Domestic violence the real threat

74 per cent believe domestic violence is more of a threat than terrorism.

Domestic violence the real threat

Results from a poll undertaken by Essential Research have found that 74 per cent of the 1006 people surveyed believe that domestic violence greater than, or equal to terrorism as a threat.

The poll found that 48 per cent believe it is a greater threat than terrorism and 26 per cent that it was an equal threat.  Only 18 per cent thought it was less and eight per cent didn’t know.

This result also follows a report by Fairfax that in New South Wales 90 per cent of refuges for abused women were full, resulting in women in need being turned away.

In a statement to accompany the release of the poll results, Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, has called for governments to reassess the priority given to domestic violence.

“We’re spending hundreds of millions extra on the war on terrorism, but women who fear for their safety are still being turned away from services because of a lack of funds,” she said.

“Women and children are dying because of family violence and we need to see a commensurate response.

“There is no shortage of goodwill from our leaders, but we need words put into action including increased funding of family violence services. Every day they wait, more lives are put at significant risk.”

The Federal Government has committed $100 million over four years to support the reduction of violence against women and children and has allocated $230 million to extend the national partnership agreement on homelessness, with priority to be given to services focusing on women and children affected by domestic violence.

Read more at TheGuardian.com

Read more at TheAge.com.au

Opinion: The right to feel safe

All we want is to feel safe in our own homes, it’s a basic human right. Yet each week one woman dies in Australia as a result of domestic violence. And it’s not just women at risk with one in three victims of domestic violence or abuse being male.

As we saw with the tragic events in Adelaide on Friday, where AFL coach Phil Walsh was murdered and his wife receiving non-critical injuries, which were believed to have been inflicted by their son, domestic violence is a real threat to us all.

Whether it’s rising unemployment, alcoholism, drugs or even just a predilection towards violence which fuels such acts, the reality is we’re far more likely to be attacked in our own homes by someone we know than face a terrorist act in a public place.

Australia’s first experience of terrorism was 100 years ago in 1915 when two camel drivers attacked a train carrying 1200 passengers in Broken Hill, NSW.  Since then terrorist attacks have been sporadic and while the threat is growing, there have been 35 prosecutions and 26 convictions following attempted or planned attacks. The reality is that few people have died as a result of terrorism.

Yet a 2012 Personal Safety Survey, which provides the most up to date figures on domestic violence found that:

  • 49 per cent of men (4,148,000) and 41 per cent of women (3,560,600) had experienced some form of violence since the age of 15
  • men and women who had experienced sexual assault since the age of 15 were more likely to have been assaulted by someone they knew rather than by a stranger. An estimated 15 per cent of women had been sexually assaulted by a known person compared to four per cent who were assaulted by a stranger

proving that it not always better the devil you know.

Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, is to be commended for her determination to fight the battle on behalf of victims of domestic violence. Having lost her 11-year-old son Luke to an act of extreme violence by his estranged father, Rosie is well placed to understand the threat of domestic violence. However, we must also acknowledge that victims of domestic violence come from all walks of life, are male and female and the threat in their own homes is much great than any threat from terrorism.

Should we be addressing issues, such as domestic violence, before worrying about the likelihood of a terrorist attack? Do you think the fear of terrorism has been over-played? Or do you think we have yet to be attacked because the government has its response to the threat of terrorism spot on?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    9:56am
    Your quoted figures show men as the recipients of violence at a greater rate than women, 49% v 41%.

    So until this is tackled as a non gender item you will never get support.

    Australian of the Year? What did she do. Similar to Hetti Johnston. What did she do. Nothing more than bring down a Governor General.

    These women are being used by a lobby to sheet all blame on men for everything bad.

    Wake up you are dividing Society. Not bringing it together.

    Start by rescinding infanticide and battered wife syndrome laws. They are a licence to get away with exactly what you are campaigning against.

    An then Pru Goward comes up with an education policy that will be compulsory in the curriculum. Well Maths isn't compulsory, so where are we heading. Who determines the content in the DV subject as part of the curriculum. Will it be gender neutral or will it be directed at young males to sit there and regret they are men, and perpetuate the ascendency girls already have over boys in a tainted education system.

    Our system is horrible in that it is not conducted on face merit but on agendas behind it.
    Pablo
    6th Jul 2015
    10:09am
    I agree with everything you are saying gillham, it seems that (if you read the papers or watch TV) that men are at the root of all evil in this country. The sex discrimination pendulum has swung to the other end of the scale. An example that immediately comes to mind is the amount of money/time/effort/research that goes into breast cancer research far outweighs what goes into prostrate cancer research, and yet if all men lived to 110 years of age then 100% of all men would have prostrate cancer! It's about time that the pendulum stayed in equilibrium!
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    11:07am
    Yet, Gilham, women are dying at the rate of over 70 per year due to male domestic terrorism. While our Minister for Women removes funding for refuges and mental health - go figure. Are men dying at a greater rate at the hands of women? Somehow I doubt it.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    11:13am
    Male domestic terrorism. Jen, time for you to move to another planet. Jen you have not addressed why EVERY, repeat EVERY, Social initiative is aimed for women. 70 per year is quoted in isolation.

    Well how many women commit infanticide and it is claimed to be because of an 'illness'. Women have divided Society beyond repair by their narcissistic nature of obsession. EVERYTHING is about women.
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    1:16pm
    Sorry, I didn't know I was required to address why every social initiative is aimed at women. I don't even know that it is. I don't agree more women kill than men, in domestic violence, and I don't believe the courts are on the side of women. Women are more vulnerable than men because they more often than not, have children in their care and are often not in control of their own money. Not to mention that men are usually bigger and stronger. Not always the case, but generally.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    1:24pm
    Jen, what about infanticide and contrived battered wife syndrome. Courts/legislation doesn't favour women eh?
    dippity
    6th Jul 2015
    2:27pm
    Looks like you have a massive chip on your shoulder Gillham. If everything was about women then those 70 women per year would live longer lives. It is as it is, most women who are assaulted and abused are weaker than the men who perpetrate these criminal acts. Trouble is that until they are killed not much protection is afforded them, since they live with the abusers.

