WHAT IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
The term 'domestic violence' is extremely broad and it grows more and more broad every year. Domestic violence is any behaviour used by one person in a relationship to exert control or maintain power of the other person. Domestic violence includes anything that is sexual, physical, emotional, economic or psychological and even threats of any of these factors. Since the 2012 amendments, the definition is so wide, it encompasses almost anything negative in any relationship: even daily arguments and disagreements that every relationship experiences. Some examples of domestic violence include:
* physical assaults (beating, raping, pushing...);
* threatening someone with assault;
* criticising the other persons clothing;
* withholding money;
* name calling and insults;
* yelling and even pointing fingers or objects at you in anger;
* acting jealous or possessive and/or monitoring where you go;
* humiliating the other person;
* racial, ethnic or religious comments;
* even withholding affection!!!...
The list goes on and on and on. It is not hard to show an instance of domestic violence when making an application to the court. Pretty much anything and everything negative (and even non-negative) can be used. And there are no time limitations - an argument you had 3 years previous could be used against someone as an act of domestic violence. Interestingly, all instances of domestic violence are treated the same ie. a person making a complaint of being yelled at during an argument is treated the same as the person making a complaint of being raped and beaten. Furthermore, a DVO which has been issued based on clear evidence is no different to a false DVO that was "accepted without admission" to save the accused respondent the time and money of defending the allegations. So when you add your DVO to your Family Court application, judges have no idea of the extent of the actual instance of domestic violence... and many do not care. Yet, despite provisions in the Family Court Act, 'withholding children' from parents and making false allegations is not considered domestic violence in the courts. In fact, even coercing children to make false allegations against another parent is not considered domestic violence.
One conflicting question arises: Most serious acts of domestic violence are already criminal acts. So why would there need to be separate legislation to deal with these situations? Police and departments such as DOCs (Department of Community Services) have trained psychologists and specialised investigative tools to investigate all allegations. They also work with doctors. The standard of proof ensures that real complaints are separated from false complaints and real cases of abuse are presented to the court under the Rules of Evidence. So why is the Family Court, a court with no specialised training personnel or equipment, making rulings regarding domestic violence and child abuse? The answer is that the Family Court cartels are able to manipulate children, using domestic violence, to ensure parents continue fighting, and paying, to see their children. As such, the Family Court is a multi-billion dollar industry.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence is based on creating a "victim" and "perpetrator" or the age-old 'good' vs 'evil' analogy. Following this method, domestic violence is generally portrayed as male perpetrators and female victims. This is seen in violence against women legislation such as VAWA, which although claims to be "gender-neutral", is clearly unconstitutionally aimed at attacking men. Why? Basically, men have always been seen as big, strong and aggressive. Women are petite and emotional. This may be argumentative, but this perception has proven to be a billion-dollar profit machine in its application. Every day, we are bombarded with ads and images depicting women and children being beaten by a drunken, disheveled male. We have been so conditioned that if we see a man abusing a woman in public, we are shocked. Yet, when we see a woman abusing a man, we just laugh.
There are two methods used to manipulate the way the public views domestic violence:
1. statistics: Darrell Huff's "How to Lie Using Statistics" has been put to good use by interest groups reporting domestic violence statistics. Whenever domestic violence is mentioned, you can be sure it is followed with a multitude of statistics. Domestic violence figures are like snowflakes: you will never find two the same. Most of these statistics derive from complaints made to police, the courts, social service organisations and/or interest groups, so they only take into consideration the initial complaint. They do not take into account cases which were proven false, or "unsubstantiated" (which is not considered "false", but "unproven"). Some of these cases can drag on for years, and when the allegation is proven to be false, the case is long forgotten and Family Court judges will rarely make a finding that an accusation was 'false'. Also, where a DVO application is made alleging domestic violence and, although the defendant can prove the allegations are false, does not want to proceed with a drawn-out and expensive court case, thus "accepting without admission", the allegations are not classified as "false". Therefore, statistics cannot possibly show which allegations were true and which were false.
The second arm of domestic violence statistics involves our perspectives on 'violence'. Picture this scenario: a couple are arguing in the shopping centre. The woman slaps the man and hits him several times. No big deal, right? Now, picture the man slapping the woman and hitting her several times... Big difference, right? Now how many men in that situation would walk into a police station and report an instance of domestic violence? Even if a women smashed a plate over a man's head, how many men would make a formal complaint of domestic violence? Not many, if any at all.
