proviso regarding the future actions of the recipient.

I think it's all shallow and phoney to reinforce a socially engineered narrative.
Like the whole world has simply become a stageshow to manipulate idiots, who aren't able think for themselves.

Hey Paul1405,

"Now she has tried to mitigate, and by inference, justify the actions of Rowan Baxter in murdering his three children and their mother"

Sorry to single your comment out, but I think I should respond.
Right now you're implying Bettina is justifying the actions of Rowan Baxter in murdering his three children and their mother.
This may not necessarily be the case, though I haven't actually listened to what she said.

I want you to try to separate 2 things:
Try and separate Rowan Baxters actions as being a completely separate issue which cannot be defended;
From the other issue, which is whether or not Hannah's actions played any part in potentially backing him into a corner, where he may have felt overwhelmed by it all, and which may have lead to him taking the actions that he did.

I cannot defend Rowan Baxters actions killing his family.
Nobody in their right mind could defend those actions, so to imply they are isn't really fair or reasonable.
- The only way a person could potentially defend those actions would be to argue that both Hannah and the kids deserved it, and no-one could argue that on a basis of merit, it's not possible to argue the kids deserved to be doused in petrol and set alight.

Questioning whether the actions of Hannah (or even the law) were factors which may have even partially lead to or had an impact on the end result is not unreasonable.

AC,

The juvenile petulance that has seen the usual Marxists mob howling for the removal of a legitimate award is just another attempt to trash free speech. Nothing whatever to do with domestic violence. There are too many people sticking their noses into things that are none of their business. Whatever Bettina Arndt said is irrelevant to the fact that she received an award for services she has provided, just like everyone else on the list. I don't believe in awards, but that's another story.

I feel sick about the horrible deaths of three innocent children, done to death in a most horrible way, just be because two adults were incapable of living their lives properly. I feel nothing for the adults, and I was sickened by the fact that the male's family could have a chat about it on national TV so soon after the event, giving Tracey Grimshaw another opportunity to tear up.

I prefer Bettina Arndt's honesty and common sense.

Sorry. The female's family.

AC, a person does not have to necessarily condone something to inadvertently create justification for that something. I'm sure BA does not condone the actions of Baxter, but she did inadvertently create a justification that some can latch onto.

The copper, maybe he was "star struck" with the media attention, better to have said; "At this early stage of the investigation we are pursuing certain lines of enquiry, and a report will be prepared for the Coroner in due cause."

Back in the good old days you could jag a Knighthood for just donating 10,000 quid to the LIBERAL PARTY. Now day's you have to be high profile, in the media to score an Order of Australia. In the case of BA, a lot of what she says I agree with, I have said many times on the forum, some men get a raw deal from the Family Court, particularly where children are involved.

Other than the mundane, day to day job of BA what has she actually done above and beyond the call of duty to deserve this award. Bill the plumber should get an O of A for 50 years of service to drains and pipes. BTW I knew a woman, now passed on, who for 50 years spent countless hours helping out with homeless people in Sydney, always at the stove in the kitchen, so to speak, not a leader, but a doer, never one for attention, she never receiver an O of A, not high profile enough, not in the media enough, not good enough.

The GG refers this all to a committee, look whose on the committee, not Bill the plumber, or the battler down the street. Like minded people.

Surprise! Surprise! Loopy Labor is going to move a motion in the Senate condemning Bettina Arndt, with a certain Senator saying, with a foreign accent, that Arndt somehow contravenes what the Australia awards stand for. They don't even bother hiding their hatred of free speech when they should be pulling out their fingers and doing the job they are paid to do.

'When the Coalition was successful at the federal election, journalist Jane Caro published a profanity-laced tweet saying she would ‘stick two rude fingers up at all the truculent turds who voted to turn backwards’. '

a very 'worthy' recipent of Queens's Birthday honour. Of course a champion of the abc. Don't remember any complaint by any regressive.

Come on kids.

They chose a football playing thug as Oz of the year a couple of years back, if anything Bettina Arndt should be ashamed to be mentioned in the same company.

Hi Paul1405,

I found a better article which lays out the controversy.

http://7news.com.au/news/qld/bettina-arndt-criticised-for-using-hurtful-police-comments-to-support-mens-rights-activism-c-709684

Quote>>The copper, maybe he was "star struck" with the media attention, better to have said; "At this early stage of the investigation we are pursuing certain lines of enquiry, and a report will be prepared for the Coroner in due cause."<<

I don't know maybe, but I'm not necessarily convinced he said the wrong thing.