    By the way, Maths is non-compulsory in senior years only, because it is not required for university entrance for a lot of courses.

    Reading your comments further down, about your supposed superiority makes one wonder and skin crawl. Methinks you doth protest too much.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    2:35pm
    Well Dipstickity - Maths is non compulsory because traditionally boys are better at Maths and it may raise their TER to be equivalent of girls.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    2:37pm
    Dipstickity. - It is sad that I am superior to women. But that is only a mild achievement. I aim higher than that.
    dippity
    6th Jul 2015
    2:48pm
    well dear Gillham, if you think your attitude towards women and your childish name calling make you superior, then I am glad I am not as superior as you.

    Boys can still do Maths; it is just an elective like anything else they choose to do.

    Careful you don't aim too high the only way you can go is up and you may see things more clearly if you come out of the gutter
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    2:56pm
    Dips my attitude is merely a direct reflection of Society's and women's attitude towards men. Sure boys can do Maths but girls do not have to and can maintain their advantage like doing compulsory units like domestic violence in a gender specific manner..
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    5:03pm
    World prophet. Nowhere will you see that I support violence. So don't know what you mean.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    5:33pm
    Gillham is correct - the concept of 'domestic violence' being 'men v women' came about when it was decided by those 'on high' that as a First Step - tackling male v female violence was a good step. That was twenty three years ago - and all that has happened is that government jackbooting over men and families and Rights for twenty-three years has been an escalation in violence.

    The primary reason 'male v female violence' was addressed as a First Step (ONLY) was that men owned the vast majority of legal firearms, and the government wanted them by hook or by crook, and since in NSW such a move was soundly defeated at the just previous election - the then government saw a golden opportunity to throw open the gates wide and label any whine from any woman as being violence against her, leading to the issue of 'orders' by a court for no wrong being done, and allowing the government to then confiscate legal firearms from any accused man by regulation.

    Our 'feminists' then spotted a golden opportunity to pump their official line that 'all women are victims and all men are oppressors' and worked religiously to further and further attenuate the meaning of 'violence' so as to incoroprate all sorts of nonsense - but ONLY if it was 'against' women - meaning if they whined about it.

    All perfectly illegal.... argue if you wish, but our Law requires wrong to be done before the sanction of the court is permitted.

    In any case - this very move itself was and remains direct violence against a specified segment of the community - i.e. men - and even after twenty three years the only answer these government fools see is more and more violence against men, by women, courts, police who often respond viciously to nothing complaints, and virtually in every way, since a man thus accused with no proof of any genuine wrongdoing is now considered second class, and suffers in employment, promotion, access to specified occupations, divorce settlement and access to children, and the general wrongful assumption that therefore all men are vicious and deserving of second class treatment in every way.

    Is it any wonder then that many men - and surprisingly few in reality - actually respond to this absolute and direct violence against them by retaliating and occasionally even killing their other?

    What is surprising is that these incidents are relatively few in actuality compared to police etc violence against men - and that not more police etc are not directly in the firing line.

    For those gainsayers - 86% of marital relationships are broken up by women, who get the lioness' share and the kids etc, and around 95% of complaints requiring callout to NSW Police are not of direct violence. Most women file for divorce because they 'no long feel validated' in their relationship - not due to violence.

    I will say this - ad I'm glad you also mentioned the Dalai Lama in this blurb - and I will quote him first:-

    “The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.”

    .. then say - until such time as the State backs down from its current stance of social brinkmanship and use of violence against men as a group based on on mythical set of theories - there will never be a diminution in violence.

    Indeed it is the State, using that stance, that is actually perpetrating as well as perpetuating violence.

    Like gillham - I now await some clown to call me an advocate of violence or a victim blamer.....
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    9:10pm
    Gillham is also correct about other 'feminist' issues - such as the bastardisation of the education system to more suit girls under the guise of the then (1986 - see MereditH Burgmann, 'feminist' academic) system 'lowering the self-esteem of girls'. That absurd view was based on a single unsupported study of less than two dozen girls with problems in the United States, which study by a feminist found that those girls suffered self-esteem issues from being at school. The mind boggles at this form of 'academia'.

    Hah! Never saw that 'low self-eswteem'and I graduated high school in 1965 - in a 5A class of four girls and three boys - the four girls going on to further study and the boys into industry and military service.
    niemakawa
    7th Jul 2015
    4:56am
    The agenda is "women" and how they want to demeanor men at every opportunity.
    TREBOR
    7th Jul 2015
    10:23am
    I would hesitate to group all women in one basket case (snuckles).

    That said - studies of terrorism/counter-terrorism clearly show that the primary mover of terrorism have always been governments themselves, and the deaths etc due to government policy astronomically outweigh the puny efforts of deranged gunmen etc.

    That said - what has occurred in Australia (in varying degrees depending on state views, with the initial impetus being handed down by the Keating government to implement universal 'domestic violence laws' or suffer funding cuts - history sucks, neh?) is that state governments themselves have embarked upon a Reign of Terror against the once mainstays of all social institutions - i.e. men. The states have used such things as affirmative action, changes to the education system, anti-gun laws (let's call a spade a spade here), workplace regulation, an alarming degree of discrimination in courts and in daily life against men and especially in the 'family' courts, and direct assault using these self-same under discussion 'domestic violence laws'.

