Vigilante justice: feminism's latest attack on human rights

The answer is a categorical YES. AVO's are already widely abused in the family court system to create leverage in custody, alimony and property disputes. In a recent national survey it was found that 49% of 12,550 respondents believed that AVO's are being abused for this purpose, including 42% of the women surveyed. Apparently the family court judges and lawyers agree. 90% of QLD judges surveyed and 74% of NSW judges believed this was occurring. Out of 40 family lawyers surveyed almost all of them said they believed it. Proving it is harder, because family law case data is locked up so tightly that no one can get to analyse it.

It works like this. The more a single parent can restrict the other parent's access to the children the more financial support they receive from the government, and an AVO that hasn't been 'disproven' is a great weapon in the fight for primary custody and restricted access.

Many family separations are bitter and acrimonious, and Robert Clark has just handed over the legal equivalent of a loaded gun to whichever partner is willing to use it first. The ability to convict, prosecute and punish your ex on the basis of nothing more than an unproven accusation is vengeance pay dirt. Under these laws, simply obtaining an AVO gives you the ability to defame them in the worst possible way, without the slightest proof and without fear of repercussions. These laws will tear apart lives, families and communities, all on the word of one individual, no proof required.

Will it Backfire?

Again, the answer is a categorical YES. These laws are truly the initiative of the feminist lobby. They are squarely aimed at removing all legal protections from men, who they falsely claim are the majority, even the only, perpetrators of family violence (for a factual account of this issue, see this article).

The last time they attempted to tip the scales of justice in women's favour was in the now repealed 'aggravated homicide' laws. These laws were intended to make it possible for women who had murdered their spouse to claim that their spouse had been abusing them and therefore escape a murder conviction. However, they also made it possible for men to make the same claim, and some did so successfully.

The Feminist lobby then complained that men, who they declared to be perpetrators simply by virtue of being men, were misusing the law to avoid accountability for murdering their wives, who were assumed to be innocent simply by virtue of being women (yes, this is sexism). The courts didn't agree, and the feminist lobby then lobbied just as hard and just as successfully to have these laws removed as they did to have them created.

Similarly, 'Clark's Laws' cannot be written exclusively to advantage women without being overtly sexist. So, like the aggravated homicide laws they can and will be used by men as well. This is a two edged sword, and women will be equally exposed to the risk of false allegations and life destroying defamation without the possibility of defence. Also, those women who do commit violence (currently this is in the millions in Australia) will equally face the risk of finding themselves sentenced by the court of public opinion.

It is only the feminist lobby's confidence that they can continue to exaggerate the violence committed by men, and hide the violence committed by women, that has them pursue this course. If they believed that people would discover the truth about family violence, that gender is not really a factor, they would abandon this post haste. Perhaps the silver lining in this dark cloud is that it may expose more of women's perpetration and men's victimisation to public scrutiny, and cause people to start questioning the feminist propaganda.

Meanwhile, as always, those who will most keenly suffer from the further removal of legal protections will be the children. The impact of watching their parents attacked and defamed in the press, and witnessing their communities divided and torn apart, will have a significant and lifelong impact on many young lives.

Conclusion

No reasonable person could disagree with the idea that those who are the genuine victims of violence deserve protection and justice. But no reasonable person could possibly believe that giving them the power to exact revenge will bring that about, and that giving people the power to destroy other people's lives based on unproven allegations will reduce the violence and conflict in our society.