I think if you really care about the truth and want to know the truth, then the place to start is 'No preconceptions, and no bias' and this is exactly what he demonstrated.

So I'm concerned why some people have acted to remove an investigator that was approaching the investigation in the exact right way.

The women and their campaigns against domestic violence always fight against any suggestion of victim blaming.

The problem I see here is what happens when you eventually come across a case (and I'm not suggesting this case is it) where the victim really was to blame?
What happens when you find a case where the woman did deliberately set out to push the man over the edge, so that he would commit domestic violence, so that he would face a court and go to jail, and be completely removed from the lives of his kids?

If you remove any possibility of investigating this line of inquiry the outcome is always going to be biased by the actions of these campaigners against domestic violence.

The thing that bothers me, is women themselves will clue onto this and deliberately use it to their advantage, manipulate their partners state of mind in the exact way they complain about 'controlling behaviour' when its done to them, knowing their own behavior will never be questioned.

[Cont.]

Looking at the bigger picture of this event involving Hannah and Rowan Baxter.
I think about the gym they opened in 2014 and I think about their age at the time. Hannah 25 and Rowan 36, and they'd already been together for 5 years.
I think about Hannah working at the gym in between having kids, getting back in shape and maybe getting attention of other males in the gym, which might have lead to jealousy and anger and maybe Rowan just made matters worse for himself.
If he treated Hannah harshly during her pregnacies, I could see how she might maybe get a little of her own back by making him jealous.
This in itself isn't enough for me to blame her for what happened though.
He might've been using steroids which made him prone to mood swings.

On face value I think there more room for him to feel backed into a corner because of the gym situation, age difference, potential mood swings and pride, ego and jealously - and it wasn't necessarily Hannah's fault; That is she wouldn't have had to necessarily act maliciously for this situation to unfold the way it did.

I don't really think he was a good bloke, I think he made it more about himself than it was about his kids best interests and future.

That said I read an article just before that said he was offered 165 days a year shared custody, but he wanted full 50/50 shared custody.
Maybe he felt he was entitled to 50/50 and it was a matter of principle for him, I don't know.

Maybe the law treats the father unfairly from the get go and this is an issue (50/50) as Pauline raised a few moths back.

I don't think Pauline or Bettina are necessarily wrong for their position here,
I'm just not entirely sure this was the right case to be making a stand with.

"AC, a person does not have to necessarily condone something to inadvertently create justification for that something..."

- Still trying to get my head around this...

Hey ttbn,
"The vicious, bitchy attack on Bettina Arndt was started by Batty Rose."
I've never gotten a good feeling from these women oriented organisations, they seem self serving.
Also I heard Sarah Hanson-Young's on the bandwagon too.
I think revoking awards is stupid.

Say you won a 200m running race at high school, how can someone take that away after the fact?
To me this same principle applies.
If you win something on merit, no-one else can take it back afterwards.

Hey runner,
"Simply put, had the killer been of a different ethnicity or religion the press would demanded people wait to see if 'mental health' was a factor in these murders."
- Yeah, I could see that happening.
(In the interests of mitigating any potential discrimination of foreigners)
- And yes the lefties can always be counted on to never let a good crisis go to waste.

Thanks everyone for all your comments.

It appears that only the two One Nation senators understood that virtue signalling and nannying is not part of they job. The only two senators who are not morons, voted against Senator Yankee Doodle's motion.

Rowan Baxter's Facebook page deleted after becoming a memorial of rage

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/rot-in-hell-you-putrid-scum-killer-dads-facebook-page-becomes-memorial-of-rage/news-story/2bea03a15acdac1a593230b50562420b

Its when the community doesn't become outraged by this sort of terrible behaviour that we have a worse problem.

Nah ttbn, Hanson and her side kick were probably confused as ever, and thought it was a vote condemning them. As it should be.

Good to see all parties except the two bods from the lunatic fringe standing together condemning domestic violence.

I was reminded today of Labor politician, Bob Collins, AO, charged with child sex offences and committing suicide before he could appear before a court. I would have thought that Bettina Arndt's "crime" of exercising her right to free speech was not in the same league as Senator Collins. Labor and the truly gutless Coalition Senators have short memories.

Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

I think I've got to side with Arndt and Hanson.
But that doesn't in any way mean I support what Rowan Baxter did.

They've got courage and conviction to stand up for what's right, even when it looks bad.