    In embarking upon this Reign of Terror, in which a man is no longer safe to go about his lawful business in his own home or workplace or in fact anywhere any more (since men are considered an evil and thus subject to attack at any time and place) - the States have themselves signed up for Terrorism, and thus constitute the greatest danger to their own people. That they have singled out a specified segment of the community for this terror and disempowerment, the 49% group in society and thus a minority, is defined as a Crime Against Humanity by the United Nations.

    I do not specifically blame 'women' as a group for all this, though some "women" are worthy of the title Socio-Terrorist, but it is - once again - high time all of the relevant issues surrounding Family Violence were properly aired and properly discussed - and retrospective changes begun to set right the State crimes of the past 35 years against men.

    (told you I was full of radical thoughts).......
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    8:58am
    Excellent posting Gilham ..Our education system and our child welfare system and the family court has been totally feminised .
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    10:08am
    Domestic violence has always been around because men see themselves as superior to women. A woman was once regarded as the property of her husband or father. This mind set has to change. What is the use telling a woman, usually with children, to leave if she has nowhere to go. Why is it that the woman and kids have to leave. Its time the man was made to leave.
    Elder abuse is another issue that is given plenty of lip service but little is ever done.
    Pablo
    6th Jul 2015
    10:23am
    It's a wonder that we even have a society today if we listen to what you have to say. What other unprovable "statistics" are there that say we are all really bad people?
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    10:31am
    gillham. I lived next door to a man that was constantly abused be his bitch of a wife. He only stayed for the sake of his two young daughters. Eventally left her. So I am aware men can suffer demestic abuse. But sorry, it is 90% its wmen and children that bare the brunt.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    10:45am
    90% Nan. There we go, more female folklore that when repeated often enough will become sacrosanct fact.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    12:18pm
    gillham, with views like yours, if Nan needs medication you need a terminal dose of Nembutal!
    You would appear likely to have been very much at home in ancient Rome where the male head of the household could murder any member of his family or staff with impunity. I don't believe female heads of households had the same privilege. A pity. Perhaps some culling from the gene pool of males overdosing on testosterone might have left us with a better society.
    In case you missed it Gillham women build, men destroy. Is that what you regard as a good society?
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    5:49pm
    Grumpy - please stop spouting feminist slogan material - I'm trying to eat.

    Many studies have been done and most up-to-date ones show a slight predominance in female v male violence - some saying that 62% of direct violence incidents are initiated by women, who suffer 62% (neat figures) of the damage therefrom.

    Erin Pizzey, initiator of refuges, stated very early that her observation was that violence was 50/50.

    Until the concept that men are the violent ones is dropped and the issues looked at in a fair and rational manner, there will be no diminution in violence.

    I note also that children in the care of mother alone or mother with 'new lion' in the pride are seven times more likely to suffer abuse and neglect than with their real father.

    Roughly at this time - and I applaud the lady who lost her son to a madman who went on to discuss Family Violence, but was over-run by the propaganda of 'feminists' - at last count killings of children in Australia in 2015 were rough 10:2 women to men.... and one of those men was in concert with a woman.

    I'm sorry - those are the real figures. Looking overseas, a woman was just convicted of killing eight babies she bore to her father..... view that as you wish..... it is still infanticide. It seems that the idea that women 'own' children means they can kill them at whim.

    As I said - the entire range of issues surrounding Family Violence need to be looked at calmly and rationally - and not just another knee-jerk reaction of assaulting men by arbitrarily locking them up without reason.

    Do that and you will double the level of retaliatory violence. Remember what the Dalai Lama said about violence:-

    “The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.”
    TREBOR
    7th Jul 2015
    10:52am
    Oh - and this is my final word (finally you all gasp):-

    My view is simple - which ever party chooses to leave (desert) the family institution to 'validate self' or 'find self' or whatever favourite buzz term is in vogue today - is the one who leaves the home and pays CS and obtains visiting rights.

    I'd like you to consider that.... how many divorces would actually go ahead - and most are initiated by women not because of violence but because they 'don't "feel" validated'(rolls eyes) - if that simple rule applied?

    Answer - about 5%.
    Brissiegirl
    6th Jul 2015
    10:18am
    I thought Ms Batty was advised by police to take her little boy away. I know she should not have to do that, but if police, with all their life experience and ability to read character at 100 paces, had told me that getting both of us right away from danger was the safest option, I would have quickly picked up my son and disappeared into smoke. New name, new life, new everything.

