http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/07/17/gillard-a-turn-off-for-men-even-before-she-passes-new-anti-father-family-law-changes/

Julia’s man problems
Julia Gillard has got a serious problem with Australian men. So much so that she is soon about to pass the most malicious anti-male laws this country has ever seen, which will effectively presume that all separated men are Wife Abusers or Child Sexual Predators, that is an effective presumption of Guilt against separated fathers.

This bill will rely on the subjective thoughts of the alleged victim to determine guilt or innocence, not on objective or conclusive facts.

So these new laws effectively mean that even if an event did not occur, a separated father will still be judged to be an abuser, because all the alleged victim has to do is say that she is scared…no facts or proof required.

Julia Gillard has even more man problem’s on the horizon, even before this anti-male bill is passed into law. As the popularity of our first female prime minister plummets, government insiders fear men are turning on Ms Gillard for a variety of reasons, some to do with her anti-male feminist background, others to do with her consistent dishonesty in the public arena.

While Opposition leader Tony Abbott fought off a perception that he had a problem with female voters, polling suggests the PM has a much more significant gender battle to wage.
Political analysts say polling shows she is significantly losing the support of male voters compared to women.

Newspoll figures over the course of Ms Gillard’s leadership show the gap between males and females has widened in her satisfaction rating and that of better prime minister.

A Newspoll in August, shortly after Ms Gillard became leader, shows 49 per cent of men thought she would make a better prime minister than Tony Abbott. In the latest Newspoll published last month, the figure dropped to 39 per cent.
Among female voters, 47 per cent of women believe Ms Gillard would make a better prime minister, down from 52 per cent last year.
In contrast, support for Mr Abbott among males and females over the same period remained almost unchanged.

Ms Gillard’s satisfaction rating also had the biggest decline among men – down from 43 per cent last year to 31 per cent among males compared with a fall from 45 per cent to 38 per cent for women.
An analysis of Newspoll results for Kevin Rudd shows support among male and female voters in terms of satisfaction and better prime minister when he was leader dropped almost equally.
Galaxy pollster David Briggs said the figures showed men appeared to be turning off Ms Gillard.
He said the trend was similar to poll results experienced by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who was also losing support among men faster than women.

“The results for Gillard paint a similar picture to Anna Bligh, with support for both tending to hold up more strongly among women,” Mr Briggs said.
“Men do appear to be turning off Gillard while women are appearing more willing to give her a go.”

Mr Briggs said the latest Galaxy poll shows support for Ms Bligh had dropped to pre-flood levels, with the biggest loss of support also among men.
A Labor source said it was clear Ms Gillard was being judged more harshly by men.
“Men are definitely tougher on female leaders,” the source said.
“People have said Tony has a problem with women, but the results show Julia does seem to be having a problem with the blokes.

“Unfortunately for Julia, she has been at the centre of a political poo-storm – the whole Rudd stuff – not being able to govern in her own right. It certainly hasn’t been easy for her.”

---

OMG the man hating feminazi comes out to play. Well bring it on biatch.

Abbott had better be ready to reverse this misandrist policy as well.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:24pm:

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/07/17/gillard-a-turn-off-for-men-even-before-she-passes-new-anti-father-family-law-changes/ Julia’s man problems Julia Gillard has got a serious problem with Australian men. So much so that she is soon about to pass the most malicious anti-male laws this country has ever seen, which will effectively presume that all separated men are Wife Abusers or Child Sexual Predators, that is an effective presumption of Guilt against separated fathers. This bill will rely on the subjective thoughts of the alleged victim to determine guilt or innocence, not on objective or conclusive facts. So these new laws effectively mean that even if an event did not occur, a separated father will still be judged to be an abuser, because all the alleged victim has to do is say that she is scared…no facts or proof required. Julia Gillard has even more man problem’s on the horizon, even before this anti-male bill is passed into law. As the popularity of our first female prime minister plummets, government insiders fear men are turning on Ms Gillard for a variety of reasons, some to do with her anti-male feminist background, others to do with her consistent dishonesty in the public arena. While Opposition leader Tony Abbott fought off a perception that he had a problem with female voters, polling suggests the PM has a much more significant gender battle to wage. Political analysts say polling shows she is significantly losing the support of male voters compared to women. Newspoll figures over the course of Ms Gillard’s leadership show the gap between males and females has widened in her satisfaction rating and that of better prime minister. A Newspoll in August, shortly after Ms Gillard became leader, shows 49 per cent of men thought she would make a better prime minister than Tony Abbott. In the latest Newspoll published last month, the figure dropped to 39 per cent. Among female voters, 47 per cent of women believe Ms Gillard would make a better prime minister, down from 52 per cent last year. In contrast, support for Mr Abbott among males and females over the same period remained almost unchanged. Ms Gillard’s satisfaction rating also had the biggest decline among men – down from 43 per cent last year to 31 per cent among males compared with a fall from 45 per cent to 38 per cent for women. An analysis of Newspoll results for Kevin Rudd shows support among male and female voters in terms of satisfaction and better prime minister when he was leader dropped almost equally. Galaxy pollster David Briggs said the figures showed men appeared to be turning off Ms Gillard. He said the trend was similar to poll results experienced by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who was also losing support among men faster than women. “The results for Gillard paint a similar picture to Anna Bligh, with support for both tending to hold up more strongly among women,” Mr Briggs said. “Men do appear to be turning off Gillard while women are appearing more willing to give her a go.” Mr Briggs said the latest Galaxy poll shows support for Ms Bligh had dropped to pre-flood levels, with the biggest loss of support also among men. A Labor source said it was clear Ms Gillard was being judged more harshly by men. “Men are definitely tougher on female leaders,” the source said. “People have said Tony has a problem with women, but the results show Julia does seem to be having a problem with the blokes. “Unfortunately for Julia, she has been at the centre of a political poo-storm – the whole Rudd stuff – not being able to govern in her own right. It certainly hasn’t been easy for her.”