Again, picture two scenarios: a man shoots his wife in the head while she is watching TV. He later claims she was abusive and had no other choice. Such a scenario would be laughed at. He would have no defence. Yet, what if the wife shot the husband in the head while he watched TV, and later claimed he abused her. It is quite common and no evidence is required to raise the issue:
What about domestic violence in same-sex relationships? There are almost no statistics on it. Does this mean same-sex couples never commit domestic violence? Or have the complaints been ignored? Using statistics derived from official complaints clearly swings domestic violence towards men as the main perpetrators. Even a government report [insert report], not produced until 2011, demonstrates the draconian view of modern day domestic violence.
2. advertising: domestic violence is big business and the act of domestic violence is marketed like any product produced by big business. All domestic violence advertisements portray the same stereotype that the public have been subjected to for years: men abusing women. It's the winning combination that keeps the donations and government funding rolling in. After all, who can say no to images of a hard-working wife being beaten into the corner of a room while her young children look on, knowing that they are next to suffer at the hands of a (usually drunk and frustrated) father? And this is what domestic violence interest groups bombard the public with daily. A Google Image search of "domestic violence" or even looking at interest groups' website, and every image portrays this stereotype. Look at any advertisement about domestic violence and it is always the same thing... men beating women and children.
In recent years, while we are cutting public services to education, health and social projects, our government spends millions of dollars on advertisements, bombarding the public with these stereotypes:
And of course, the $10 million, tax-payer funded advertisement using (alleged) convicted hired-killer Mark "Chopper" Read, ranting uncontrollably and threatening EVERY MAN in Australia (ironically with threats of violence such as beatings and rape): video 9
The effectiveness of this portrayal of domestic violence is clear in our example using a popular world-wide discussion forum in which we posted a ridiculous scenario to judge what the general response would be. What we received was massive support for our "wife" making completely unbelievable statements of domestic violence: click here to view
Each year, billions of dollars of tax payers money is spent ensuring that the stereotype of domestic violence is pushed onto the Australian public. Even world-wide Violence Against Women legislation, such as the US VAWA, which claims to be gender-neutral, is clearly, but it's own name, gender biased. Lets look at some examples of just how effective this propaganda has been on society, when we see male-on-female violence compared to female-on-male violence:
Another form of domestic violence (and child abuse), although not legally recognised, is Parental Alienation - withholding a child from a parent, usually under the guise of domestic violence allegations. The effects of Parental Alienation are long-term and very severe. Yet, we never see ads about how parents resort to violence or suicide after the Family Court have banned that parent from having contact with their children, or how parents make allegations of domestic violence and use Parental Alienation in order to coerce others, or how Family Court Magistrates use children to obtain quick and easy "consent orders" (ie. "You can agree to seeing your children every second weekend, or not at all" - a common situation complained about by parents who have gone through the Family Court system). Yet, each year, parents resort to suicide and murder and more and more adults seek counselling because they believe one of their own parents did not love them.
It was this stereotype that were the basis of a HREOC report recommending the broadening of the term "domestic violence" click here to view. Women and children - the classic "victims" pushed by interest groups. Nothing mentioned about abuse in same-sex relationships. No statistics about female on male violence. No mention of Parental Alienation or Parental Abduction. Just more stereotypical "victims".
This argument may seem sexist to many people, and it is. Why are all these different interest groups pushing a gender-biased view of domestic violence? Why not expose our true social problem of the thousands of false allegations each week and how they undermine the real complaints? The answer is simple - no-one really wants to stop domestic violence. Everyone wants to push the stereotype to generate profits.
TYPES OF ACCUSERS
False allegations of domestic violence are well-known throughout the legal community. Solicitors will generally categorise individuals who make false allegations into three categories:
Deviant (BAD): These are people who use allegations as a tool against someone else, or out of anger. For example, their partner may have left them for someone else, their ex-partner may have entered into a serious relationship with another person, they may be in an argument and be seeking the 'upper hand' (as is the case when police are called to domestic disturbances). This type of false accuser is common in Family Court proceedings to also gain the 'upper hand'. Where our society in general would assume the courts would protect children from this behaviour, the Family Court take the notion that "if the women will not follow certain orders, then there is no use making them" (see My Story for an example of this). This is the easiest and most common category women who make false allegations fall into - deliberate false allegations.