    And when are we going to hear about battered man syndrome - that terrible, hidden cruelty where men are driven to despair by women who never stop mentally abusing their domestic partners/husbands? Where is the overdue attention to the silent epidemic that aids and abets the alienation and unhappiness/depression mostly suffered in silence by males at every age and level of our society? How long do men withstand mental manipulation and verbal cruelty before they crack? Yes, we women can have loud voices, we can articulate our emotions and dissatisfactions, but men have become a forgotten, sometimes undiagnosed depressed gender and it begins in schools where the emphasis is on girls and the dejection can continue throughout their lives. Women's rights, women's glass ceilings, women's everything nowadays. Where are the refuges for psychologically battered men? Where is the public advertising that encourages damaged men to seek help? A few "men's sheds" - that the best we can do?
    Pablo
    6th Jul 2015
    10:24am
    Right on Brissiegirl!
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    10:40am
    Brissiegirl, A lot of what you are saying is true. But, it is easier for a man to leave. Woman usually have children in tow. Do you know that woman's refuges, in general, only take boys up about 12 years of age. What is a mother to do with older sons. It just isn't that easy to just up and go. If it was there would be less demestic abuse. women Anyway, we don't know all the circumstances.
    Brissiegirl
    6th Jul 2015
    11:14am
    Nan, in Ms Batty's case I believe she only had one son. She seems a very capable woman able to confidently express herself in her many public appearances since her boy was murdered. I suggest that someone of her confidence would be able to do what my far less confident mother did back in the days when there was no single parent benefits: Find a job, pay for child care, save some money, and GO. My other point is that the abuse dealt out to men should be equally addressed. So much is said about "equality" but we don't have it when men are now so derided and made to feel like they are all predators of some sort. I couldn't imagine what it would feel like to be a man in this society. It is so bad nowadays that male teachers are unable to hug a distressed student, men don't even want to be teachers because of the risks of being misjudged, men can't ask a colleague out on a date because they can be accused of harassment, men can't even pick up or nurse someone else's child. They are nervous and under social siege. And yes, whoever is committing domestic abuse should be court ordered to leave the family home. The most sinister form of domestic violence (mental abuse) is unprovable. We can see bruises, we can see a woman in tears, we can hear her distress and it is awful. However, we cannot see or hear a man crying inside, sometimes for years, until he is so deeply affected he can finish up kicked out of the home he worked so hard to achieve, living in poverty, or even roaming the streets all day, hoping to find a bed each night in a men's shelter. There are two sides to domestic violence - and there is absolutely no excuse for publicising and taking action on behalf of the obvious whilst ignoring the suffering and unjustness of less obvious abuse and violence against males.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    11:18am
    Brissiegirl, I think you have nailed it.
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    1:27pm
    Brissiegirl, if you were to confront Ms Batty with what you've published here, she would have a field day with your very loose hold on the facts.
    dippity
    6th Jul 2015
    2:43pm
    Brissiegirl, it seems you are blaming Ms Batty for the death of her son. The mistake she made was believing that a mentally ill man would not hurt his own son. That was naiveté for which she would be berating herself each and every day. By the way, she did get a job and leave him and he did stalk her, as some men are wont to do. Why does an employed man forced to leave the home because of violence then suddenly become unable to fend for himself. Get a grip
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    5:52pm
    Ms Batty sought to discuss Family Violence in its entirety - but was ambushed by the pro-feminist lobby and the pro-feminist State government down there, and her focus was shifted to the idea that domestic violence is exclusively men v women.

    The man was mentally ill - that means he was unlike the other 95%+ of men violated under this pro-feminist regime.
    Consie
    6th Jul 2015
    10:36am
    The stats show a greater rate of men as victims simply because they are victims of violence by other men; at pubs, in street fights and so on.
    DV has a completely different dynamic. It is based on power and control; mostly by men against their female partners. You only have to look at court records to see the reality.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    5:56pm
    No, Consie - the statistics of domestic or partner violence show a near 50/50 split. Nobody is including pub fights etc.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

    http://www.oneinthree.com.au/overview/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    6:03pm
    There is also a study by Harvard University that shows women predominate in partner violence against men. Two out of the three references I give above - one, the second, is based on ABS figures, the third is a US government study.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    6:51pm
    **drags out the hankie**... (sob) again nobody wants to argue facts and figures...... just rhetoric and personal attack..... which of course are the basis of the entire current DV handling.......

    When a woman can drag a man into court screaming 'possible violence' - after he's just married someone else - sending two armed police to his door with a summons and robbing his taxes to pay for her legal assistance while he forks out for it - and have to prove not one thing - and that man can then be handed a 'court order' for no reason, and go on a police list as a 'potential woman basher' and suffer unofficial or under-the-counter sanction and even assault as a result and be labeled 'violent' in any subsequent court hearing without reason - something is very rotten in the state of Denmark.....

    This very thing happened to me - you may read my books sometime for reality here....

    Ladies.. gentlemen - there is a war on here - a war between the States and the People... choose your side carefully. Start by addressing the real issues.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    11:02am
    Apart from all else when men leave they will be made financially destitute by via the Family Law Act and Family Court. Some women even use the Family Law Act as a means for a career in collecting around 70% of the wealth each time before they move on.

    So you do it 3 times @70% and you end up with 2.1 times your normal wealth, with very little input. Have 3 kids to 3 different men is a similar path to wealth. And then live with another woman with similarly accrued wealth.

    The story goes on.

