Forgotten victims of home abuse

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2010/7/4/forgotten-victims-of-home-abuse.html


Forgotten victims of home abuse

DateSunday, July 4, 2010
Canberra Times (Australia), July 4, 2010
Intimate partner abuse betrays the trust within relationships and can destroy families. The simple fact is that violence is never acceptable, but for decades governments and service providers have focused exclusively on protecting women and children.
Men, however, remained the silent victims of domestic violence.
According to the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, a third of assaults in the home were perpetrated by women on a male victim.
The recently launched One in Three Campaign aims to raise awareness not only of the needs of male victims of family violence and abuse, but of the fact that they exist at all.
Men's Advisory Network executive officer Gary Bryant said the issue of intimate partner abuse against men was not widely recognised by the community or support services.
Mr Bryant stressed he was not seeking to divert funding from support for female abuse victims, but said there was also a significant number of male victims without access to vital support and counselling services.
"Men have traditionally been seen only as the perpetrators of domestic violence," he said.
"There is very little recognition that they can also be abused.
"Partly that has been because men are reluctant to admit they have been abused. "They might feel embarrassed or ashamed to ask for help." Those who did ask for help faced further barriers, Mr Bryant said.
"Police and hospital emergency services do not expect to see abused men and do not know how to identify or deal with these kinds of cases," he said. "It is completely off their radar." Edith Cowan University's recent Intimate Partner Abuse of Men Report found men would find it easier to seek help and disclose abuse if there was greater public acknowledgment that men could also be abuse victims and appropriate services were offered to them.
"One of the biggest problems is for men to recognise domestic violence," a service provider said in the report. "To try and see themselves as victims is very difficult it is really kind of feminising. "The way that we generally conceptualise domestic violence it is all about men hitting women." The report says services to victims of domestic violence are skewed towards this gender- biased perception of female victims and male perpetrators.
The One in Three Campaign, based on the report, argues established social and cultural stereotypes about masculinity and violence also reinforced the view that men could not be victims of abuse.
"A lot of it is the pride factor and the cultural issues of, you know, that that just doesn't happen to men," a service provider said.
"I think that it is an Australian stereotype where we are supposed to be all strong and silent." The report found evidence this stereotype was also in operation in government, health and welfare services designed for victims of domestic violence.
"Some of those gender biases might have operated within the field in ways that have prevented the development of services for male victims or of family violence services that are designed to serve both male and female victims," the report said.
A similar range of services should be provided to men as were currently supplied to women, including counselling and support services, gender-sensitive services specifically for men, accommodation services, help lines and crisis response, community education and prevention programs and specialist family violence services.
In the ACT, all funding for domestic violence services comes under the auspices of Minister for Women Joy Burch and is part of the ACT Women's Plan: "That the ACT provides strategies to break the cycle of violence against women and their children and to instil an anti-violence message".
A spokesman for Ms Burch said these services included Australia's only men's sexual assault service the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre's Service Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault. But the program's executive officer, Veronica Wensing, said the service was almost exclusively used by men who were sexually assaulted as children.
Other services for male victims of intimate partner abuse included the Canberra Men's Centre, the Canberra Fathers' and Children's Service and the Domestic Violence Crisis Service.
In 2008-09, 8per cent of people accessing the service were male victims of violence, while 2per cent were men who used violence. The other 90per cent of clients were women and children.
Ms Burch's spokesman quoted the statistic that women were three times more likely to be victims of intimate partner abuse, but then disputed the same statistic when used by the One in Three Campaign.
"The recent One in Three Campaign, attesting that one in three victims of domestic violence are men, does not make it clear where this figure has been derived from and it overestimates men's victimisation compared to our most reliable population surveys," he said.
"The intimate partner violence that women experience is more likely to be part of a pattern of coercion and control and to cause fear, injury and death." When Ms Burch announced increased funding for domestic violence services in the 2010 ACT budget, men were implicitly excluded through the language used.
"We know that the level of sexual assault and family violence against women is significantly under-reported," she said.
"However, the Government's coordinated Family Violence Intervention Program and Sexual Assault Reform Program have provided increased confidence to women victims of violence." The One in Three Campaign says, ironically, advertising campaigns and government programs such as these designed to prevent violence against women have reinforced entrenched views about male perpetrators and female victims in the community and service providers. "Regrettably, while well- intentioned, many past efforts to reduce family violence against women have inadvertently used incorrect or misleading statistics which unfairly stigmatise men and boys as violent and abusive, while simultaneously denying or downplaying the existence of male victims of violence," the campaign's website says.
"For decades well-meaning governments and NGOs have presented the myth to the public that family violence is only something that men do to women. This message has prevented the development of more comprehensive policies, programs, services, campaigns and funding to cater for male as well as female victims of family violence and abuse." The One in Three Campaign wants state and Federal governments to include all victims and perpetrators.
For help contact Samaritan House: Single men (62476691); Minosa House: Single men over 18 (61633701); Mary's Place: Single men (62991619); CANFaCS: Men with children (61234000).
YWCA Families Experiencing Accommodation Transition in Tuggeranong (FEATT): 62918333 YWCA Family Housing Outreach Service northside (FHOS): 62426211 Saint Vincent de Paul's Family Services: 62087330 Service Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault (SAMSSA): 62627377 or 24-hour Hotline, 62472525.
Provided By: Financial Times Limited - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire Index Terms: General News ; Society & Social Affairs ; Statistics Record Number: WCTS79861961 Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

