Feminism’s latest weapon is a fraud

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 domesticviolence over the next 12 months.

Theresults 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?