Thursday, September 29, 2011


The most ludicrous thing (apart from the attack on free speech) about this very wrong judgement against Andrew Bolt was that Bolt was never talking about racism nor was he promoting it in the first place. See here

The fact is that he was promoting the opposite of racism, "UNITY" and exposing what many Australians already are aware of and that is the fact that people who do not deserve to call themselves Aboriginal are doing so even though they are several generations removed from the Original Australian Aboriginal DNA line.

That is like me claiming Scottish or Irish or Welsh or German or French or English entitlement just because there is a mix of all these ethnic origins circulating in my bloodstream. I mean, I claim to be an Australian as this is where I was born and hold my loyalty too.

My mother cannot help but claim her English heritage as she was born there but she can also legally say that she is an Australian because she was naturalised after she choose to emigrate here ... but if my great grandmother had sexual relations with an Aboriginal Australian and a child came of that union and that child turned out to become my grandfather then Australian law says I can claim Aboriginality and all of the social welfare schemes attached to that claim as much as a true Aboriginal who was born here or parents were born here and the blood line of their family is purely Aboriginal ....WHAT THE?

What a deluded mess this has become and clearly many who do not deserve the tax payer funded breaks that they claim are simply ripping us ALL off. As Bolt said in front of the court after the verdict was announced "We should be focusing on the things that UNITE us and not those that divide".

Well Andrew, we need that message to go back in time to at least several decades of political stooges form both major parties who used this form of apartheid (separating the internal population based on racial difference) as nothing more than a vote generator.

See how they have created a nation within a nation, with it's own laws, racial based freedoms and benefits and even a flag. How is that promoting a united nation.... What does the song say? ..."WE ARE ONE BUT WE ARE MANY...." Sure we are many but thanks to the abuse of welfare and the creation of the "ABORIGINAL INDUSTRY" we are and will never be one. Mr Abbott TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!...... with apologies to the late Ronald Reagan.

Incidentally, my brother is married to an Aboriginal woman thus my niece's are both eligible to the claim..... they don't do it, they work hard and claim nothing. That is being Australian in my book.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

The NON Family Courts

The toon above was first published to accompany an article in last weeks Spectator by John Hirst, The article is quite a timely and poignant piece considering current and recent events. Please remember to pick up your copy of The SPECTATOR Australia magazine, out every Friday.

The article concerns a quite disgraceful but little-heeded policy change so is reproduced below:

The Federal Labor government appears bent on making it easier for mothers in Family Court proceedings to make false accusations about fathers being violent and abusing their children.

Making such accusations are a routine part of custody battles. The Howard government made some effort to deter them; these sanctions are to be lifted in an amending Bill now before the parliament.

The declared aim of the amendments is to protect children better from abuse and violence. The Bill reaffirms that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in the arrangements that follow separation of their parents. That always sounds reassuring. It is the mantra under which the Family Court operates. But when one principle, however worthy, is made pre-eminent, to be pursued whatever the consequences, terrible harm may be done.

Consider. A mother makes a false accusation of abuse against a father; she may believe it to be true or it may be concocted. Either way the father is immediately made into a pariah. After the case is examined, the Court may decide that the father cannot see his children, not because it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he has abused his children, not because on the balance of probabilities he has abused his children, but because in the mind of a judge he presents an unacceptable risk to his children. Well, you might think, with children you can’t be too careful. But consider what this carefulness is doing. Innocent fathers are branded as child abusers by an instrument of the state, a body going under the name of a court of law, which then rules that they are not to see their children again. Just how many fathers will you torture in this way to protect one child?

The Family Court was pushed into operating on ‘unacceptable risk’ by the High Court in the case M v M. The consequence is that the Court seeks absolute security for the children in its purview. Meanwhile in the administration of child welfare by the states great risks are run because the policy here is to keep children in the care of parents if at all possible. I think too many risks are run. Children are reported as being at risk, social workers examine the case, they give advice and warnings to the parents, and leave the children in their care. All too frequently the parents do not improve; they remain alcoholics or drug addicts and their children die from abuse or neglect. In New South Wales in the years 2008-2009, 57 children died from abuse or neglect. Of these 30 were known to be at risk by Community Services, which had left them with their parents.

Everyone wants the child welfare system to be better. But no-one says that no risks should be taken. If the Family Law practice were followed in child protection, on the first report of abuse, children would be removed from their parents. One reason why children are not more readily removed is that the cost of maintaining them then falls on the government through payments to foster parents or the support of institutions which care for them. These considerations do not operate in Family Law cases. If the Court rules that a father can no longer see his children, he is still required by the Child Support Agency to make payments to support them.

The Family Court should not deny a parent access to a child unless they can be shown to be a danger to the child. The ‘unacceptable risk’ policy should be over-ruled and so free the Court from perpetrating gross injustices. Fathers are citizens who should not be deprived of their children without a case being proved against them. But even on the test of the best interests of the child, consider what damage the Court is doing to the children of the innocent fathers: they are deprived of a father and later they will find out that this was because of the falsehood of their mother.

The amendments made to the Family Law Act by the Howard government did not go as far as I am proposing here. They aimed to reduce the evil by providing that a parent knowingly making false accusations would have to bear the costs of the other party and a parent who made false accusations could be declared to be an ‘unfriendly parent’ in the matter of determining custody, where the aim is to keep both parents in a relationship with their children. Both these provisions are now to be removed because it is claimed they inhibit women from revealing violence.

The government’s rationale for the change about costs reads:

‘Vulnerable parents may choose to not raise legitimate safety concerns for themselves and their children due to a fear they will be subject to a costs order if they cannot substantiate the claims.’

So in this court allegations without evidence are to be encouraged!

Under the proposed amendments, the Court is also to abandon proceeding by evidence in determining whether family violence has occurred between the mother and father. If one party declares that the behaviour of the other caused them to be fearful, then violence has occurred.

The government’s Bill has been examined by a committee of the Senate. Its Coalition members have recommended that the changes discussed here be not made. But the Greens are happy with them so unless the government has a change of heart, they will pass into law.

Whatever the intent of its promoters, one sure effect of the Bill is that more false allegations will be made and with greater chance of success. More children will be needlessly deprived of contact with their fathers.