Pathological (MAD): These are people who are suffering from a mental disorders. This is the category that psychologists and judges will look at as a strong reason to ban fathers from having access to their children, even when the mother is behaving badly. Our society in general would assume that a parent who is suffering a mental disorder, to the extent that they are harming their own children and subjecting them to notions of pedophilia and abuse, is not capable of providing parental responsibility. However, Family Court psychologists and judges see this category as a reason for removing the other parent from the child's life, despite the fact they represent a completely normal family environment. This has been seen in recent cases, where judges have banned fathers from having access to their children, simply because the mother was considered to be 'suffering from a mental disorder'. From this, if we consider the recent developments that demonstrate that our own government allows people to easily obtain 'disability' status in order to skew unemployment statistics, we can see how easily a mother who satisfies the 'Bad' category, can obtain 'disability' and suddenly satisfy the 'Mad' category.
Victimised (SAD): These are people who either may have been victim to domestic violence in their past, or just love the attention of being a victim (which can also cross over into the Mad category). This category formed the basis for the 'battered woman syndrome' and is highly criticised as it assumes women in general are 'helpless', 'week-minded' and unable to take control of their own lives. An example of this type of category are the women that randomly kill their partners and rely on the 'abused aggressor' defence. However, we also hear it in our everyday lives - women who drink too much must of had their drinks spiked; women who have been separated must have been 'abused'; women who miss out on that promotion are victims of discrimination. Coupled with the feminist perspective that 'women cannot defend themselves', 'women are too scared to go to police', 'women hide their bruises'... is it any wonder why society tip-toes on egg-shells around women's issues and perceive women as helpless in areas such as business?
These categories explaining behaviour issues is not new. It has been made more recognisable since the publication of Lisa Appignanesi's book 'Mad, Bad and Sad: A History of Women and the Mind of Doctors'. It has been used, and modified, to suit a wide range of behavioural issues with women:
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROFIT MACHINE
There are two easy ways to make money. You can find a person who is in an overwhelming, desperate situation and provide a solution for them - at a price of course. Or you can place people in conflict. Two people fighting for something will pay anything to get an advantage over the other. The Family Court cartels use both.
Generally, the Family Court cartels will use children as a tool to create both an overwhelming situation for parents, and create conflict. By taking a child away from one (or both) parents and "dangling the carrot", the Family Court cartels ensure that they drain parents of every last cent. A person can be charged with murder and the case is over within a few months. Yet an allegation of domestic violence or child abuse generally drags out for 2-3 years in the Family Court, even without any supporting evidence.
Obviously, children want, and need, both parent's in their lives. You will never hear adults complaining how seeing both parents destroyed their lives. However, you always hear traumatised children and adults talking about how one parent was removed from their life. Parental alienation is very traumatic for children and leaves long-term emotional scares. No ordinary person would dispute this. And if the Family Court truly focused on the "best interests of the child", they would reduce conflict and ensure children have access to both parents. However, if people could walk into court knowing that they were going to have equal shared care of their children, the Family Court cartels would never generate the billions of dollars it does. Parents wouldn't be forced to sell their assets to pay for legal fees. Cases would be over before they started. And this was almost the case with the of mediation.
Mediation allowed parents to settle disputes quickly and without a lot of costs. Domestic violence allegations were only taken into consideration with evidence. A lot of parents agreed to an equal shared care arrangement, or another arrangement that satisfied both parent's lifestyle and commitments. The Family Court cartels were under threat. Family lawyers, psychologists, judges and interest groups were under threat. The solution: domestic violence!
Domestic violence ensures the court rooms remain full and the applications are flowing. Now, people had a reason to enter into conflict: they were fighting for their children. Domestic violence applications exploded. By obtaining a Domestic Violence Order (DVO/AVO), a parent could gain leverage over the other parent and even cut the other parent out of their children's lives forever! A DVO could even allow one parent to control and blackmail the other parent, even using solicitors to force one parent to sign "new" Parental Agreements, despite Family Court orders in place click here to view example.
Google search "false domestic violence" and you will be shocked at what is really going on within the Family Court system, not only in Australia, but world-wide.
So what is a DVO and how do they give so much power to people?
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDERS (DVOs)
A DVO (also known as an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO)) is an order restraining a person from committing "domestic violence" against another person. Generally, a DVO is similar to a restraining order. The person cannot usually go within 50-100m of the other person, their home, work or anywhere where they frequent. DVOs almost make order that the person must act appropriately toward the other person (as well as firearm and other conditions).
There are two types of DVOs:
i) criminal DVO: where police have gathered evidence and presented that evidence to a court to obtain a DVO.
ii) civil DVO: where anyone can take out a DVO against another person with whom they have, or have had, a relationship with.