UK Corrupt Courts

THE MINISTRY OF INJUSTICE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW CORRUPT THE COURTS ARE

The Government is totally corrupt and uses the courts, police, inland revenue, customs & excise, local government as enforcement goons. You are secretly enslaved by the monarchy, and please remember they have had hundreds of years of control to practice and refine their technique.

Democracy, law, justice are just devices to fool and con you into compliance, in fact you are just a busy bee collecting honey for the queen’s agents to steal

Wake up.

This list is for the authorities to know how many citizens know the truth, who the trouble-makers are (activists, realists, victims). In truth they are shit scared the internet cum tinternet has blown their cover. And what’s more they are to fecking late the cat’s out of the bag! For those who know!

Because of their arrogance and old boys networks, they now realise the old boys they relied on have been gently screwing them for years and now we have a financial collapse. One thing you should know: money does not disappear. It buys property and assets. Where is it? After all, we keep honey in jars! Where is the stolen money now!

SOURCE






Do we have any real leaders? You can recognize them if they are marginalized, slandered and anathema to the mass media. Our real leaders are the people they slander, bankrupt and imprison or kill. {Henry Makow}

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

One-third of babies born out of wedlock

May I suggest that over half of the babies born in New Zealand are born out of wedlock. Sadly society wonders why children don't understand balance and respect.Western government systems promote the fractured family business because insidious  Family Court judges, lawyers and bent psychologists need money to pay the golf club fees. Blood money. Poor children and you think this generation is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/onethird-of-babies-born-out-of-wedlock-20100705-zxn9.html

The Age (Melbourne)
6 July 2010

One-third of babies born out of wedlock
By Adele Horin and Erik Jensen

Nothing short of a revolution has swept through the institutions of marriage and family in the past 30 years, says the director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Alan Hayes.

The most striking change is the rise in babies born out of wedlock. More than a third of babies born in 2008 (34.4 per cent) were to mothers who were not married, an increase from 8.3 per cent in 1970.

"For many children it's been a good revolution, but it depends on the extent to which they are in safe and stable homes," Professor Hayes said.

The big rise in ex-nuptial births was to cohabiting couples, he said. The proportion born to single women on their own had remained stable since the early 1990s.

"It's difficult to generalise about the effects on the children," Professor Hayes said. "It depends on whether the cohabiting relationship is long-term and stable, whether it leads to marriage, or whether it is fragile and part of a series of relationships."