dummy being dummy.

Quote:

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws

More right wing Atheist Nazi Populism and propaganda from Maqqa...Christians need to discern through this crap and realize it is not in accord with Jesus...

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

OMG the man hating feminazi comes out to play. Well bring it on biatch. Abbott had better be ready to reverse this misandrist policy as well.

Noted and on the list to repeal

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:32pm:

Quote: Re: Gillard's anti-father laws More right wing Atheist Nazi Populism and propaganda from Maqqa...Christians need to discern through this crap and realize it is not in accord with Jesus...

You are so mean corp you made baby Jesus cried

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:34pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:27pm: OMG the man hating feminazi comes out to play. Well bring it on biatch. Abbott had better be ready to reverse this misandrist policy as well. Noted and on the list to repeal

How could anyone think that family law or anything to do with break down, needs to be less evidence based. It is already a baseless system of manipulation and lies.

You cant get anymore man hating than this.

Right wing Atheist Populism and Left wing Atheist populism must both be totally repudiated as totalitarian and antichristian and unacceptable to Christ centred values and teachings......

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:36pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:34pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:27pm: OMG the man hating feminazi comes out to play. Well bring it on biatch. Abbott had better be ready to reverse this misandrist policy as well. Noted and on the list to repeal How could anyone think that family law or anything to do with break down, needs to be less evidence based. It is already a baseless system of manipulation and lies. You cant get anymore man hating than this.

She attacks the father as well as the mother

Given her views above and the fact that she's single and without children - you have to say it's linked

Remember Jesus never taught that there was ever any sin about being single and childless and this is not a defense overall of Julia Gillard, its just that she does not sin because she has not married and is Childless...this is atheist nonsense, the Bible teaches that it is perfectly fitting to be single and Childless...it clearly teaches this...Atheists are concerned about this issue for economic and social issues but they are not moral ones before God...

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:36pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:34pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:27pm: OMG the man hating feminazi comes out to play. Well bring it on biatch. Abbott had better be ready to reverse this misandrist policy as well. Noted and on the list to repeal How could anyone think that family law or anything to do with break down, needs to be less evidence based. It is already a baseless system of manipulation and lies. You cant get anymore man hating than this. She attacks the father as well as the mother Given her views above and the fact that she's single and without children - you have to say it's linked

Well without a doubt, to the feminazi, it is all about the destruction of marriage and gillard AUS, hating married women and calling them prostitutes.

You are correct.

Gillard's AUS

Quote:

The AUS was then totally dominated by the extreme left. In 1983 — the year she was elected AUS president — an AUS annual council defeated heavily a call to oppose "all acts of terrorism and political violence" (AUS Annual Council 1983: motion N28). Furthermore, the AUS annual council declined to recognise the rights of religious clubs and societies at universities to "express their views on campus" or to have access to campus facilities (AUS Annual Council 1983: motion N34). The AUS declared 1983 to be the International Year of the Lesbian. It also adopted a policy on prostitution which said, in part: "Prostitution takes many forms and is not only the exchange of money for sex. … Prostitution in marriage is the transaction of sex in return for love, security and house-keeping." (Quoted by Helen Trinca, The Australian, April 6, 1984, p.7). This bizarre statement made headlines across Australia. Anti-AUS student activists produced posters with the slogan: "AUS says your mother is a prostitute!"

Quote:

Matthew 19:12 NIV For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Is it coincidental that she was elected President of the AUS in 1983

Then the AUS declared 1983 to be the International Year of the Lesbian  ::) ::)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:49pm:

Remember Jesus never taught that there was ever any sin about being single and childless and this is not a defense overall of Julia Gillard, its just that she does not sin because she has not married and is Childless...this is atheist nonsense, the Bible teaches that it is perfectly fitting to be single and Childless...it clearly teaches this...Atheists are concerned about this issue for economic and social issues but they are not moral ones before God...

