Letter to the Attorney General

 

Dear Mr Xxxxx

The Attorney General has asked me to reply to your email referred to him by the Premier about proposed reforms to apprehended violence orders (AVO).

I appreciate your concerns and the difficulties you have experienced with AVOs but there are sometimes no easy answers to domestic and family issues and disputes. That said, domestic violence is a matter of a great concern to the Attorney General and the Government is committed to ensuring that effective strategies are in place to address the problem of domestic violence.

While I note your belief that the AVO legislation is one-sided and biased against males, AVO legislation provides equal protection to men, women and children.

The AVO system is under constant review and the Government is continually considering ways to strengthen and refine the AVO laws. Recently, the Government announced plans to introduce a number of recommendations for change arising from the Law Reform Commission’s Report 103 ‘Apprehended Violence Orders’. The amendments will be introduced into the Parliament shortly.

In your email you also comment that section 562AC(3)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (recognises that domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children,) is a ‘false statement’ and discriminates against males. Unfortunately the majority of offenders of domestic assault are male. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) which is recognised internationally for the quality and independence of its work, supports this finding.

You have also raised concerns about police and I make no comment on those issues as the Attorney General has no jurisdiction to deal with police issues or to investigate complaints against police officers. As the Premier has referred your concerns to the Minister for Police I trust you will receive a reply from the Minister. I also note that you will be lodging a further complaint with the NSW Ombudsman about inappropriate police action.

Yours faithfully

Signed on 10.8.2006

John Feneley
Assistant Director General
Legal Services

 

From another source,

Dear John,

Thank you for your reply, although some what limited in insight.

The legislation is biased in the statement that "domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children". Further bias is the result of NSW police actions due to this misleading statement.

The use of BOCSAR figures, from what I can see, is quite limiting in that it only uses the statistics from police reports and cases that go to court. In my case and in the other cases where the NSW police have basically told the male complaintant to go away, these figures are not recorded and would give a false impression of the actual state of affairs.

I found no gender breakdown of domestic violence on the BOCSAR website and have requested more information from them on this.

If we are looking at only NSW facts, either NSW has a very violent male population in respect to the rest of the nation and the world or quite frankly, obviously the BOCSAR figures do not tell the whole story. Common sense would dictate that NSW does NOT have a male population more violent than national and world standards, although common sense is rarely used anymore.

From the recent ABS study on violence in Australia:

The most common location for physical assaults to occur for women was in the home irrespective of the sex of the perpetrator (64% of physical assaults were by male perpetrators and 38% of physical assaults were by female perpetrators).


Men who were physically assaulted by a male perpetrator were more likely to have been assaulted at licensed premises (34%) or in the open (35%), however if the perpetrator was female then 77% of the physical assaults occurred in the home.


38% (74,000) of women were physically assaulted by their male current or previous partner compared to 27% (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted by their female current or previous partner

So, according to the above, 64% of domestic violence against females was by males, and 77% of domestic violence against males was by females. 38% of women and 27% of men were physically assaulted by their current or previous partner.

From the above figures, I would not say that domestic violence is predominately males against females but close to equal.

Please also note that same gender domestic violence is more likely perpetrated by females according to the above survey.

As can be seen from statistics i deem as more reliable, the legislation statement of "domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children", is grossly incorrect and misleading.

Regards

xxxxxxxx

Now we have Julie Bishop, another feminist exaggerrator compiling the anti-male malice. She is the liason between the sexist "Office for Women" and the Federal Government. (Christian J)

DEFINITION OF VIOLENCE Violence is any incident involving the occurrence, attempt or threat of either physical or sexual assault. Physical assault involves the use of physical force with the intent to harm or frighten. An attempt or threat to inflict physical harm is included only if a person believes it is likely to be carried out. Sexual assault includes acts of a sexual nature carried out against a person's will through the use of physical force, intimidation or coercion, or any attempts to do this. Unwanted sexual touching is excluded from sexual assault. Sexual threat involves the threat of an act of a sexual nature which the person believes is likely to be carried out. Refer to the Glossary for more detailed definitions.

Julie Bishop, said although the survey showed a drop in physical violence against women aged 18 to 24 years, it showed disturbing increases against older women.

Quote from survey:

Quote:

In the 12 months prior to the survey, younger women and men experienced violence at higher rates than older women and men.

