Sunday, May 29, 2011

Avoiding jury duty, violent crime, and dodgy NSW Courts.

This is a well constructed collection of injustices in courts including murders, rape and child abuse. It is not for the feint hearted, but it does pose a question:

What are we doing about our courts altogether?

Sometimes, its the criminal courts or the initial investigation that leads to later failure in the Family Courts. Because of the widely misconstrued sentiment that a child should be with the father no matter what, we have situations where police may avoid investigation or legal aid might be hesitant at providing funding or Judges might be more sympathetic despite evidence simply because the perpetrator abuses the name, "father". As much as there are mothers that also abuse this title, I draw attention to this simply because male perpetrators in statistics are much higher but because family violence has become part of the norm in Australia, little attention is paid to it. The criminal justice system certainly does have a lot to answer for and not just restricted to NSW, but everywhere. There must be more accountability and transparency to avoid practices where coercion, corruption and injustice occurs.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Review: Broken Bonds Catalysts For Family Disputes

Helen Gregory begins the article by summarizing the few public murders associated with Family courts omitting any reference whatsoever to data collected by the domestic violence homicide team or any other credible research.

She even went further to override consistent empirical research that supports that a majority of homicides linked to family court proceedings are not out of propriety, revenge or hatred. She refers to another male supremacy campaigner who also happens to a psychologist. Not a professor or a researcher, just a local psychologist prepared to support the same rhetoric.
He claims that the reason behind homicides is because men feel helpless, as though we should sympathize with the murderer above the murdered. It kind of brings a new meaning to the phrase, "The dead don't tell tales". Not only do they tell no tales, but the death they never wanted, brought shorter than the natural course but how it ended was all in vein. One can delve into politics, philosophy, science and introduce theories that become popular and novice in its own merit, but if its not logical - then its a complete waste of time. What is logical about comparing the value of a life over needing to hierarchy one mans urges over the plight of a child or mother whose life is at risk.

No different than the oil companies who hired people with a degree to battle in the academia arena a truth that was in plain sight: Climate Change. They were just as selective with statistics as these people are. It was quite a simple formula that kept the truth at bay for many years: Just provide data from five years instead of fifty and shout it out as loud as you can so that the truth cannot be heard. This is how these recent deaths occurred. Its because a bunch of abusers collaborated to fight for laws so that they can continue to abuse without challenge and anyone who knew would turn a blind eye. There is quite a history on these groups linking to actual abusers that have been found out and given that they wish to fight against laws that protect children from family violence, it is bizarre that three years later, they got exactly what they wanted at the cost of life.

Then there is Carl Boyd, a barrister who is stretching beyond his credentials in the realm of psychology, sociology and psychiatry to reaffirm the notion that parents kill due to lack of control. Its either Law Degrees are offering far more than promised these days or the writer was really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a bunch of misogynist's who had some type of title. Any title, it seems - but wrong context. Let me repeat that phrase again, "Lack of control". How much power does one need? So, let me get this straight, should we sympathize with murders, simply because they were distressed? Never mind the turmoil their victims would have gone through until their last breath. I wonder if the last lingering thought of the children these fathers killed were, "Why daddy? Why did you do this?". You know they say that suicide is selfish, yet there is obviously not enough attributed to how selfish taking away another's life is. According to this article, we should feel sorry for them, forget the kids, give them what they wanted and pray that they don't kill the children because they began to want more or they had another urge. Boyd also claims that child homicides and familicide's are predictable, that they occur within 6 months to 1 year. Thats a dangerous assumption, considering that Arthur Freeman's killing took a lot longer than that and many other killings happened even up to seven years in the making after separation.

Greg Andresen, where do I start...this troll has been around attacking womens experience of domestic violence for years. Its not exactly an intelligent strategy, as you can quite clearly see that first he denies womens experience of violence and then goes on to purport that men are far more likely to be victimized. One only has to look at Mens health and realize that its nothing to do with mens health. Where is the information about prostate cancer or any other medical issues affecting men? Carl Boyd the camouflages the issue completely by stating that mothers making allegations of violence or child abuse as the issue. Whilst he uses the term "false", I am dubious on how a barrister with such emotive views tilted towards men would be able to reach a legible conclusion.

The article drags on to promote dad's in distress that has received yet another million dollars to fund unqualified counselors facilitating groups of men discussing child custody issues. Just as the shared parenting bill came into affect, family violence workers were instructed not to discuss any issues or grievances with their clients as it might be considered, "coaching". The reason why there are few groups supporting women going through the family court is because of section 121 of the Family Law act and a group is also considered a "public forum". One may wonder where the real bias is.

In no place in the article was there a consideration for the victims they blamed or the mothers they accused or any real credibility to the rhetoric.

Propaganda Level: 100%
Misogynous level: 100%
Intelligence level: -0.05%
Best use for this article: kitty litter

Monday, May 16, 2011

Not the Family Courts Fault - No, that cannot be...

Any domestic violence expert or advocate would only need to take a two second glance at the latest articles on Kyla Rogers, to know that there must have been a family violence history leading up to this tragedy. Most murder suicides are. In light of sentencing Arthur Freeman, they thought they were able to close the book on family court triggered violence breaking out into the public and causing outrage - but here we are again. Its another one. I use to try and keep track of the murder suicides in US after family court, but there were too many. Anyone who attempts to will begin to pick up on the pattern. There is the traits of a family violence perpetrator; the control, the sense of propriety eg, "If I can't have them, no one will".

Its another growing story in the public realm that I am sure if Chief Justice Diana Bryant was to grace us with her opinion, we are most likely going to hear some sort of creative reason why this particular event was "rare" or "unforeseeable". Of course with all of the suppression with the courts room to pick and choose which stories they will allow the public to see, it may appear rare. Not to mention all of the trouble in disconnecting statistics derived from family violence homicide cases that were exacerbated by court orders. It is why during the Howard era, the only views that were heard on family courts were right wing male supremacists. Chief Justice Diana Bryant was elected during that era and whilst such figures are meant to be apolitical, she has been an outspoken supporter of these groups and said much that has trivialized and degraded the experience of family violence survivors. Why it might be unforeseeable for the Family Court is working from the mindset that all victims are liars and therefore should be punished if there is not enough evidence. The evidence that has been traditionally considered "enough" is often more than they require to convict someone for homicide in Australia. The stringent rules around what can be presented in court to "save paper", is so restricted that it is not until the final hearing that the survivor is allowed to speak. The affidavits are edited heavily with the advice of lawyers that are instructed to act impartial(which is often against) the survivor leaving most complaints of violence out. If it was a case funded by legal aid, then the survivor is not allowed to raise concerns at all. The laws also require survivors to provide their location at all times, leaving the victim wide open to danger. Any kind of protection such as intervention orders are often distorted in the court as attempting to stop contact. The culture of the family court is not just "unhelpful" towards victims, but against them with a vengeance.

Of course, there is the issue of accountability where these courts are not only violating childrens and womens human rights, but also working to conceal that they are. When there is lack of transparency in reporting in these cases, know where it derives from.