So Gillard's Jesus now??!!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:

Is it coincidental that she was elected President of the AUS in 1983 Then the AUS declared 1983 to be the International Year of the Lesbian  ::) ::)

To be such a man hater, she would have to declare some year for her, was a year of the lesbian. Hence the feminazi policy. (as you pointed out in gist)

We need to be careful as Christians that we do not allow Atheists of the right or the left morally define institutions such as marriage which are sacred and not fitting for the profane to pass judgement on...



Quote:

Luke 20:34 NIV Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. Read Luke 20 | View in parallel | Compare Translations Luke 20:35 NIV But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,

Marriage is not the path for everyone, the Bible never says it is  and its teachings on the subject are far more balanced and sane than the fundamentalism of Atheists on the subject for which it is a matter of life and death and social success...But the institution of marriage will cease to be for the elect called by God...

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:58pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19th, 2013 at 11:49pm: Remember Jesus never taught that there was ever any sin about being single and childless and this is not a defense overall of Julia Gillard, its just that she does not sin because she has not married and is Childless...this is atheist nonsense, the Bible teaches that it is perfectly fitting to be single and Childless...it clearly teaches this...Atheists are concerned about this issue for economic and social issues but they are not moral ones before God... So Gillard's Jesus now??!!

What...?  I am merely refuting your right wing nonsense that there is some sin in being single and childless...not for Christians there is not...only for Atheists...There is highly likely sin in a lot of other things she does but marriage is not a commandment of the Bible, it is an institution, a sacred union, but not the only path...

So Maqqa

I have had the displeasure of looking at the website you cited as your source before, i have seen them label centrelink a terroris organisation and claim that the government has legislated to make prejury legal.

Lets just ignore that source.

Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen?

Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so?

When Maqqa stoops to using a website that portrays the Australian PM as a Nazi, you know he is reaching the bottom of the pond.

But keep swimming, mate, it is in you to be even more offensive.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 5:26am:

So Maqqa I have had the displeasure of looking at the website you cited as your source before, i have seen them label centrelink a terroris organisation and claim that the government has legislated to make prejury legal. Lets just ignore that source. Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen? Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so?

You should send an email to someone who cares. There is a link provided for you. Read it and then put in the email "I support dictators and the PM in demoralizing marriage. The PM once supported the notion that my mother was a prostitute for being married, so my father was a pimp and client. Please pass the bill"

http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/mailsend/anti-family-bill.nsf/frmSendMail

I don't need to look at that site to know they are not telling the truth, it's what they do. It's happened before, it will continue happening.

Do you honestly think that such things will be decided on what a victim says alone, and not on any facts, which is what it appears the blog is claiming.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 5:59am:

I don't need to look at that site to know they are not telling the truth, it's what they do. It's happened before, it will continue happening. Do you honestly think that such things will be decided on what a victim says alone, and not on any facts, which is what it appears the blog is claiming.

Do you even know what family law has been like for years. You obviously dont and it is a bloody mess with no integrity what so ever.

The site does not claim from lack of experience. It claims it because it knows.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 19^th, 2013 at 11:24pm:

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/07/17/gillard-a-turn-off-for-men-even-before-she-passes-new-anti-father-family-law-changes/ Julia’s man problems Julia Gillard has got a serious problem with Australian men. So much so that she is soon about to pass the most malicious anti-male laws this country has ever seen, which will effectively presume that all separated men are Wife Abusers or Child Sexual Predators, that is an effective presumption of Guilt against separated fathers.

You forgot to mention single males without female companion ship.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 6:05am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 5:59am: I don't need to look at that site to know they are not telling the truth, it's what they do. It's happened before, it will continue happening. Do you honestly think that such things will be decided on what a victim says alone, and not on any facts, which is what it appears the blog is claiming. Do you even know what family law has been like for years. You obviously dont and it is a bloody mess with no integrity what so ever. The site does not claim from lack of experience. It claims it because it knows.

Because it knows?

Hahahaha

it's full of bitter f*cks who didn't get what they wanted in FC and rant and rave on that site.

When they claim rubbish like, the government has legislated to make perjury legal, you know exactly what their agenda is.

In any case, because a blog says that they are going to decide cases on what will be in many instances a childs thoughts, and not facts, doesn't make that the truth.

Why any one would choose to believe that is the truth without seeing actual proof is beyond me. Seems incredibly gullible.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 6:05am: Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 5:59am: I don't need to look at that site to know they are not telling the truth, it's what they do. It's happened before, it will continue happening. Do you honestly think that such things will be decided on what a victim says alone, and not on any facts, which is what it appears the blog is claiming. Do you even know what family law has been like for years. You obviously dont and it is a bloody mess with no integrity what so ever. The site does not claim from lack of experience. It claims it because it knows. Because it knows? Hahahaha it's full of bitter f*cks who didn't get what they wanted in FC and rant and rave on that site. When they claim rubbish like, the government has legislated to make perjury legal, you know exactly what their agenda is. In any case, because a blog says that they are going to decide cases on what will be in many instances a childs thoughts, and not facts, doesn't make that the truth. Why any one would choose to believe that is the truth without seeing actual proof is beyond me. Seems incredibly gullible.