 

Link to survey and their definition of violence (CJ)
http://tinyurl.com/lw8j3

 

Personal Safety Research Tables

http://tinyurl.com/qqc9a

Comments on the nature and method used by the ABS are suspect and should be seen as questionable.

The report recently developed by the ABS into “Personal Safety” is a complete farce.

The report can be downloaded here http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4906.02005?OpenDocument

There are 364 pieces of data in the report that have a symbol placed beside it because the ABS regards that data as being an estimate only, and this estimate is described by the ABS as “estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution”

There are 36 pieces of data in the report that the ABS describes a “has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use”

In the report there are normally columns for males and columns for females. Of the 364 pieces of data that “should be used with caution”, 217 are in the columns for males.

Of the 36 pieces of data that are “considered too unreliable for general use”, 23 are in the columns for males.

This points to the fact that there is significant gender bias incorporated into the report.

The report contains many standard or basic statistical errors.

There is often a column for males and a column for females and a total column, and this total column is the sum of the data for the males and the females.

Often the data in the column for males or the column for females has a symbol beside it to show that the data “should be used with caution”, yet the total figure is accepted as being accurate. This occurs 102 times in the report.

There are a 19 times where the data in one of the columns has a symbol beside it to show that it is “considered too unreliable for general use”, yet the total column has no such symbol beside it and is considered to be accurate.

This is like counting the number of people in each town in Australia, and while the number of people in many towns was considered to be inaccurate, the total population of all people in all towns is considered to be accurate.

There is basically nothing in the report that can be relied upon, and statistically the report is a complete disgrace.

The person responsible for the ABS is the Hon Chris Pearce, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, who can be located here http://parlsec.treasurer.gov.au/cjp/default.asp

 

The feminist Flood biased interpretation of the facts...

Misrepresentation of violence by current or previous partners in the Personal Safety Survey’s executive summary
Comments by Dr Michael Flood, August 14, 2006

One of the dot points in the executive summary of the Personal Safety Survey is liable to be misunderstood. The line states, “38 per cent of women were physically assaulted by their male current or previous partner compared to 27 per cent of men who were physically assaulted by their female current or previous partner” (p. 9)

This sentence reads as if similar proportions of women and men were assaulted by opposite-sex partners. It lends support to claims of gender symmetry in domestic violence. However, an examination of the relevant tables shows that in fact the above is just a poorly worded account of a much more particular point.

The sentence above is commenting on what proportion of perpetration by an opposite-sex perpetrator involves perpetration by a current or previous partner. In other words, if we look at all the physical assaults reported by women which were perpetrated by men, and all the physical assaults reported by men which were perpetrated by women, what proportion of these were perpetrated by current or previous partners?

Thus, among physical assaults of women by a male perpetrator, 38 per cent (37.9 per cent) involved a current or previous (male) partner. And among physical assaults of men by a female perpetrator, 27 per cent involved a current or previous (female) partner. Using Table 16 on p. 30, summing the figures for current and previous partners generates these figures.

So, what perpetration of all victimisation is representated by perpetration by current or former partners, for women and men?

0.4 per cent of all males physically assaulted in the last 12 months were assaulted by a current or previous female partner in the most recent incident, while 31 per cent of females were physically assaulted by a current or previous male partner.

Thus, while substantial proportions of adult men in Australia are subject to physical assault, only a tiny proportion of this is perpetrated by female partners or ex-partners, and most is perpetrated by other men. For women on the other hand, close to one-third of the physical assaults they experience are perpetrated by male partners or ex-partners.

The details of these figures are as follows;

Using Table 16, p. 30;

A total of 485,400 males were assaulted in the last 12 months. Of these, 21,200 had been assaulted by a current or previous female partner. I.e., 0.4 per cent.

A total of 242,000 females were assaulted in the last 12 months. Of these, 74,000 had been assaulted by a current or previous male partner. I.e., 31 per cent.

But, as usual, anything that Flood utters is open to claims of falsehood and lies. Feminism' doctrine of female supremacy could be comprimised if it's proven that women are what they are ....!

Guest response to Flood.

Table 16 in the report is a complete joke.

Where a physical assault has taken place by a male or female perpetrator there are 5 criteria in the table.

Where males report being physically assaulted by a female perpetrator in the last 12 months, 4 out of 5 criteria are classed as being an “estimate” and 1 is classed as being “too unreliable for general use”.