Professor Hayes will report today on the modern family at the annual conference of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which has charted the changes since it opened its doors 30 years ago.

It was more important to focus on how a family functioned than on its form, Professor Hayes said, on whether parenting was harsh and inconsistent, and whether relationships "disappeared before children's eyes". It was easier for governments to support families irrespective of their form than to try to change marriage rates.

Rebecca Huntley, director of Ipsos Mackay Research, said for many members of the cohabiting Generation Y, the sign of commitment was the decision to have children and to buy a house together. But later, when they could afford it, the couple splashed out on a big, ostentatious wedding.

"They see the wedding as a party with 150 friends," she said. "For their parents' generation a wedding was the licence to buy a house and have the children."

Another sign of the revolution is the proportion of couples who have lived together before marrying, which reached 78 per cent in 2008, compared with 23 per cent in 1980. Both parents are much more likely to be in work, with 63 per cent of mothers of dependent children in jobs (mostly part-time) compared with 43 per cent in 1981.
--

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Absent dads owe billions in unpaid child support

  False allegations made in 2001 by an unscrupulous maternal family obliterated the close loving bonds of love that I enjoyed in a relationship with my two dear daughters. However with that said, I have paid child support even though I have not had meaningful access to either of them.The money does not go to them, it goes to the wayward government creeps. It is hard paying a gender bias system without enjoying the rewards of my children. It was so easy for my ex to manipulate the sick judicial system I can only assume that the child support debtors bolted before the police locked them up and a Family Court said they were mental. This country is a tragic mess with more social problems than any other country of similar size. Who in their right mind can say they proud to be a kiwi. This country is a corrupt cess pit !!


Absent dads owe billions in unpaid child support



  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Barbara Kay: You’re male. You must be a pervert

Barbara Kay: You’re male. You must be a pervert
July 2, 2010 – 9:05 am
 
 
 
: CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images)
.  CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images)
Look, there are men in this line! They must all be sickos

In an interesting news item out of Britain, a man has received about £3,000 in costs and damages combined for sex discrimination by British Airways (BA).
Mirko Fischer, 33, and his pregnant wife were on a London to Luxembourg flight in April 2009. Deciding she preferred the window, she exchanged her middle seat with her husband, thus seating him adjacent to a child travelling alone.
A flight attendant, who later claimed ignorance of the fact that Mr. Fischer was with his wife, informed him that he must return to his original seat, as it was BA policy not to allow adult men to sit next to an unaccompanied minor. After some discussion, Mr. Fischer did ultimately return to his seat, unwilling to make a spectacle of himself, but felt “embarrassed, humiliated and angry.”
For its part, BA conceded fault in not realizing Mr. Fischer was with his wife, but defended the general policy. A spokesman said, “We had 75,000 children fly with us last year and it is an issue we take very seriously.”
BA is not the only airline with that policy. It’s a common practice. In a September 2007  post in thehich after se pages in which I mused over airline inconsistencies in profiling discrimination — yes to all adult men, no to potential terrorists — I quoted an expert witness in aviation disputes: “You have to make generalizations for the safety of a child.” She cited what is apparently a well-known adage in airline circles: “No regulation in aviation takes effect without somebody’s blood on it.”
The only inference to draw from that statement is that unaccompanied minors have been physically abused on airplanes by adult men in the past, and therefore the policy is well justified. If that is indeed the case, then airlines have opened the door in principle to profiling in general.
Yet strangely, even though there’s “somebody’s blood” – more than 3,000 somebodies to be precise – on the lack of a profile policy monitoring the kind of people most likely to shed more blood, airlines still frisk little old ladies and pointedly ignore the terror profile guy with the one-way ticket and the nervous manner.
In any case, I have to wonder exactly how much “blood” has been shed on airlines by adult men sitting next to children. Does anyone have any actual statistics? Because it occurs to me that even the most committed pedophile would have to be quite a moron to take a chance hitting on a child on an airplane.
After all, men flying alone on airplanes are not exactly drunken bowery bums in sleazy porn theatres with no reputation to protect. The typical “respectable” pervert chooses his victim carefully, with a plan for isolating and controlling his target. He most definitely has an escape plan. Proximity and apparent opportunity alone would hardly be enough of an incentive to overcome the enormous risks attached to airplane overtures.
This isn’t 1954, after all, when any man in a business suit is considered trustworthy. The opposite. No men are “innocent” any more, not even the 99% of decent men to whom it would never occur to be anything but protective to a child alone. All are suspect in society’s eyes, even though something like 20% of sexual abuse is perpetrated on children by women.
Children nowadays are very well trained by their parents and teachers on the subject of “touching” and the need for wariness with strangers. Touching a child inappropriately in a tight little space surrounded by others with no possible escape seems to me the equivalent of groping a kid in a police station. You’d have to be a complete obsessive to take the chance. I suppose some men are – just like some jihadists we could name are obsessive about their desires.
When you think about it, even though Mr Fischer is quite right to label the policy sex discrimination, he was better off having swapped seats with his wife. Such is the fear and hysteria around child abuse, he might have been at greater risk than any fear-hyped child. Imagine if, having dropped his pen, and feeling for it on the floor, he accidentally brushed his fingers against the child’s leg. The kid screams, “Don’t touch me!” Three hundred eyes swivel his way, the cabin crew come rushing over, the pilot alerts the destination security, the poor sap is hauled off the plane protesting his innocence to no avail, and his life is ruined.
The onus should not be on adult men to carry out the responsibility of airline crews. Either airlines should refuse unaccompanied minors or they should take full responsibility for them, if necessary designating a special area beside the cabin personnel.
If their policy remains one of merely minimizing the risk, however, consistency should prevail. If profiling for one child’s security is justifiable, then profiling for the security of a whole airplane of people should be as well. What good would it do a kid to remain ungroped if the whole plane blows up with him in it?
National Post

