Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee,
PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.
Phone: +61 2 6277 3439 Fax: +61 2 6277 5809 firstname.lastname@example.org
Australian Human Rights Commission
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419 Complaint email@example.com
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Parliamentary Inquiry into the Domestic Violence.
We thank the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for allowing us to present our submission to the Inquiry into Domestic Violence.
We note that the Committee’s terms of reference refers to “the prevalence and impact of domestic violence as it affects all Australians”. (underlining added).
The terms of reference then refers to “women” in four locations and “children” in one location. It does not specifically refer to “men” at all.
Our submission relates to all men, women and children.
We abhor genuine cases of domestic violence. This is, in relation to all men, women and children.
On 26 June 2014, the following matter was referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by the 27 October 2014:
- the prevalence and impact of domestic violence in Australia as it affects all Australians and, in particular, as it affects:
- women living with a disability, and
- women from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds;
- the factors contributing to the present levels of domestic violence;
- the adequacy of policy and community responses to domestic violence;
- the effects of policy decisions regarding housing, legal services, and women‘s economic independence on the ability of women to escape domestic violence;
- how the Federal Government can best support, contribute to and drive the social, cultural and behavioural shifts required to eliminate violence against women and their children; and
- any other related matters.
This an affront and blatant indictment of senate members, discrimination act against the male gender.
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator) discriminates against another person (in this subsection referred to as the aggrieved person) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of:
(a) the sex of the aggrieved person;
“women and their children”
I must insist that the committee publish my submission on indictment have been implied by the High Court from these parts of the Constitution. It is established that the Constitution protects ‘freedom of political communication’ or, in other words, the right of Australians to communicate freely with each other and with their elected representatives about political and public affairs.
The Parliament and government are linked in the relationship known as ‘responsible government’, which was described earlier. For this reason, we consider them together. These are powerful institutions, which control the law-making process.
Potentially, they protect rights in two ways: positively, by passing laws to protect rights that are not currently protected and negatively, by restraining themselves from making laws to infringe rights that are recognized by the common law or international law.
- CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
A person is incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Member if he or she has been convicted of bribery, undue influence or interference with political liberty, or has been found by the Court of Disputed Returns to have committed or attempted to commit bribery or undue influence when a candidate, disqualification being for two years from the date of the conviction or finding.
Submissions closing date is 31 July 2014. The reporting date is 27 October 2014.
It’s perhaps the most important event in the history of domestic violence research. Back in 2010, the senior editor of the journal Partner Abuse asked 42 researchers in the field of intimate partner abuse to conduct a thorough review of existing literature on the subject. All peer reviewed literature from 1990 to the present was examined and over 1,700 studies were included in the final analysis. The scientists divided their inquiry into 17 subject areas and assigned researchers to each. The resulting analyses were published by Partner Abuse between April, 2012 and April, 2013, and together comprise almost 2,700 pages of information including tables. The whole project is called the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK).
The purpose of this massive effort was to once and for all bring sound scientific methods to the field of DV research, one in which sound science has often been sorely lacking. As the introduction makes clear, the authors believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And it is those facts on which public policy should be based “rather than ideology and special interests.”
That of course is arrant heresy as far as the domestic violence movement is concerned. For decades now, DV activists have substituted political ideology for facts and the scientific method. Unsurprisingly, they’ve been wrong about almost everything they’ve ever said about domestic violence. Like the Cross to a vampire, science has always threatened the domestic violence establishment, its cherished worldview, its fear and loathing of men and ultimately its lavish governmental funding.
PASK should (and well may) prove to be the stake in the heart of what has for far too long been our public policy on intimate partner violence. Simply put, no one who speaks, writes or legislates on the subject should do so without first reading at least the 62-page Overview of Findings, and preferably the whole analysis. PASK is the state of the art on domestic violence.
The project isn’t over. As more research is conducted (hopefully in the areas suggested by the authors) PASK findings will change. And in some areas, there is either not enough data (e.g. injuries to male victims), or the data are inconclusive, so public policy changes aren’t possible. But in most areas of inquiry, the facts are clear and must be used to guide policy makers. To do anything else would be to abandon even the pretense that the goal of public policy is actually the reduction in rates of intimate partner violence.
To be clear, what PASK reveals is that the claims of the domestic violence establishment are wrong and have been from the start. That establishment that receives such largess from governments and private sources has been revealed once and for all to be intellectually bankrupt.
Section One: Rates of Male and Female Victimization. The group studying information in this area analyzed 249 publications comprising over 1 million subjects. They found that, over their lifetimes, about 23% of women reported physical victimization versus 19.3% of men. Those figures will likely converge over time given the fact that more men than women reported victimization over the previous year. Gender symmetry in victimization appeared in aggregated data from numerous different countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., New Zealand and South Africa.
As to public policy, the authors stated the obvious:
This comprehensive review… documents the need for gender-inclusive responsiveness to this wide-ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes.
In other words, the roughly half of all DV victims who are men have nowhere to turn for help, and they need it.