For police to obtain a DVO on behalf of a victim, the evidence must be concise. However, for civil DVOs, anyone and everyone can apply and they are almost guaranteed to be issued, with or without evidence. Most allegations are of rape, child abuse, physical assault and threats. Although these are criminal offences, most of these claims are false or exaggerated. Therefore, many people who make DVO applications do not follow through with formal criminal charges (hence the claim that "most domestic abuse is never reported to police). You may ask how people can get away with this. There are two main reasons:
1. Police and child services will tell you that it is "policy" not to deter domestic violence and child abuse allegations because it may stop real victims from making a complaint;
2. People who make false allegations are almost never charged. You can be sued by the other party, although the cost and time taken to pursue this makes it pointless. Also, a judge will almost definately see further civil litigation as "creating further animosity" toward the other parent.
Therefore, the legal system is bombarded with applications for DVOs. In fact, domestic violence statistics have exploded, not because domestic violence is worsening, but because of the ease of which domestic violence orders are issued and the effectiveness of making false domestic violence and child abuse claims. If magistrates were to listen to every DVO application in detail, there would be a back-log of years. In fact, to make the system quicker, an option was introduced that respondents could "accept without admission" - meaning that you could argue that you dispute the claims, but to save time and money ($10,000+), you will accept the DVO for a 2 year period. The average person confronted with false allegations and presented with a DVO will think it rubbish and would never spend obscene amounts of money to defend a DVO from someone they don't want contact with anyway. So, most DVOs are "accepted without admission"... and the statistics rise higher and higher. Now Australia has a "domestic violence epidemic" which requires "government intervention" ie. in the form of billions of dollars in tax payer-funded grants to interest groups. Otherwise, our politicians would be seen as unsympathetic to domestic violence victims.
Ironically, there are very strong penalties for people who breach DVOs (usually a fine, sometimes imprisonment). However, the person who has obtained a DVO does not have to follow the order themselves... they can approach the other person, they can assault them, they can threaten them, they can even have their solicitor intimidate them... and not be in breach of the orders. The other person just has to take the abuse. Best of all, the police MUST respond to all reported threats of DVO breaches, so parents with DVOs have complete control of the police. As any police officer involved in domestic violence call-outs will explain, the police are used as a tool, at the expense of tax-payers. Any person with a DVO (even though it is a civil matter) can simply call the police if they see the other person anywhere in the vicinity.
One of the most common "breaches" that occurs is when one parent stops communication between the other parent and the children (Parental Alienation). This can last for months until that parent finally breaks and approaches the other parent or even resorts to violence. The police are then called and an arrest is made. Another common "breach" is when one parent will "invite" the other parent over to "discuss things" or "see the kids", often after months of limited or no communication. Once that parent arrives, the police are conveniently waiting after a report of "threats". Yet again, you will never find statistics of these types of breaches separated from breaches that result in physical assault.
These claims may seem ridiculous, and any interest group or government body will show report after report showing endless statistics disputing these facts. However, ask any ex-Family Law lawyer or judge about their experiences with domestic violence (you cant Youtube search). Walk into any police station and ask an officer about their experiences with false allegations, about the dozens of parents who are "detained" or questioned each week because of baseless allegations. Ask any social services employee (eg. DoCS) how many allegations they investigate which are false or unfounded. Ask Centrelink employees how many parents find out that they have been cut off from their own children, after their partner has filed for maximum child support, now that they have "100% care". Google search or Youtube search "false domestic violence allegations"... False domestic violence allegations are rampant, and the Family Court cartels cover up these facts with more reports and statistics. Of course, you will never find statistics separating the criminal DVOs from the civil DVOs, or statistics separating the ones where the respondent was found guilty from the ones that "accepted without admission". You wont find statistics separating the DVOs that were handed out based on false information. Even more shocking, is that there are no statistics showing the thousands of parents who are innocently detained for questioning, arrested or sent to prison for years, based on no evidence (usually solely based on "statements" given by children who are often coerced into making the statements). Googling "innocent parent sent to prison" will give some idea of the extent of the rort. That would expose the billion dollar rort.
