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.