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Domestic violence: court affirms licence to kill as another "battered woman" walks free after execution-style murder of husband

omestic violence: court affirms licence to kill as another "battered woman" walks free after execution-style murder of husband
Anna Marshall
 7 June 2010

 
On 4th March 2006, Claire Margaret McDonald gasped and burst into tears as a Victorian Supreme Court jury found her not guilty of the execution style murder of her husband, Warren John McDonald.
The court was told that McDonald had donned camouflage gear and lay in wait with a high-powered rifle for her husband to approach. She fired six shots, mortally wounding her husband.
McDonald successfully used the "battered woman syndrome" defence, claiming she had suffered years of abuse at the hands of her husband.
Within days, Queensland woman, Susan Falls, having probably read the media reports of Heather McDonald's stunning acquittal, decided to execute her abusive husband in the same fashion, in what prosecutors would describe as a cunning, calculated murder. 
Falls paid a friend, Anthony Cummings-Creed $5,000 to buy a 22.calibre pistol with silencer on the black market. 
On May 26, 2006 while her husband Rodney Falls was drinking at his pub, she made him a dish of curried prawns for his dinner, knowing that their children would not eat any of the dish. Falls crushed up a number of sleeping tablets  and laced the prawns with the mixture, assuming that the curry would mask the taste of the sleeping tablets.
Following the meal, her husband became drowsy and fell asleep in his recliner. 
Falls  walked up to her husband, placed the pistol against his temple and fired. She told the court she could see the burn mark and smoke coming from the hole in his head. She waited two hours, and not sure her husband was dead, placed the pistol under his jaw and fired another shot. 
After leaving the body in the house for three days, Falls called on Cummings-Creed and two other accomplices, Bradley James Coupe, 25 and Anthony James Hoare, 42, to help her clean the crime scene and dispose of the body. Rodney Falls body was dumped in the Mapleton State Forest.
Mr Falls, 41, who worked from the couple's Caloundra home buying and selling on the internet, was the focus of an intense police search after his wife first reported him missing on June 2 then made a tearful public plea for information.  
Mr Falls's body was later retrieved from dense bushland in Mapleton State Forest on June 25.
His family said after the trial that Mr Falls's death appeared to be "senseless . . . and a complete waste of an . . . all-round good person".
"He will always be remembered by all of us as a happy, loving person who loved nothing better than to have a drink and a laugh with his family and friends," they said.
Mrs Van Donselaar said her son had always been close to his family, especially his grandmother, and had left school before he was 15 but worked hard with his uncle to obtain his air conditioning, refrigerator and electrical licences.
"Being a very ambitious man, he then went on to obtain his builder's licence, building homes in Blacktown, Pelican Waters and Caloundra, where he lived for the last 10 years," she said.
"He met and married the girl next door and three beautiful girls followed in four years, then 10 years later the gift of his precious baby boy."
Mr Falls's sister Kim Page said the last time she spoke to her brother they were both excited about the prospect of her family moving to Caloundra later this year.
"Now all of our hopes and dreams for our future have been shattered. Our family will never be the same without Rodney."