    Same sex marriage?. They can have marriage completely
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    12:32pm
    gillham, my heart bleeds!!!
    I have seen a local case of a woman with 3 children who was bashed by her abusive husband who had been playing up with 2 other women. He left the home but had control of the family business. He repeatedly lied to the Family Court denying and understating the available assets, all while having further children by his other paramours of the moment and refusing to pay maintenance for his children. He also entered the marital home without authority and removed property.
    The only ones left destitute and dependent on welfare for a very meagre living were his wife and children who were put through very ugly divorce proceedings. Why? Because he was a macho, super dominant male who refused to take responsibility for the those consequences of his actions which didn't suit him.
    To this day he has never paid the maintenance due to his wife and children. She gave up trying and now works several jobs just to pay the rent and feed and clothe HIS children. Care to comment on the man being "made destitute by the Family Court"?
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    12:46pm
    Another one example Grumpy, with how much truth is debatable. Just as many converse examples exist.
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    2:37pm
    Gillham. Do you know a lot of woman suffer PTS caused by their husband's constant abuse. You sound like a very bitter man, either that or your trying to stir the pot.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    3:20pm
    Nan, can PTS be used in Battered wife syndrome justification? With an overhang to infanticide?
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    4:50pm
    gillham, you appear to be impugning my integrity simply because the history I relate does not suit your argument. If I were Tony Abbott I would probably be saying something like "you are behaving the way Hitler would have done">
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    5:05pm
    Gillham, I said PTS - Post Tramatic Stress. The same disorder some soldiers suffer returning from combat duties.
    Please stop talking such rubbish, we are all aware men can be victims too, but not nearly as often as women. Men are more often abused by other men, but to suffer daily abuse in your own home is like living in a combat zone. I have sons so I do care for their rights well as my daughter's.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    5:05pm
    Grumpy only you can answer for your integrity. So if you are uncomfortable with it, look no further than yourself.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    6:53pm
    Nonsense, Grumpy - the ATO takes CS out of his tax return and/or bills him for the balance.....
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    11:11am
    Compare Australian deaths due to terrorism and deaths due to domestic violence. Simple, really. What has Tony Abbott done for women terrorised in their own home? Removed funding for Refuges. And what has he done to combat terrorism? We've lost our online privacy and if we so much as deface government property, we could lose our citizenship. Yes, this is possible. Shame he doesn't see domestic terrorism in quite the same light.
    Brissiegirl
    6th Jul 2015
    11:29am
    Here we go again. Bagging a proven family man, committed and devoted to his wife and three daughters, done nothing bad to any of them except provide love and security of a home, and we now hear a complaint about about "online privacy". If we have nothing to hide, there is nothing to worry about being online. The Abbott man had to sit in parliament and take a blistering, unfounded personal attack, so typical of the sinister psychological violence against men. That hateful attitude towards a long-term family man must have hurt and humiliated the four women he most loved, yet it was applauded by women, and it was launched by a woman who was known for her affairs with married men (one a well-known union thug). The screeching misandrist Miss Gillard is not someone I would want my daughters to model themselves upon. Just another example of how men are hounded, and if they try to defend themselves, shouted down. We can't have fairness and treat the problem of domestic violence when one group is heard, and the other group overlooked.
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    12:26pm
    I understand you think facts = "bagging" Brissiegirl. Sorry you can't stomach facts and cling to such manure.
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    12:29pm
    Gilham, you get a grip. What has men dying in Afghanistan got to do with domestic violence? Are you saying you're an unstable returned serviceman? If so, that does NOT give you a right to bash women.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    4:19pm
    gillham, I have now read a number of your posts. I began to think you didn't believe what you were saying and were just being provocative. You proved me wrong on that one.
    There is a pattern to your comments. Everything you say, despite no factual substantiation is holy gospel, and anything anyone else says is at best "debatable" no matter how specific the factual basis. Everything you say is riddled with inconsistency and lack of logic or consideration of detail. You resort to personal abuse of anyone who contradicts your view.
    On logic, you claim automatic superiority merely on the basis of being of the male gender. What are your views on the automatic superiority of :
    -gay males
    -women who have had a sex change operation
    -men who have had the same operation.
    Step back and take a look at your posts. I suggest you give serious thought to seeking psychiatric help.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    5:16pm
    Brissiegirl, welcome back. Have missed your dog like devotion of a brainwashed Tony Abbot accolyte.
    You appear to have forgotten the particularly heinous attack by Abbott against Gillard within days of the death of her father. The suggestion that her conduct would have her father turning in his grave! Wasn't that a vicious psychological attack? You, like glass jaw Abbott are particulalrly good at dishing it out but cry "Foul" at the first hint of any backlash!!
    Get real! you're talking politics. The attitude was not hateful. It was merely paying out Abbott in his own coin.
    Before you start shrieking about vile psychological attacks being launched by others.........take a look in the mirror.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    5:21pm
    gillham, as usual, you do not address the questions put. You merely make another fatuous assertion.
    You would only be superior if I acknowledged your superiority. I do not. On vocabulary alone my superiority is unquestionable. On comparative logic it is absolutely unassailable. You live with that.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    6:44pm
    As regards online views etc - mine are extremely radical at times and very opposed to governments of all stamps..... they are welcome to read truth any time they want - and if they seek to use the telling of truth as an avenue for attack - that proves they are not worthy of the job.
    Radish
    11th Jul 2015
    6:11pm
    Maybe my memory is incorrect, but I thought it was Alan Jones who said her father would be turning in his grave...NOT Tony Abbott.

    However, I stand to be corrected.
    particolor
    6th Jul 2015
    11:32am
    There is no comparison ! Domestic Violence is Localized and Effects a family ! Whereas Terrorism effect the whole Community or the whole world at the moment !
    And serves the World right for Not seeing Right Through the New Nazis like a few of us have !!:-(
    Tom Tank
    6th Jul 2015
    11:49am
    The simple fact is that Domestic Violence cannot be used by the current Government for political gain because everyone believes that action needs to be taken.
    Tony cannot wedge the ALP on this so despite being Minister for Women he just ignores the problem as he will not get any electoral advantage from it. This means then that all Domestic Violence, women against men included, gets no attention.
    bebby
    6th Jul 2015
    11:53am
    To Brissie Girl, hello welcome back to your adoring comments for Tony.
    migmag
    6th Jul 2015
    12:28pm
    To attack Rose Batty because she seems "confident" is bizarre. There is only one person to blame in domestic violence and that is the person who dishes it out. Remember the days when Judges said a girl/woman was asking to be sexually attacked because she wore a short skirt? Obviously domestic violence is more of a threat than terrorism, just look at the figures. Education and respect is what we all should be taught - from an early age by our parents, schools and in magazines and on TV - to everyone - Women, men, girls, boys, and every nationality, this is what makes us a great nation and why people want to live here.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    12:48pm
    But migmag you are saying women and men. That means non gender specific.
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    1:18pm
    Hear hear migmag.
    Jen
    6th Jul 2015
    2:14pm
    And you're a sad case gillham and I won't be giving you any further oxygen for your silly rants.