Section Two: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration. The authors studying data in this area analyzed 111 separate data sets comprising about 250,000 subjects. They found that about 25% of those subjects reported perpetrating physical violence against a current partner or one in their last relationship. That represented 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men who perpetrated violence against an intimate partner. Subjects came from across the industrialized, English-speaking world.
The authors note that “gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings.” Of course the DV establishment will hasten to say that rates of perpetration of domestic violence don’t deal with the severity of violence, only the incidence.
True, but the authors anticipate that argument.
[F]indings should be used to support the development and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships but also recognized how participants’ treatment needs may differ.
That is, difference in the severity of domestic violence should no longer be used by the DV establishment as an excuse to deny services to male victims or female perpetrators. Those interventions should be tailored to the needs of those victims and perpetrators.
Section Three: Rates of Bi-Directional and Uni-Directional IPV. In this area, 50 separate studies that recorded rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional violence were analyzed. Researchers found that, in the largest samples studied, among couples reporting domestic violence, 57.9% reported reciprocal or bi-directional violence with the remainder, 42.1% reporting uni-directional violence. In the uni-directional group, women were over twice as likely (28.3%) to perpetrate violence as were men (13.8%).
Smaller samples revealed similar rates of bi-directional violence but community surveys showed 22.9% of women versus 17.5% of men perpetrating uni-directional violence. Among subjects in high school and college, 31.9% of women perpetrated uni-directional violence versus 16.2% of men.
Only in the sample of U.S. military personnel and “at-risk” males did men’s (43.4%) uni-directional violence rates outstrip those of women (17.3%).
The researchers make clear that, in all samples, the salient feature is the prevalence of bi-directional IPV. That means that, if a doctor, hospital or any other reporter finds evidence of domestic violence victimization, the chance of DV perpetration by the same person is good. Rates of bi-directional IPV among gay men and lesbian women didn’t differ significantly from those of heterosexual couples.
Likewise, rates of bi-directional DV were almost identical for white and Hispanic couples, i.e. about 50% for each. African-American couples on the other hand reported a rate of about 62% bi-directional IPV. The ratio of female-on-male/male-on-female uni-directional IPV was 2.27 for African-Americans, 2.26 for whites and 1.34 for Hispanic couples.
I’ll write more about this valuable body of work at a later time.
The National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization
The National Parents Organization is a non-profit organization that is educating the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents and extended families. If you would like to get involved in our organization, you can do so several ways. First, we would love to have you as an official member of the National Parents Organization team. Second, the National Parents Organization is an organization that believes in the importance of using social media as a means to spread the word about shared parenting and other topics, and you can visit us on our Facebook Page to learn more about our efforts. Last, we hope you will share this article with other families using the many social networking sites so that we can bring about greater awareness of shared parenting. Thank you for your support.
Australian Human Rights Commission
As you may be well aware of the antisocial discrimination against males that has arisen, I need to bring a complaint of very wrongful belief of women and the Australian Human Rights Commission, that children belong to women.
I must make complaint to you as Australian Human Rights Commission.
Males are violated and abused nearly as much as females, discriminated against more, females violate and abuse children more than males do, equates to most DV is perpetrated by women.
Inquiry into the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
5. The Commission commends the actions that the Australian Government is taking to combat family violence and child abuse, including the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and “their” Children 2010-2022 and the development of a national scheme for recognition of domestic violence orders across Australian jurisdictions. These initiatives evidence the ongoing commitment of the Australian government to this area.
Australia Concise Oxford dictionary Fifth Edition; P1496 “their” … belonging to them or themselves.
This is in breach of Article 4 and unlawful as it enslaves children to women …
This is a serious repeated indictment of antisocial discrimination by AHRC ‘women and their children their property’ enslaving victimizing children.
Enslavers on breach of Article 4 of the UDHR states that ‘No one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms’.
Slavery was the first human rights issue to arouse wide international concern yet it still continues today. Slavery like practices remains a grave and persistent problem today.
The mandate on contemporary forms of slavery includes but is not limited to issues such as: debt bondage, serfdom, forced labour, child slavery, sexual slavery, forced or early marriages and the sale of wives. As a legally permitted labour system, traditional slavery has been abolished everywhere, but it has not been completely stamped out.
There are still reports of slave markets. Even when abolished, slavery leaves traces. It can persist as a state of mind- among victims and their descendants and among the inheritors of those who practised it –long after it has formally ended.
Slavery-like practices are often clandestine. This makes it difficult to have a clear picture of the scale of the contemporary slavery, let alone to uncover, punish or eliminate it.
The majority of those who suffer are the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised social groups in society. Fear, ignorance of one’s rights and the need to survive do not encourage them to speak out.
In order to effectively eradicate slavery in all its forms, the root causes of slavery such as poverty, social exclusion and all forms of discrimination must be addressed. In addition, we need to promote and protect the rights of all especially the most vulnerable in our society. Where human rights violations have already been committed, we are called upon to help restore the dignity of victims. http://www.ohchr.org/…/srslavery/pages/srslaveryindex.aspx
I wait your compliance common law, humans and children’s right treaties .
Steven C Wickenden
Fathers Australia, formally Fathers Union of Australia, formally fathers Australia. http://fathersaustralia.com/