We have to start out on an even playing field.
- No preconceptions and no bias -

Women can't get a permanent free pass to never have their own behavior questioned in relationships.

Relationships take two, and this is a non-negotiable fact.
On a basis of merit, I can't only judge one persons behavior.
Nor should I judge one persons behavior independently;
If I'm going to pass judgement on one, then I want to see the bigger picture so I can pass judgement on both.

"Bill the plumber should get an O of A for 50 years of service to drains and pipes. BTW I knew a woman, now passed on, who for 50 years spent countless hours helping out with homeless people in Sydney, always at the stove in the kitchen, so to speak, not a leader, but a doer, never one for attention, she never receiver an O of A, not high profile enough, not in the media enough, not good enough."

I think you make a real good point about all the unsung heroes.

'not high profile enough, not in the media enough, not good enough'

Thinking about this... what does it all mean?

People who have influence, and can help forward an agenda.
People who they can have a hold over, or face shaming and revoke the award.

Giving Bill the Plumber a medal doesn't help forward any agendas.
Taking it away doesn't matter none of us know the bloke and he's not in the news.

Are these medals or dog-collars?

AC,

People can emote about domestic violence, and politicians can promise all sorts of things; but it will never stop. A society that can suggest that there is a place for a program like 'Married At First Sight' is a pretty stuffed up one. The same applies to online dating and the modern version of mail order brides. Nothing happens naturally any more. Then there is drugs and alcohol, which lower inhibitions, and has people 'rooting like rabbits' and using sex as a pastime or sporting activity. There is also the nonsense of 'gender equality' which ignores the obvious differences between the sexes and their roles in life. It's a miracle that there is not more domestic violence: violence that occurs in private, often without warning, and far beyond the control of outsiders like politicians and busybodies.

Surprisingly there has been not much said about another recipient of Honours, Rose Batty.

"MARK LATHAM’S OUTSIDERS REPORT
February 19th 2018

EXCLUSIVE MARK LATHAM'S OUTSIDERS REPORT: THE SAD TRUTH ABOUT THE LUKE BATTY FOUNDATION
KEY POINTS:
• The Foundation established by Rosie Batty in memory of her son closes down
• Financial mismanagement and abuse of female staff remain unreported by most mainstream media
• Left-feminists pushed Rosie Batty into the media spotlight, without allowing her a decent period of recovery; they used her for political purposes.
One of the rules of media management in Australian politics is to dump out bad news on a Friday afternoon, avoiding full scrutiny as media outlets wind down for the weekend. Late last Friday it was reported that after three years of operation, the Luke Batty Foundation (LBF) was being closed. The mainstream media praised the outgoing CEO Rosie Batty but did not publish the truth about the Foundation: it had been plagued by financial irregularities, alarming personnel turnovers and abuse of female staff.
The Foundation’s website has not published financial accounts since 30 June 2016, leaving 20 months unaccounted for at the time of the closure announcement. In just three years the Foundation had 16 different board directors, losing nine along the way. It has also had a revolving door of staff departures, with several leaving because they found it impossible to work with Rosie Batty.
I’m not surprised by the Foundation’s closure. Having been contacted by whistleblowers appalled by its management practices, I knew about its dysfunctionality. I was also aware of how the mainstream media didn’t want to know about this story. They had invested heavily in the legend of Saint Rosie and are in no position to turn around and now say: ‘We got it wrong’.
The whistleblowers who contacted me are very brave. They passed on documents and worrying reports about Rosie Batty. But they also lived in fear, believing they would be further harassed and victimised if their names became public. One actually was, receiving an intimidating email from Batty, simply on suspicion...."

Heard anything about this?

Only that Andrew Fairley the head of the Luke Batty Foundation rejects Latham's claims. Maybe evidence is what you want. Latham has a history of shooting off at the mouth without providing evidence.

As you do, Porky!

Bit of a case of the cooking utensil stating that the spouted water boiling vessel is lacking in all colour.

Interesting info regarding Rosie Batty.

"Maybe evidence is what you want. Latham has a history of shooting off at the mouth without providing evidence."

Surely the failure to lodge financial statements could be verified.
That should tell you if somethings a little bit off.
Hard to verify staff claims if they aren't willing to state it publicly.
Hard to know whether one person is being truthful or malicious.
And if even if two staff state it publicly, it still may not be the truth.

Hopefully more info will come to light.

And so, the band wagon just keeps rolling !