    6th Jul 2015
    12:42pm
    Gosh, this topic has really stirred up the troops. Venom spurting everywhere. Good stuff!
    Sceptic
    6th Jul 2015
    1:07pm
    Well it has certainly revealed some true misogynists.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    1:15pm
    Misogyny. There we go the discussion stopping word is now implored.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    4:25pm
    gillham what is it with you! Logic, logic, logic where are you!
    Misoginy is simply another word like homophobia defining an appalling social attitude. It no more stops discussion than does homophobia.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    4:57pm
    Has no meaning any longer Grumpy. Used too often and wrongly aka Miss Gillard and her Misogyny attack. Although she did change the dictionary once with her arbitrary use.

    Game plan. When you have lost the argument throw in the word 'misogyny'.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    6:20pm
    Ah yes, the old ad hom blame game number.... if you're not with the agenda to chop men over domestic violence and dare to offer facts and studies instead - you are a woman hater.

    Seems to me the discussion has brought out quite a few misandrists.....

    Hands up those who actually believe that using the violence of court sanction and even direct police violence without reason is actually reducing violence, and is not just bullying writ large?
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    8:56pm
    Fast Eddie - it goes to show how very many hurt people there are out there. Something is wrong with this dynamic.

    My view is that government overbearing interference for its own ends has blown this conflict between men and women out of all proportion, and some have ridden on the coat-tails of that artificially contrived conflict for far too long.

    For the record - I support women who earn their way - I do not support feminists or feminism that demands privileges.

    Joe Jackson - 'if there's war between the sexes, then there'll be no people left'...
    KSS
    6th Jul 2015
    1:37pm
    Part of the issue is that the definition of domestic violence has become very fluid. To call the death last week of AFL coach Phil Walshe, allegedly at the hand of his son, domestic violence does no-one any favours. According to the Community Services web site in NSW, the definition of domestic violence is:

    "Domestic violence, or intimate partner violence, is a violation of human rights. It involves violent, abusive or intimidating behaviour carried out by an adult against a partner or former partner to control and dominate that person."

    Note in this definition it is NOT gender specific nor does it include the adult offspring or young children which may come under child abuse.

    Domestic violence can and is perpetuated by both sexes but the inconvenient truth for gillham is that women are more often the victim. The 49%/41% split gillham uses to advance his theory refers to incidents of violence (including domestic, family and sexual) NOT specifically domestic violence. Nor does it define violence e.g. does a clip round the ear from Dad to an insolent teenaged son count as domestic violence, child abuse or parental discipline of their child? These figures then are not surprising. Historically, men have engaged in physical violence against each other (think the Friday night swill punch-ups of old for example, or the playground fights of old), women traditionally have not. However, today, girls are catching up with the boys in the violence against each other stakes and this is not something girls or women should be aspiring to. Nor should boys and men for that matter.

    I am sure the causes of domestic violence are many and varied and given it is found across all strata of society cannot be blamed simplistically on socio-economic, cultural/ethnicity, mental health or drug/alcohol issues or indeed the gender divide.

    Where you have a society that rewards bad behaviour of some (think many sportsmen for example the latest of which in the tennis) then you cannot blame the rest of society 'chancing their arm'. And this "arm chancing" begins in the home with the permissive parent who wants to be friends not a parent so does not discipline their child, is encouraged through the school system that refuses to correct poor behaviour for fear of repercussions, and is supported in society through a legal system who sees the perpetrators of all crime as a victim themselves and therefore not responsible for their actions so not worthy or deserving of punishment.

    We need to find our way back to self discipline, responsibility, standing up for what is right and respect for others and get away from the 'I know my rights' attitude and the expectation that someone else (or the Government) will 'fix it' when my rights are violated.

    With "rights" comes "responsibility" and it is a pity that so many are all about their rights with no concept of the responsibility they bring.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    1:43pm
    Pretty accurate KSS. No one has a problem when non gender specific. Your take on the parent who wishes to be friends is pertinent.
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    2:49pm
    KSS. I give 100% mark for your reply.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    4:31pm
    KSS would take issue on definition. Surely it should relate to violence between members of a family, rather than being restricted to partners. How otherwise would you describe violence of a sexually abused girl against her father, or step father.
    On that basis the Walsh case is logically domestic violence.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    6:24pm
    Indeed, KSS - this incident is the Family Violence that Rose Batty sought to discuss, but she was over-ridden by the propagandists and forced to sign up to the current misleading 'male v female' only paradigm.
    KSS
    6th Jul 2015
    9:05pm
    Grumpy the sexual assault of a girl by her father is incest/sexual assault or even child abuse. It is not domestic violence in NSW as defined by community services. And that is the point. The domestic violence claim is now so broad everything is being considered so when actually it is not. And Grumpy how can you possibly argue something without defining the terms.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    9:39am
    In our generation the power in a relationship was financial and men were more often the greater contributor financially , those days have gone .
    Batara
    6th Jul 2015
    2:11pm
    Simple really. Convince Tony Abbott there would be votes for him in it, and you would never hear the end of it. The man is interested in one thing only - getting reelected. He beats up terrorism continually because it appeals to his red neck sympathizers. Domestic violence upsets followers like gillham.
    Swinging voter
    6th Jul 2015
    2:44pm
    Are you suggesting that gillham is an Abbott follower just because he expresses a long overdue view (which incidentally I agree with?)Wasn't there a labor woman who inferred something about Pyne, Julia Gillard who did try to politically damage abbott using weapons of words calling him a 'mincing poodle'? So it's o.k. for women to humiliate/psychologically harm a man or his reputation because they know there is no legal recourse? Words hurt, sometimes permanently.Try saying ANYTHING (sorry for caps) about a woman and every do-gooder on the face of the earth will tear the man to pieces.Not an attack on Batty to say she could have taken her boy away because that's what I would have done too.
    dippity
    6th Jul 2015
    2:55pm
    Swinging voter, that is what she did do. She lived elsewhere and tried to raise her child well. He turned up at cricket practice and asked to see his boy. Her mistake was allowing him to do so; but as I said before she didn't believe he would harm him.