Yeh just as I expected. You have no F idea. Keep to the feminazi section loser.

Really?

You can't prove what you are trying to claim is true, so you resort to that huh?

Fair enough. Come back when you can show me that the proposed legislation says what is being claimed.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Really? You can't prove what you are trying to claim is true, so you resort to that huh? Fair enough. Come back when you can show me that the proposed legislation says what is being claimed.

No, it is because you desecrate an already trodden part of society. There is much damage done in FC and much to rant and kill yourself over.

Get a clue, then come back and say something intelligent. Otherwise I will bring you down like the dog I think you are at this very moment.

No, i am talking about one web site on the net that has lunatics banging on with bitter rubbish..

How exactly are you going to "bring me down"?

I note you still can't prove what is being claimed. I am indeed shocked by that.

Christians are warned to be weary of right wing and left wing atheist populism many times in the Bible andnoit to be carried away with their controversies, nor to join them, nor to endorse them...they cause mass killings with their tongues...


Quote:

Romans 16:17 ESV I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

No, i am talking about one web site on the net that has lunatics banging on with bitter rubbish.. How exactly are you going to "bring me down"? I note you still can't prove what is being claimed. I am indeed shocked by that.

It is pretty simple really. If you contrast the rule of law in normal courts, compare that with FC, you will see the great opportunity for abuse. If you sit there and watch, you will realise the abuse occurring. If you live through it, you will be lucky not wanting to kill yourself 5 times a day.

Now look at the media laws going on around us now. There are people like you arguing there is nothing wrong with the laws. There are also smart people saying it has the opportunity for abuse. You are not one of those smart ones when it comes to the FC.

As for bringing you down, I was referring to not having a worry in the world at speaking to you and about you like a dog. But that was then, maybe things will change.

Ok then..

How about you contrast the rule of law in "normal courts" and compare that with the FC and explain what it is you are trying to say here exactly.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Ok then.. How about you contrast the rule of law in "normal courts" and compare that with the FC and explain what it is you are trying to say here exactly.

Well that I may, but for this instance in time, you asking tells me you dont have a clue.

Do you really or are you just assuming that something with the word court in its name, is inherently fair and just for all?

You are the one making some big claim. Prove what it is you are trying to claim.

What is the difference between a "normal court", and the FC that you are trying to say here?

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:36pm:

You are the one making some big claim. Prove what it is you are trying to claim. What is the difference between a "normal court", and the FC that you are trying to say here?

Do you really have a clue or are you just assuming that something with the word court in its name, is inherently fair and just for all?

I need to know in order to give you the level of detail you require or may need.

Just explain your point, if you can.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

Just explain your point, if you can.

Never mind then. Take my point as you wish.

LOL

Can't do it can you?

Just like you can't prove what is being claimed in the subject post in this thread either.

I suspect the reason is that you simply don't know what you are talking about and when called on your claims, you run away.

Much like those muppets at F4e

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 5:26am:

So Maqqa I have had the displeasure of looking at the website you cited as your source before, i have seen them label centrelink a terroris organisation and claim that the government has legislated to make prejury legal. Lets just ignore that source. Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen? Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so?

If you did alittle more digging into the story you would have seen the following story

The law was passed 22nd November 2011


Quote:

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/11/22/labors-male-hate-anti-family-law-amendments-become-law/ It will allow the court to deny contact, in most cases with the children’s father, based on nothing more than a claim that the mother “fears” abuse, whether or not there is any history of abuse, or whether any threatening behaviour occurred or is likely to occur. Tonight the Senate passed the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Labor senator Trish Crossin told the chamber the family law system doesn’t adequately protect children. “It’s truly concerning that the family law system is failing our children.”

So it's legislation..

Ok then, what part of the Family Law Act deals with that?

There is not one political populist atheist in Australia of the left or the right that does not have blood on their hands...this is the true terrorism... 8-)

They are not being honest when stiring up these controversies...they are not owning up that they are Atheists trying to draw the masses into their evil designs but their omission and silence speaks volumes... :)

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

So it's legislation.. Ok then, what part of the Family Law Act deals with that?

I have provide what you asked - even though you have dismissed it as me being sucked into the blog because there are no references

I provide you with the reference from the website

So before we go ahead - the apology from you!!!


Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 5:26am:

Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen? Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so?

Does that web site have the relevant sections of the legislation?

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Does that web site have the relevant sections of the legislation?

You didn't ask for that in your original post

So eat humble pie!!!

We know that both right wing and left wing populism on gender is by design an atheist plot to stir up social divisions and controversies for their own ends... :)

You haven't provided anything but that website, you haven't looked at the legislation for your self, you have done nothing but blindly believe a web site that is full of lunatics because, as i said, you are very gullible.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

You haven't provided anything but that website, you haven't looked at the legislation for your self, you have done nothing but blindly believe a web site that is full of lunatics because, as i said, you are very gullible.

I've given you the legislation and the date it was changed

So eat humble pie

Have you looked at the legislation? or are you basing your opinion on that web site due to how gullible you are?

Generally there are primary considerations and a list of secondary, secondary usually include the views of the child.

I don't recall anywhere saying that it will be based only on what they child says as your subject post claims.

You haven't actually bothered to read about this yourself have you.

I wouldn't be getting you to eat the first piece of humble pie if I didn't have the rest of the pie to shove up your clacker infrac

That obviously mean no, you haven't looked and are doing nothing but displaying how gullible you are.

Silly error relying on that web site as the basis for an argument without doing any research of your own.

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

That obviously mean no, you haven't looked and are doing nothing but displaying how gullible you are. Silly error relying on that web site as the basis for an argument without doing any research of your own.

You asked for a reference of the legislation/bill - I have provided

Now the apology before I shove the rest of the pie up your nose

If no apology - crawl back under your rock

The politics of Gender is the politics of Stalin and Hitler as is all those who stir up these controversies...They have the blood of millions of children on their hands... :)

Still cant prove it huh maqqa?

Too gullible to look for yourself still i see.

Nothing more Atheist than right wing death squads and left wing guerilla warfare... :)

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

Still cant prove it huh maqqa? Too gullible to look for yourself still i see.

You've made an allegation that I can not provide the bill/legislation instead listening to the blog

I have already provided the legislation - so provide the apology

I will then shove the rest of the humble pie up your nose

You cant prove your point Maqqa.. Thats the point.

Do you believe the blog you quoted? If so, on what basis?

Apologise infrac and I'll shove the rest of the pie up your nose

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 5:26am: So Maqqa I have had the displeasure of looking at the website you cited as your source before, i have seen them label centrelink a terroris organisation and claim that the government has legislated to make prejury legal. Lets just ignore that source. Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen? Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so? If you did alittle more digging into the story you would have seen the following story The law was passed 22nd November 2011 Quote: http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/11/22/labors-male-hate-anti-family-law-amendments-become-law/ It will allow the court to deny contact, in most cases with the children’s father, based on nothing more than a claim that the mother “fears” abuse, whether or not there is any history of abuse, or whether any threatening behaviour occurred or is likely to occur. Tonight the Senate passed the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Labor senator Trish Crossin told the chamber the family law system doesn’t adequately protect children. “It’s truly concerning that the family law system is failing our children.”

come on infrac

I've shoved the first piece of humble pie up your gob

provide the apology so I can not shove the rest of the pie up your gob

Apology for what? you haven't provided anything that shows anything.. Unless you can show where in the legislation it says it of course.

providing a link to something doesn't prove your point, it just shows what the amendment to the legislation was called, even though the amendment doesn't show what you claimed.

You didn't answer the question either.

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"?

Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"? Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You asked for the legislation - I have provided the legislation as well as the date it was passed

You can suspect all you want but I have provided the information

If you are too stupid to read it from the article - here it is again

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

passed on 22 November 2011

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"? Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You are just too dumb. Firstly, you wouldnt answer my question, so no need to go further with you. Secondly I explained to you the meaning of bringing you down, but you are too dumb to get it even with spelling it out to you.

You are obviously that dog I think you are in trying to use uninformed manipulation of our interaction as well as calling a part of our society that has been down trodden, f wits, loser, crazies or there abouts.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"? Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing You asked for the legislation - I have provided the legislation as well as the date it was passed You can suspect all you want but I have provided the information If you are too stupid to read it from the article - here it is again Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 passed on 22 November 2011

Is that the "rest of your cake"?

Really?

Wow.. that was worth waiting for.

You couldn't even understand the point properly.

Providing a link to legislation which doesn't show what you claim it does isn't what i asked.

Do you have any more "cake"?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"? Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing You are just too dumb. Firstly, you wouldnt answer my question, so no need to go further with you. Secondly I explained to you the meaning of bringing you down, but you are too dumb to get it even with spelling it out to you. You are obviously that dog I think you are in trying to use uninformed manipulation of our interaction as well as calling a part of our society that has been down trodden, f wits, loser, crazies or there abouts.

Again, just the lunatics on that web site.

Like your mate Maqqa, you are yet to prove any of your claims yet either.

I wonder why that is

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"? Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing You are just too dumb. Firstly, you wouldnt answer my question, so no need to go further with you. Secondly I explained to you the meaning of bringing you down, but you are too dumb to get it even with spelling it out to you. You are obviously that dog I think you are in trying to use uninformed manipulation of our interaction as well as calling a part of our society that has been down trodden, f wits, loser, crazies or there abouts.

prog

lefties know not to question my references

even ale, skip and others only voice their smear from afar rather than directly challenging it

once in awhile some leftie (like infrac) with dutch courage will challenge and get slapped down

the last slap down was buzz

bring it on leftards

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:49pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 5:26am: So Maqqa I have had the displeasure of looking at the website you cited as your source before, i have seen them label centrelink a terroris organisation and claim that the government has legislated to make prejury legal. Lets just ignore that source. Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen? Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so? If you did alittle more digging into the story you would have seen the following story The law was passed 22nd November 2011 Quote: http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/11/22/labors-male-hate-anti-family-law-amendments-become-law/ It will allow the court to deny contact, in most cases with the children’s father, based on nothing more than a claim that the mother “fears” abuse, whether or not there is any history of abuse, or whether any threatening behaviour occurred or is likely to occur. Tonight the Senate passed the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Labor senator Trish Crossin told the chamber the family law system doesn’t adequately protect children. “It’s truly concerning that the family law system is failing our children.” come on infrac I've shoved the first piece of humble pie up your gob provide the apology so I can not shove the rest of the pie up your gob

slap slap slap infrac

Imagine the depth of the evil of Atheists posting here day in and day out in the hopes of disenfranchising more of their fellow citizens from the national economy and disadvantaging them as much as possible...this is the ultimate evil of atheist populism and its motives... ;)

ok

without an apology from infrac - I'll close down the 5 reference tabs I have from

(1) Nick Xenophon
(2) ComLaw
(3) Attorney General Office
(4) Family Courts Australia
(5) Senate discussion transcript

SLAP SLAP SLAP infrac

Hahaha

Yeah ok..

So instead of posting up the proof you have to "slap me down".. You choose just to post rubbish like slap slap?

Hahahahaha

You had no evidence, otherwise you would have posted it to enhance your argument since you seem determined to make it look like you are doing well here.

As i said earlier, you and the other muppet have been banging on with all sorts of rubbish, yet so far, neither of you have posted anything of substance.

Have you even looked at the act yet?

Seen the primary and secondary considerations? Noticed that what the child says is one of many things and how much weight given to the statement is based upon a range of factors relating to the childs age, capacity etc etc etc?

I am guessing not.

Better stick to slap slap slap type posts...

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 5:44am:

Hahaha Yeah ok.. So instead of posting up the proof you have to "slap me down".. You choose just to post rubbish like slap slap? Hahahahaha You had no evidence, otherwise you would have posted it to enhance your argument since you seem determined to make it look like you are doing well here. As i said earlier, you and the other muppet have been banging on with all sorts of rubbish, yet so far, neither of you have posted anything of substance. Have you even looked at the act yet? Seen the primary and secondary considerations? Noticed that what the child says is one of many things and how much weight given to the statement is based upon a range of factors relating to the childs age, capacity etc etc etc? I am guessing not. Better stick to slap slap slap type posts...

Lets have another try with your credibility. What is the ratio of women getting full custody compared to men at around 2012 levels?

I don't know.

You tell me.. And while you are at it, tell me how many of those did the father want full custody along the courts reasons why the Mother got the custody instead.

A stat on who got what without any other info is meaningless.

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:01am:

I don't know. You tell me.. And while you are at it, tell me how many of those did the father want full custody along the courts reasons why the Mother got the custody instead. A stat on who got what without any other info is meaningless.

Didnt think you had a clue.

WTF?

Is your argument I don't know what I am talking about because I couldn't quote one stat in isolation of any other meaningful information?

Or is it that all you have is the one meaningless stat and not any supporting information to go with it ?

This is your worst attempt at making a point yet.

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:12am:

WTF? Is your argument I don't know what I am talking about because I couldn't quote one stat in isolation of any other meaningful information? Or is it that all you have is the one meaningless stat and not any supporting information to go with it ? This is your worst attempt at making a point yet.

Hey it works for you. I am all for equality. I just got my equal.

Dear oh dear.

Did you actually have a point to your earlier question that you were planning on making?

Do you have a link Macca???

:-? :-? :-?

Hello Macca.....The Gillard Government is having a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse.....Is this the problem you perceive or is it another piece of legislation no one has seen hey.....Can you please provide a link to these new laws Macca so we can asses them in context.....Thank you!!!


:) :) :)


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/royal-commission-will-override-confidentiality-agreements/4467924

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:22am:

Hello Macca.....The Gillard Government is having a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse.....Is this the problem you perceive or is it another piece of legislation no one has seen hey.....Can you please provide a link to these new laws Macca so we can asses them in context.....Thank you!!! :) :) :) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/royal-commission-will-override-confidentiality-agreements/4467924

The "father" in you article refers to the pastoral  kind. Whereas the "father" in this thread refers to the paternal kind.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:20am:

Do you have a link Macca??? :-? :-? :-?

Of course phil

But if infrac is going to come in with guns blazing about me just listening to a blog then he/she need to eat plenty of humble pie

You know I would not push it down this path unless I have the links.

If infrac thinks it's a bluff - then eat the humble pie and apologise and I have to provide the link.

Without the apology - infrac looks the fool

I have proof, I'm just not going to prove my point by showing it.

Hahaha

Yeah, I believe you maqqa.

Honest.

slap slap slap infrac

Yep.. Proving nothing is a massive slapping.

Lol.

What path are you pushing this down? It's difficult to know.

The call my bluff and apologise infrac

until then - you are a fool

slap slap slap

I'm sorry you failed to understand the very obvious point maqqa..

Consider your bluff called..

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:01am:

I'm sorry you failed to understand the very obvious point maqqa.. Consider your bluff called..

slap slap slap

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:04am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:01am: I'm sorry you failed to understand the very obvious point maqqa.. Consider your bluff called.. slap slap slap

;D ;D ;D

I love teaching them humility

Still nothing?

I'm shocked!! Shocked I tells ya.

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:15am:

Still nothing? I'm shocked!! Shocked I tells ya.

You've not apologised infrac and you know it

slap slap slap


Just say "Maqqa, I unreservedly apologise for assuming that you had listened to blogs without doing your research first. You have done your research. I am wrong"

Sure I did. Stop being so precious.

What I do know, is that you have nothing because you were gullible enough to blindly believe what some lunatic on a lunatic web site wrote.

I also know the FLA, at least, a whole lot more than you clearly do.

Just say "Maqqa, I unreservedly apologise for assuming that you had listened to blogs without doing your research first. You have done your research. I am wrong"

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:20am:

Sure I did. Stop being so precious. What I do know, is that you have nothing because you were gullible enough to blindly believe what some lunatic on a lunatic web site wrote. I also know the FLA, at least, a whole lot more than you clearly do.

;)   FLA  =   FUKIN   LABOR   AR*HOLES

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:22am:

Just say "Maqqa, I unreservedly apologise for assuming that you had listened to blogs without doing your research first. You have done your research. I am wrong"

Why would I write something so obviously incorrect?

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:22am: Just say "Maqqa, I unreservedly apologise for assuming that you had listened to blogs without doing your research first. You have done your research. I am wrong" Why would I write something so obviously incorrect?

then considered yourself

slap slap slap

Bwahahahahahaha

Ok then.

slap slap slap infrac the fool

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

ok without an apology from infrac - I'll close down the 5 reference tabs I have from (1) Nick Xenophon (2) ComLaw (3) Attorney General Office (4) Family Courts Australia (5) Senate discussion transcript SLAP SLAP SLAP infrac

I am prepared to give the above references once infrac give the apology below




Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:22am:

Just say "Maqqa, I unreservedly apologise for assuming that you had listened to blogs without doing your research first. You have done your research. I am wrong"

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:22am: Just say "Maqqa, I unreservedly apologise for assuming that you had listened to blogs without doing your research first. You have done your research. I am wrong" Why would I write something so obviously incorrect?

slap slap slap

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

ok without an apology from infrac - I'll close down the 5 reference tabs I have from (1) Nick Xenophon (2) ComLaw (3) Attorney General Office (4) Family Courts Australia (5) Senate discussion transcript SLAP SLAP SLAP infrac

For the benefit of philperth rather than infrac

note that I promised these references at 3.09pm yesterday and I had it before that



(1) http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/stronger-protection-on-family-violence/story-e6frfku0-1226203038442

Quote:

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon said the safety of children was paramount. "I have reservations about the bill in its current form because of unintended consequences," he said. "I'm concerned the bill overreaches and is fundamentally flawed."

(2) http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00189

(3) http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/FamilyViolence/Pages/FamilyViolenceAct.aspx

(4) http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Whats+New/FLC_family_law_changes

(5) http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-22.122.2

Wow.
After all of that you produce links, none of which show what it is you were claiming, what you highlighted in yellow, in your first post.

in fact, it talks about primary and secondary considerations exactly as i have been saying in this thread to date.

Why didn't you just say that you agree with me in the first place?

slap slap slap infrac

Right wing Atheist totalitarian popularism... :)

Here are the relevant sections Maqqa

Subdivision BA—Best interests of the child: court proceedings
60CA  Child’s best interests paramount consideration in making a parenting order
           In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
60CB  Proceedings to which Subdivision applies
     (1)      This Subdivision applies to any proceedings under this Part in which the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration.
Note:      Division 10 also allows a court to make an order for a child’s interests to be independently represented by a lawyer in proceedings under this Part in which the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration.
     (2)      This Subdivision also applies to proceedings, in relation to a child, to which subsection 60G(2), 63F(2) or 63F(6) or section 68R applies.
60CC  How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
Determining child’s best interests
     (1)      Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Primary considerations
     (2)      The primary considerations are:
     (a)      the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
     (b)      the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Note:      Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
     (2A)      In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).

Additional considerations
     (3)      Additional considerations are:
     (a)      any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
     (b)      the nature of the relationship of the child with:
     (i)      each of the child’s parents; and
     (ii)      other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
     (c)      the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
     (i)      to participate in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the child; and
     (ii)      to spend time with the child; and
     (iii)      to communicate with the child;
     (ca)      the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
     (d)      the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
     (i)      either of his or her parents; or
     (ii)      any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
     (e)      the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
     (f)      the capacity of:
     (i)      each of the child’s parents; and
     (ii)      any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
           to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
     (g)      the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
     (h)      if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
     (i)      the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
     (ii)      the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
     (i)      the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
     (j)      any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
     (k)      if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family—any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
     (i)      the nature of the order;
     (ii)      the circumstances in which the order was made;
     (iii)      any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
     (iv)      any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
     (v)      any other relevant matter;
     (l)      whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
     (m)      any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
Consent orders
     (5)      If the court is considering whether to make an order with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings, the court may, but is not required to, have regard to all or any of the matters set out in subsection (2) or (3).
Right to enjoy Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture
     (6)      For the purposes of paragraph (3)(h), an Aboriginal child’s or a Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:
     (a)      to maintain a connection with that culture; and
     (b)      to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
     (i)      to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and
     (ii)      to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.

slap slap slap infrac

60CD  How the views of a child are expressed
     (1)      Paragraph 60CC(3)(a) requires the court to consider any views expressed by a child in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to the child. This section deals with how the court informs itself of views expressed by a child.
     (2)      The court may inform itself of views expressed by a child:
     (a)      by having regard to anything contained in a report given to the court under subsection 62G(2); or
     (b)      by making an order under section 68L for the child’s interests in the proceedings to be independently represented by a lawyer; or
     (c)      subject to the applicable Rules of Court, by such other means as the court thinks appropriate.
Note 1:      Paragraph (a)—subsection 62G(3A) generally requires the person giving the report to ascertain the child’s views and include those views in the report.
Note 2:      Paragraph (b)—paragraph 68LA(5)(b) requires the independent children’s lawyer for the child to ensure that the child’s views are fully put before the court.
60CE  Children not required to express views
           Nothing in this Part permits the court or any person to require the child to express his or her views in relation to any matter.
60CF  Informing court of relevant family violence orders
     (1)      If a party to the proceedings is aware that a family violence order applies to the child, or a member of the child’s family, that party must inform the court of the family violence order.
     (2)      If a person who is not a party to the proceedings is aware that a family violence order applies to the child, or a member of the child’s family, that person may inform the court of the family violence order.
     (3)      Failure to inform the court of the family violence order does not affect the validity of any order made by the court.
60CG  Court to consider risk of family violence
     (1)      In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:
     (a)      is consistent with any family violence order; and
     (b)      does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
     (2)      For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.

hahaha

Slap Slap indeed maqqa you Muppet.

Going to stop embarrassing yourself now?

slap slap slap infrac

No wonder the family is being destroyed and men are so angry. Look at these laws FFS.

What sections should be changed, and why, in your opinion?

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 1:33pm:

What sections should be changed, and why, in your opinion?

The whole thing needs ripping up and starting again from a non-sexist view point.

Which parts of the act are sexist exactly?

What makes them that way?

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Which parts of the act are sexist exactly? What makes them that way?

When I say the whole thing, I dont mean I will pick it apart for you.

Why is it sexist then?

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 1:44pm:

Why is it sexist then?

You had your chance to answer my question, you refused.

Senator Brett Mason:
Quote:

Overall, the fundamental problem with this bill lies in the unintended, the unfair and potentially even the perverse consequences that will arise from the bill's application and from its interpretation. These consequences, to the mind of the coalition, threaten to undo any good otherwise achieved by the bill. Let me touch on a few of the failings of this bill as they are reflected in the opposition's amendments, to be moved later this evening in committee. Firstly, the absurdly broadened definition of family violence diminishes and trivialises the very serious issue of violence which a small minority of men and some women perpetrate. The coalition is not opposed to a sensible broadening of the legislative definition of family violence, but the proposed new definition embraces such a breadth of behaviour as to make the concept of violence as commonly understood in the community almost meaningless. Combined with the removal of any objective criteria, thereby imposing an entirely subjective test of what constitutes family violence, this amendment can only lead to much heartache and much litigation. Secondly, the repeal of the so-called 'friendly parent' provision makes little sense. That is, the removal of the current positive obligation upon separating parents to facilitate a child's relationship with the other parent, to have a positive duty to support that ongoing relationship. It is claimed this current provision inhibits women from disclosing violence, but where is the evidence of this other than the purely anecdotal? It is a very serious claim that the government has not really substantiated to underpin this bill. Thirdly, by repealing section 117AB, the bill also deletes the only penalty that applies to those who make—I want to emphasise this—deliberately false allegations of child abuse or family violence in proceedings. After the amended bill takes effect, what will be the sanction for someone who deliberately makes false allegations of child abuse? There will be none. Making an allegation that turns out to be unsubstantiated is one thing, as Senator Humphries knows. This is not simply an allegation that cannot be proven but one that is known to be false at the time it is made. What is the sanction?

So once again you are banging on about poo you clearly don't actually know any thing about.

Again, i'm shocked, shocked i tells ya.

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 2:02pm:

So once again you are banging on about poo you clearly don't actually know any thing about. Again, i'm shocked, shocked i tells ya.

slap slap slap