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME (PAS)
Imagine growing up never knowing one of your parents. Knowing that they were out there, somewhere, but couldn't talk to you, through no fault of their own. It is a traumatic experience, and one that destroys the lives of children and parents. The Domestic Violence Method is hinged on the concept of alienating children from their parents and the Family Court cartels profit from its use. If you take a person's children away from them, they will do anything to get them back. In developed countries, that means hiring solicitors, which means money! And this is how the Family Court Cartels (the judges, solicitors, psychologists, politicians and interest groups) work. The longer the Family Court can withhold a child from a parent, more profit is generated. Usual Family Court cases can take 12-18 months. Add domestic violence to the mix and these cases can easily stretch out to 2-3 years and cost around $150,000-250,000 per year. Now, the person who has claimed domestic violence will almost definately get Legal Aid funding AND all the support from a multitude of interest groups looking to claim more funding. You can drag the case out as long as you want, while keeping your children, all without paying a cent. An ordinary person would not believe that our own legal system would allow this to occur. But it does.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) occurs when a child has been separated from a parent. The child usually expresses unjustified hatred toward one parent. Parental alienation can occur when one parent undermines the other parent making derogatory remarks although usually, by not allowing children to have contact with one or both parents (even grandparents and other relatives). PAS usually occurs during separation and almost always when parents are going through the Family Court process. The effects of PAS include all sorts of psychological effects including long-term hostility toward the alienated parent and others, depression, violence toward others... Yet, although almost everything is considered domestic violence with adults, PAS is not considered child abuse by the courts and you will very rarely find reference to PAS in family court reports. You can drag your children to as many doctors, psychologists, police and child services as you like, have your children make statements that they were abused by the other parent, and even blackmail the other parent into signing new Parenting Orders click here to view example, and no-one will do anything about it. Family Court judges do not even care about this type of child abuse. PAS is completely unrecognised, or moreso, ignoring PAS would severely affect the huge profits the Family Court Cartels that everyone turns a blind eye to it.
For example, imagine a system where parents are automatically given 50% shared care as default (unless one parent waives this) and domestic violence claims could only be brought by police or authorised government bodies (such as DoCS)... There would be no fighting, the system would be streamlined, families would be ensured they would still be together... and the Family Court cartels would make absolutely NO MONEY! For this reason, the Family Court cartels will manipulate domestic violence and what is considered to be "in the best interests of the child" in order to create conflict.
THE "ENABLER" - CASTING THE DV WEB WIDER
Domestic violence groups are now promoting the "Enabler". An enabler is a person who allows this "violence" to occur ie. if you question someone's story, or even wonder if the story is completely true, you are allowing the "abuse" to continue and you are now an enabler of domestic violence. If someone tells you a domestic violence story that is absolute rubbish, and you ignore it, you are an enabler. If you speak out about being falsely accused, you are an enabler. And (apparently) enablers do not realise that they are really abusers. Google search some of the interest groups and their explanations of Enablers. Its ridiculous.
We have all heard stories that the police will not lift a finger for domestic violence or rape victims. Until recent years, I was astounded by the fact that most rape and domestic violence "perpetrators" went unpunished. However, after constantly being questioned by police as a result of false allegations of rape and child abuse, I have learnt what police are thinking, but not saying: domestic violence is a 'game'. Each week, the Child Protection Unit receives dozens of complaints resulting in parents being questioned. Most of them are false and are just using the DV Method when going through the Family Court. After the allegations of child abuse went from myself to my girlfriend, we both spoke to police only to be told "going through Family Court is a game. You need to stay ahead of her. If she makes a complaint, you make one...". Further comments were "lock your doors. We have had people break into their exes homes and goen through their computer to frame them".
This is what the police deal with everyday. The police are used like messengers and treated like dogs by the Family Court cartels. The situation has become so resource-consuming that police will usually refer domestic complaints to DoCS, regardless of whether the complaint is true or not - because in their experience, most allegations are false. Even the police are served with DVOs during personal separations because under a DVO / restraining order, you cannot carry a firearm. So the officer has to pay to fight the allegations, or have their firearm removed and be restricted to a desk position.
Talk to any police offer or CPU officer. They will tell you the same thing.
Domestic violence is Australia's biggest rort. People who make false allegations are rewarded, while real victims are left receiving absolutely no assistance. All it takes is for judges to start fining, imprisoning or handing out community service to the people who make the false allegations. However, as is the case, this never happens.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ASYLUM SEEKERS
Domestic violence is being used to manipulate laws and procedures in almost every aspect of our lives. While more and more ridiculous domestic violence laws and provisions are created, statistics rise sharply and billions of dollars are spent needlessly.
The current issue with Asylum Seekers is no exception. Although we are hearing about illegal boat people, we are not hearing about asylum seekers who are rorting the system 'legally'. The Domestic Violence Method team received a tip that asylum seekers are using the domestic violence provisions in the Migration Act to obtain provisional status in Australia-a backdoor loophole in the system. Once the women and children have received provisional status, they then 'sponsor' their husbands so they can come over. They use domestic violence allegations to rort the system. The cost to Australia is huge and further distorts domestic violence figures.