    If you think victims of domestic violence should be further attacked, then I feel sad for you.
    Swinging voter
    6th Jul 2015
    3:23pm
    dippity having alternative opinion on how someone else might manage the presence of a known violent father is not an attack. I can only say what I would or would not do and someone else here said the same. Protecting a vulnerable child by disappearing so there will not be a terrible mistake is not an attack it is only an opinion and whether its a right or wrong opinion is irrelevant now isnt it.
    It sounds here as if someone doesnt agree then they are attacked as wrong. Like the man who doesn't agree to do the washing up so he's wrong but dare ask the wife to fix the car and he's wrong again. Selective equality, its filtered through every part of society like I'm right and you are wrong, and the oh I feel sad for you because you think something different routine. Feel sad for unhappy people, male and female because theres probably a lot of men who never tell how badly they have been treated, mental torture is so clever so subtle most men internalise it and wouldn't even know it what it was except that something is making them feel very bad.I know right from wrong and I dont need anyone telling me what to think.
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    4:45pm
    Swinging voter, what a short memory you have. You mention one particular attack on T(ph)ony Abbott. You forget the repeated vitriolic personal attacks by Abbott on Gillham, reaching its pinnacle of decent human conduct when Abbott said Gillard's then very newly deceased father would turn in his grave over her conduct.
    Do you really know right from wrong?
    Grumpy
    6th Jul 2015
    4:46pm
    Batara, completely agree!
    World Prophet
    6th Jul 2015
    5:08pm
    Gillham, old mate. Chill out! It's been a long time since I've come across someone as well balanced as you! A chip on each shoulder. Mate, it's a fact that most of the perpetrators in domestic violence occurrences are male. It's easy to solve an argument with violence when you are the stronger party, but it's also a low act. My father taught all his sons that if a situation got to a stage where it couldn't be discussed in a reasonable way, to turn around and walk away and to come back when tempers had abated. He always said to think of the kids before anything else, and he wasn't wrong. The Neanderthal approach leaves a lot to be desired. No matter what the provocation, any man who lifts his hand against a women is - in my view - a sorry piece of s&*t.
    Nan Norma
    6th Jul 2015
    5:13pm
    World Prophet I agree with you 100%
    Swinging voter
    6th Jul 2015
    5:33pm
    Goodness me, world prophet it is now sounding like gillham was advocating physical domestic violence! We all know that men have the physical strength and must not use it no matter how they are psychologically pushed. Some women however kill husbands due to sympathy for having to tolerate not only physical, but mental torture. What Gillham is trying to say is that mental torture is an insidious form of domestic violence that is largely overlooked? Again, we see that someone who has an opinion that takes into account more than one statistically researched side of a subject, is misinterpreted,consequently belittled.There have been some comments here that got what gillam was getting at.
    Swinging voter
    6th Jul 2015
    5:34pm
    I meant to say that some women who kill husbands get sympathy for tolerating not only physical, but mental torture.
    gillham
    6th Jul 2015
    6:03pm
    World Prophet, no where have i advocated violence.
    TREBOR
    7th Jul 2015
    10:03am
    A very emotive issue - but let me add this - in the modern day of 'equality', meaning equal rights (debatable) and equal responsibilities (not debatable) - how do you describe a woman who raises her hand to a man or a child (without proper reason)?

    That is the entire nub of the current disputation over Family Violence - what equal standards are employed in determining it, and since they are demonstrably not, how can they be applied.

    The entire issue needs a thorough and honest appraisal and review on the facts, as far removed from the hands of self interest groups as possible.

    Now I don't see very many funded-up men's self-interest groups here.......... just saying and raising the question of what equality is really all about in the hands of the social scientists.
    Radish
    7th Jul 2015
    10:19am
    I also agree with World Prophet.
    My husband lost his mother at 14 years of age. Father had to bring up three boys and a girl.
    All the boys were taught one important thing "never raise your hand to a woman" and none of them ever have.
    Batara
    6th Jul 2015
    6:52pm
    Unfortunately this topic has been hijacked to whether domestic violence is a gender issue, and it appears if I read the posts from at least one contributor the hypothesis is that women are the cause of all that is wrong in society because all rules are made to favour women. The actual question was whether the emphasis and resources allocated by the Government to counter terrorism should be redirected, at least in part, to deal with a problem that is resulting in more deaths in our community than terrorism ever has.
    My opinion as previously posted is that the current Government is devoting too much attention and too many resources to anti-terrorism because they see a strong stand on that issue is a vote winner.
    Let's not go off at a tangent on whether men are to blame for domestic violence or whether it is the fault of women. Stick to the question, is terrorism as big a threat to people in the community as is domestic violence?
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    7:05pm
    The greatest danger to the community and to society at large, as well as to democracy, is the malfeasance that currently passes for jurisprudence, with its near total refusal to abide by the governing rules of Law, and actually protect and uphold the rights of accused citizens.

    This form of criminal violence, nowhere more typified than in the abuse of current 'domestic violence laws', which essentially constitute judicial lynching on accusation, is a reflection of the criminality of law in Australia that has been present for 240 years, and has shown no signs ever of changing for the better despite numerous Royal Commissions and law reform attempts.