But when females report being physically assaulted by a male perpetrator in the last 12 months, all 5 criteria are classed as being accurate.

Then when it comes to being assaulted since the age of 15, everything is classed as being accurate. So males cannot remember what happened in the previous 12 months, but can remember what happened during the last 20 – 30 years.

No of it makes any sense.

As a magnificent role model for a social scientist, M Flood should have realized the highly questionable statistics contained throughout the report. There were not 485,400 males or 242,000 females assaulted in the survey. There were only 16,500 people in the entire survey.

The whole survey is an assault on the public’s intelligence.

Here we have the feminised Single Mothers Association heading into the fray, they can see their funds and healthy government grants drying up.

The NCSCM have jumped on board the Flood of faulty logic bandwagon, trying to compare apples with oranges. Elspeth McInnes, using taxpayer funded university resources and time, has prepared and released the following media release for the feminist mothers' rights activist group the NCSMC.

By seeking to refocus a comparisons of partner violence with violence to ALL alleged survey participants (including non-partnered people), Flood and McInnes (both feminist trained "Drs" by the way), seek to do a pea and thimble trick to take our eyes off the main fact: that intimate partner violence (IPV, also known as family violence FV]) is on a par by sex.

See previous post for what Flood is attempting to do, and subsequent discussion of that. It will help to have downloaded a copy of the ABS Personal Safety Survey report.

Rather than accept the ABS report showing equivalent levels of IPV/FV, Flood and McInnes are trying to twist statistics to tell their lie for them. They are seeking to add in the larger number of non-IPV male to male violence to the IPV numbers, in an attempt to convince readers that few women are abusive and violent in relationships, but men are not. It does nothing of the sort. The other male to male violence is not a factor in IPV and is irrelevant to any comparison of violence in the home and family.

[NB The ABS report is dubious for other reasons, including many estimates of figures.]

-----------------------------------------
National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc. (NSCMC)

MEDIA RELEASE 14 August 2006

WOMEN CURRENT OR FORMER PARTNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF A PERCENT OF ASSAULTS ON MEN

Female current or former partners of men were responsible for less than half of one percent of all assaults on men according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey. This contrasts with survey data showing that thirty-one percent of women assaulted in the past 12 months were assaulted by their current or former male partner.

The data (Table 16 p. 30) shows that of 485,400 males assaulted over the 12 month survey period, there were assaults by 21,200 current or former female partners, accounting for 0.4 percent. Of the 242,000 females assaulted during the same period, male current or former partners were responsible for 74,000 attacks, accounting for 31 percent of the total.

Convenor of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children said the data highlighted the disparity between male and female experiences of interpersonal violence. ‘Women are 60 times more at risk of violence from a male partner than are men, yet changes to the family law system create new barriers and penalties for women who experience partner violence.’

Dr McInnes said the divergent experiences of violence for men and women highlighted that women were most at risk of violence from men, and so were men. ‘The risks to women from violent male partners are also reflected in homicide data, with an average of 76 women being killed every year in Australia,’ said Dr McInnes.

‘It is an outrage that women continue being injured and killed while funding for women’s shelters is being reduced, and women and children fleeing domestic violence make up the largest group being turned away from emergency shelters.’ Dr McInnes called on the federal government to increase funding for women’s and children’s emergency shelters and to urgently improve protection for targets of violence using the family law system.

The feminazy never miss the opportunity to try and increase funding for the "victimised" poor woman. Men have not got one single shelter as far as I am aware, while women have them in every state.

Dad2wun

n terms of the domestic/intimate partner violence statistics these numbers do not stack up. Latest studies in the US, Canada and NewZealand are revealing what most of us already know - DV is primarily psychologically driven and whilst those causal factors can and often are gender based the percentages of the perpetrator work out roughly equal in terms of gender.

Whatever the methodologies were for this ABS study the fact remains that it runs in direct conflict with studies that are far more scientifically rigorous (i.e. credible) than it and focussed and hence I would argue therefore in more depth concerning the issue of DV/IPV and its causes. Policymakers if using this information in isolation will shortchange Australian society...again.

I note also that Dr Flood wasted no time to add his opinion to this ABS study but has yet to, to my knowledge, respond to the studies previously referenced in NZ and Canada? Will we ever hear a rebuttal from Dr Flood on these studies?

And on and on it goes.....

Here's the link to that discussion