Feminism’s latest weapon is a fraud

– Coercive control laws don’t prevent domestic homicide.

A few weeks ago, thousands took to the streets of Madrid to march on behalf of children’s rights, holding banners denouncing false allegations and promoting shared parenting. Please take a quick look at this powerful Spanish video made by a dad recording this exciting protest. It’s thrilling to see so many people, including many women, forcing their government to take notice of what’s happening to dads in their courts.

(A note to my fellow luddites – you can get English captions by clicking on the wheel on the bottom right, then subtitles, then auto-translate, and then English).

One of the organisations which orchestrated that Spanish demonstration is a member of  DAVIA – The Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance – which now boasts 102 member organisations from 34 countries in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. This hugely diverse network consists of all sorts of community-based groups working together to ensure domestic violence polices are “science-based, family-affirming, and gender-inclusive.”

Late last month they released a brand-new documentary – “MEN TOO – Male Victims of Domestic Violence” which features many of the key people who have been out there for decades speaking up for male victims. Zimbabwean filmmaker, Odette van Rensburg, did a great job putting this video together.

Note that a few months ago DAVIA succeeded in stopping the UN approving a horrendous report which claimed parental alienation was a discredited, unscientific concept and recommended that countries should “legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudo concepts in family law cases.” After extensive lobbying by the international groups now part of DAVIA, the UN backed away from the report.

Meanwhile in Australia, a country controlled by some of the world’s most powerful feminists, we are preparing for the next  massive  attack on men. In the next year or so, new coercive control laws will be rolled out in Queensland and New South Wales. A Queensland barrister told me recently that lawyers in his state are “awaiting the tsunami” – as the first wave of coercive control allegations hits the courts, and lawyers try to stop men being sent to jail on these highly dubious charges.

It’s very telling that the new coercive control laws have been kept on ice in these states for years as authorities try to ensure the right people – namely men – get charged. We were not a bit surprised to see an ABC article just last month grumbling that “Tasmanian police are still mistaking family violence victims for abusers.”

Yes, police are still sometimes charging guilty women instead of innocent men! Shock, horror.  This “misidentification crisis” is occurring despite strenuous efforts to train police to only charge men. The article warned that the “crisis” is not isolated to Tasmania.

That is why, even though coercive control laws were passed in NSW last year, everything is on hold while authorities work feverishly placing female officers in police stations across the state who face the thankless task of trying to instruct their fellow officers in identifying the problem and the correct perpetrators. As I have mentioned before, coercive control is a really slippery little blighter, with experts coming up with no fewer than 22 different definitions when trying to pin down what the hell we are talking about.

But when it comes to this new brand of supposedly solely male villainy, it’s hardly surprising that police officers across the country are finding that, as often as not, it is women who exhibit these behaviours – as the Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown. It’s encouraging that many of the men and women in blue seem to be resisting the feminist demand that they only charge men. We’ll be doing what we can next year to encourage rebellion in police ranks to ensure the feminists’ misidentification problem continues.

No link to domestic homicide.

But this new feminist campaign has encountered a further hiccup. My Australian audience will be aware that the notion of coercive control was sold to the public by the grieving parents of Hannah Clarke, a Brisbane mother killed with her children in a horrific family homicide. These poor parents were recruited by the feminists to promote the idea that this family might not have died if coercive control laws had been in place.

This alleged link between coercive control and domestic homicide was used to push through the new laws – despite the fact that this connection was never mentioned in the UK where the laws were introduced in 2015 nor was it claimed by the feminist, Evan Stark, who invented coercive control.

“Let’s not forget that coercive control is the biggest predicting factor in intimate parent homicide”, said the Minister for Women, Shannon Fentiman, when introducing the bill for the new Queensland laws.

Well, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR) has just thrown a spanner in the works by announcing coercive control doesn’t even predict future violence, let alone domestic homicide.

The researchers used a “text-mining system” to capture behaviour associated with coercive control from 526,787 police reports associated with coercive control and used this measure to detect/predict domestic violence over the next 12 months.

The results were zip, zero. Coercive control simply did not predict future violence.

Naturally the BOSCAR research sunk without a trace. No way our lap dog media was going to report a result which could derail the domestic violence industry’s latest weapon against men.

There’s a further item in the BOSCAR research which exposes yet another flaw in the evidence-base supporting the mighty domestic violence industry. The report mentions a comprehensive survey on policing domestic violence which points out that most domestic murders occur without prior police contact with the offender. Only about 3% of cases had a previous domestic violence record.

Think about that. We have this huge number of men having their lives derailed by violence orders, often based on false allegations. Yet the vast majority of men who end up perpetrating domestic homicide have had nothing to do with the police.

Shield or sword

As some wise person pointed out, a violence protection order was supposed to be a shield rather than a sword.  It was supposed to be about protecting a person, usually a woman, from future violence, not a weapon to be used by an angry or disgruntled woman to destroy a man.

How come we so rarely even talk about whether it is doing a good job protecting vulnerable women?

Well, BOSCAR touched on this issue in a recent publication, which concluded that “[a]lthough they are an integral part of the criminal justice response, there is limited rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of protection orders in improving DV-related outcomes.”

Too right. The evidence-base for our massive violence order system has always been mighty thin on the ground. When most of our DV laws were introduced over a decade ago, overseas research on the subject was dismal, mainly based on phone interviews with victims. The only study with a statistically significant result at that time was research involving phone interviews with 313 people in Seattle!

Not much has changed, even though there’s now a wealth of Australian research looking at reoffending rates for people on violence orders. With so many violence orders now based on false accusations used in family law battles, it’s nonsensical to suggest breaches tell us anything about the deterrent effect of a violence order, given that breaches are often set up as part of the false accuser’s strategy. Plus, there’s the fact that we’re often not talking about physical violence, with violence orders now issued for emotional abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, spiritual abuse… the list goes on. The shield is often used to protect a woman’s hurt feelings rather than keeping her safe.

Knowing this, it is very irritating reading research studies which laboriously add up rates of repeat offending and order breaches. These researchers are living in La La Land.

To put the whole thing in perspective, let’s look at just one state – Queensland. The Sunshine State, they call it.

Oh yeh? Queensland has more people locked up for breaches of violence orders than the rest of Australia put together. Not much sunshine for that lot.

Violence orders are already being issued at five times the rate of divorces. And this is a huge growth industry. Look at this graph:

The future looks particularly grim for men in our Deep North but rest assured, the move is on everywhere. Violence orders are already scattered like vile confetti across the land. Yet the growth in numbers of men locked up through breaches will pale into insignificance once coercive control’s fast route to prison is fully operational.

Then we’ll see the Sisterhood dancing in the streets as their powerful new weapon to destroy men starts to take its toll.



What’s happened to the presumption of innocence in Australia?

Join our historic conference showing equality before the law no longer exists in this country.

Learn the true facts – from legal experts, law professors, statisticians, whistleblowers - exposing how ideology has captured our justice system.

Go to www.presumptionofinnocence.au to purchase tickets or sign up for live streaming of the conference.

Learn More