In an amazing summing up, the judge appeared to be instructing the jury that it was OK for Susan Falls to murder her allegedly abusive husband. Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth said that while some witnesses had given evidence that they had not seen bruises on Mrs Falls in recent years, victims of domestic violence did not normally parade their injuries.
Justice Applegarth told jurors Mrs Falls' defence lawyers did not have to prove she was acting in self defence when she shot and killed Rodney Falls, but rather the prosecution must prove she wasn't acting in self defence at the time.
Justice Applegarth appeared to instruct the jury that notwithstanding Rodney Falls may have ceased abusing his wife after a separation in 2000, Susan Falls had a licence to kill him for his previous abuse.
Following the judge's summing up, the jurors, not surprisingly, took only 90 minutes to find Falls not guilty of murder and also not guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Her accomplices were found not guilty of the charge of accessory to murder.
Why didn't Susan Falls resort to a legal remedy?
The question remains: if Falls had the presence of mind and the planning skills to acquire a pistol with silencer, to lace her husband's meal with sleeping pills, to walk up to him and place a pistol to head and shoot, to fire another shot two hours later and to use co-conspirators to dispose of the body, why didn't she have the presence of mind to avail herself of one of the myriad of legal resources to deal with the problem?
For instance, with her planning skills she could worked with with her accomplices to install hidden cameras around the house. If her husband he was beating her as alleged, Falls could have gathered evidence that would have put him away long enough to divorce him and start a new life.
Capital punishment has long been abolished in Australia, but recent court decisions have set a legal precedent overturning this law, replacing it with a licence for "battered wives" to execute alleged abusive husbands.
Message to battered wives: open season on abusive husbands
Forget about refuges, AVO's, the police, the Family Court and other resources. There is a simpler and more permanent solution to your problem.
Just arm yourself with a gun,  sharp knife or bottle of poison. Wait until your abusive husband is asleep or defenceless, then shoot, stab or poison him as the case may be. 
No need to hide the body, just call the police and claim self-defence.
Get yourself a good defence lawyer who can bring a tear to the eyes of the jurors and you are home-free. You get the family assets and a new life.
You simply claim self-defence, you do not have to prove it. Australian law places the burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defence, an almost impossible task considering that the concept of self-defence is in the mind of the defendant. You only have to have a sincerely held belief that your life is in danger to claim self-defence.
And the recent cases of McDonald and Falls have shown that the perceived threat to your life does not have to be immediate, it can be at some time in the future. Falls' drugged husband obviously posed no threat at the time he was killed.
The self-defence law provides that if self-defence is accepted, you are to be acquitted not only of murder but also the lesser charge of manslaughter.







 
Further to and connected to the story:

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Check out this video: A crime to be a man - Peter Burns's MySpace Blog |

Check out this video: A crime to be a man - Peter Burns's MySpace Blog |

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS