'domestic violence' is a created component of the artificial drive by government to cause a division between men and women and thus destroy the fundamental building block of our kind of society - the family.

It is an escalating issue for the simple reason that it is media driven, and has been based, by the same governments for their own ends, on a faulty premise in several ways.

One such way is the hijacking of the word 'violence' and its killing and then re-birth as an entirely different thing from what it was.

Another is the perpetuation of the myth that 'domestic violence' ONLY includes men v women.

These two factors have significantly contributed to the input into an equation of 'violence' as described in (1) above - by the simple expedients of simultaneously using the instruments of the State to attack men, thus generating a response, and by encouraging women to cry 'violence' at any time for any reason, thus creating the opportunity for the State to intervene violently, and thus escalating what is, in the very vast majority of situations, NOT violence at all into a generalised melee` of violence at whim, retaliatory violence, and State institutionalised violence.

In this never-ending descent into Hell there is no answer as long as government/State itself continues to promote and encourage violence between men and women.

As for the killings that are going on - the State views these as 'acceptable casualties' in what it deems to be a 'social revolution' - which is, rather, a 'bloody coup' by that State.

The first step in resolving this escalating equation of violence is to remove from the State any right to intervene without proper legal right.  The next step is to seek resolution via State violent intervention ONLY in matters of genuine violence.

Attacking and insulting mostly innocent men is a surefire way of guaranteeing retaliation in one way or another, as does attacking their home, hearth and family - which is precisely what the State is doing with this current 'domestic violence' regime.  Men are hard-wired that way - so the direct impact of an unwarranted intervention using violence by the State in ALL ordinary men - is one of first rejection, and then retaliation.

'domestic violence laws' have been designed to specifically create precisely that situation and precisely that response - so as to afford to the State the 'right' to attack that man, and through him, to attack all men equally, for the very clear purpose of subordinating men as the prime movers of any resistance to or revolt against overbearing State authority = despotism.

Once again - I predict that any draconian response to the current level of violence, by the imposition of draconian measures agaisnt men with no genuine attempt to resolve any outstanding issues between those involved - both allegedly mature adults - will result in an escalation of deaths.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:51pm:


Okay, hard to argue with the basic theme which I think is that there ought be no specific legislation finely tuned on 'domestic violence.'  If so, I agree with you.

General Law as exists does deal with it.  And, by way of confirmation of what I think your point is:

We get that situation where the spouse rings 000 and  complains that the partner has just *done whatever.*  Hero White Knight coppers arrive, establish who made the call and IMMEDIATELY the other spouse is the baddie and will be dragged off, and will be made the subject of a AVO, kept away from his Home, spouse, kids, and bed.

Pretty much, Aussie - except that I view it as a calculated State initiative to render unto itself greater power and control over the populace.

It was always illegal under Law (as opposed to law and legislation) to allow a court to impose an act of violence called an 'order' on someone not guilty of any genuine offence, and it is inevitable that many will retaliate in some way.

The State needs to step back from this and remove this currently one-sided sanction that creates a response as well as an environment in which any accusation can be made, and then turned into a conflict against the accused.

For an allegedly civil matter - domestic violence legislation is distinctly uncivil in many ways and treats people as criminals without reason.

A good step would be to remove the word 'violence' from this current self-created 'right' of government to impose sanction without an offence having been committed, and then use that unlawfully created sanction as the reason to create someone into a criminal.

Hence my theme of the 'created criminal'.

It is fairly called entrapment.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:39pm:


I understand exactly what you are referring to, and you are spot on.  Perhaps you can simplify your point i.e. as it happens in practical terms.   I reckon people will be amazed how easy it is for one spouse to manipulate the AVO legislation to dishonestly impact on their spouse.

.. oh - and you cannot include children with women - lest you run the very serious hazard of bringing in the facts that children are seven time more likely to suffer abuse, neglect and even murder at the hands of their mother, with or without the assistance of the 'new lion' in the pride, who kills offspring of another  abandoned 'lion'.

More girls are molested by their 'step-father' than by their birth father, as one example.

Domestic violence in the Sydney area is a phenomenon mostly confined to the Pacific Islanders, the Aborigines, and Muslim Arabs.



That's a myth Herbie, Domestic violence has no race barriers.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:58am:


That is true, but some races do feature more frequently. Recently a group of Church Leaders went to the Solomon Islands to speak to men there to explain to them why DV is wrong. The disturbing aspect was that they had to EXPLAIN why it was wrong. However, there are a few men here who sound like they could attend the same lectures.

Aussie wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:40pm:


I doubt that many of those cases are won with a provocation defence. You don't get to legally smack someone over the ear simply because they made you personally angry. If you have violent tendencies, you don't get leeway.

Notably it's only Queensland that allow provocation as a defence to common assault.

Frankly the defence should be removed altogether as a defence of the crime, and should be part of mitigating circumstances for sentencing - which should include acquiring the skills of self-restraint.