    When the courts here finally learn they are not part of government of the day or of some mythical thin blue line, but are instead the sole recourse for an afflicted people (as in this current illegal domestic violence handling) - they will have made an immense stride forward in properly applying Law and upholding the Rights of the citizenry.

    The current domestic violence abuse should have been struck down at the first hearing as illegal and not in accord with Law. The courts do NOT have the right to sanction people without proof positive of the commission of an offence, nor do they have the right to impose strictures that will generate an opportunity to label a non-criminal person criminal.

    'The power of government is abused and directed to an end for which it is not constituted when employed to promote rather than to detect crime and to bring about the downfall of those who, left to themselves, might well have obeyed the law. Human nature is weak enough and sufficiently beset by temptations without government adding to them and generating crime'.

    Justice Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court.



    There endeth the lesson.....
    Batara
    6th Jul 2015
    7:17pm
    Trebor, searching for the relevance to topic, but sorry it escapes me.
    I do not understand your point to be honest. Seems you have a gripe against the judicial system. Not what we are discussing here.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    9:01pm
    The relevance is simple - we are discussing whether terrorism or DV is a greater threat - I offer you the Big Bomb that is, in some or many ways, behind the whole thing and in many cases exacerbates the issues and alienates people.

    Major overhaul needed, and ... "Yes, your honour - I do hold this court in contempt!" - Hurricane Carter.

    The judicial system and its hand,ling or mishandling are in charge of DV issues in court - which I consider to be no only violence itself writ large, but also to be the primer for additional violence in many cases. Insulting a man by subjecting him without proper reason to a judicial lyching/bullying is a surefire way to anger him.

    Human Nature 101.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    9:05pm
    I will add this:-

    The absolute cunning behind 'dv' "orders" is precisely to subject the accused to a judicial lynching and to a deep and abiding insult, and to provoke in (mainly) him a natural response to leap to defend hearth, home and family.

    Thus men primarily are drawn onto the teeth of this rather insane set of laws, by deliberately being provoked by what is no more than blatant abuse in many cases, and are then labeled 'violent' without rhyme or reason.

    What is more constructed to generate exactly that response than to attack home, hearth and family all in one? Plunges a dagger into the deepest instincts of a man and then calls him a criminal and violent - when the actual violence is being done to him in the very vast majority of cases.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2015
    10:19pm
    In terms of terrorist attacks - Mad Man Monis aside - it isn't a matter of if, but of when. No security system is so perfect that it can prevent attacks, and the prime deterrent is - well - deterrence itself, and the near certain knowledge that an attack will bring about a massive response. Thus far, very few terrorists have gotten away after an attack, and even though they claim to want to die for Allah or whatever, when it comes down to it, they don't really.

    The difference between the Mall Muj and the real thing is that the Mall Muj talk a lot, but usually wake up very smartly once they actually consider it.

    I don't think the current approach to security is really the reason for a lack of attacks - I think it is more sheer luck and the good fortune we enjoy of having many Muslims here who are just good people. A real hardcore terrorist would not make the simple mistakes the Mall Muj do.....
    r
    Word for today:- Terrorsit (n) - one who sits around loudly discussing jihad etc. See also:- ego pumper, loudmouth, mouth almighty. - Trebor Revised Dictionary, 2015 Edition.
    niemakawa
    7th Jul 2015
    4:55am
    1006 people surveyed and they come up with such at outlandish conclusion. The goal post for domestic violence are widening day by day, and in many cases they are not justified. No I am sure most Australians would disagree with these "findings" by Essential Research. Time for Australia to concentrate on real issues that are a threat to our Nation.
    Chris B T
    7th Jul 2015
    12:06pm
    For give me if I have this Wrong, State Governments are responsible for Law and Order issues including domestic violence.
    The Federal Government for issues relating to Australia. "Overseeing role" for States.
    Overseeing/coordinating the complexity of definition of laws is to benefit lawyers as well.
    I don't understand the reference to Domestic Violence is between "Partners Only"
    I'm sure others would agree it would cover children and sibblings.
    Violence by a known person is worse than stranger violence, betrayal,trust and how this could happen spring to mind.
    maxchugg
    9th Jul 2015
    11:36am
    What a load of rubbish! To attempt to draw any valid conclusion from such a tiny sample is inane.
    The 2012 Personal Safety Survey clearly indicates that some sections of society are much more likely to experience domestic violence than others. And while this survey is obviously useful for examining the causes of domestic violence, it is useless for determining the extent of this problem.
    The only way to form a reliable opinion about domestic violence is to select a representative sample of the population and obtain responses which were made in total privacy by both husband and wife in such a way that it is not possible for one to influence the responses of the other.
    World Prophet
    9th Jul 2015
    12:49pm
    Just having lunch at work (yes, past retirement age and still work full time, hence only limited time to indulge in this sort of thing), and amused myself by reading through the posts on this issue. My, my, it DID touch a nerve, didn't it! I was wondering where all these bitter views came from and then I read in one post something along the lines of "this exact thing happened to me". Aaaaahhhh, light bulb moment. Of course! But I remembered another thing my dear old dad told me (along with never raise your hand to a woman) and that was to never bear a grudge. He reckoned that it was like giving a person you dislike rent free space in your head. How many times have we all seen people make decisions based on a grudge (particularly in divorces) and do they ever make them feel better? Rarely. At the risk of sounding tedious, my dad also said "the best revenge is to be successful and happy". Yep. I just surprised me how many poster seem to be carrying past experiences around like a little pet. Let it go. Move on. Smell the roses. Be happy.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.