Australian National Research Organisation for Women [ANROWS] and Interference in Courts of Law.

The Australian National Research Organisation for Women [ANROWS] (political Organisation) was funded by all jurisdictions in Australia and created as a Public Non Disclosing Corporate entity. The Corporate Entity driven by the Board of Directors, were afforded and exclusive and national platform to inform the nation, it just so happened that the Commonwealth had pledged to the UN to address Violence Against Women, of its own right an extremely Noble cause.  | family violence "research" propaganda

This meant that all Family Violence related "research" and publications were disseminated absent an opposing view or argument that could have provided some balance to the information and provide opportunity for public debate unrestrained. There should be alarm when one side of an argument are supported to the exclusion of the opposing side. 

It becomes interesting when considering independence of the State. ANROWS was created by the State, Directors selected by the State, it just so happened the State policy aligned with ANROWS purpose. One side of the argument was not explored and investigated, Female perpetrators of Family Violence and Male Victims. Not in Royal Commission nor anywhere else or so limited, it was overwhelmed by the volume submitted by ANROWS. 

"""" • Police practice is guided by a focus on single incidents of visible or physical violence. This focus does not always support the appropriate application of DFV legislation, where violence would be considered in context in order to assess the need for protection from future harm.   ------->(image) ANROWS - Accurately identifying the person most in need of protection """"

It MUST BE POINTED OUT that ANROWS publication are NOT BOUND by Peer Reviewed Research Journal standards and are not restricted to what claims they may make about their "research". When one considers the hierarchy of evidence in Evidence Based research it significantly weakens the conclusions made could be overstated, exaggerated, manipulated or be misleading to the average person. 

Research to Standard provide the reader with the information so they may make their own conclusions from the information they read. However ANROWS tells people what to believe by statements like, "Family Violence is Gendered" (opening line).

"""Key findings

Women are being misidentified as perpetrators of DFV and named as respondents on protection orders. While national comparisons are difficult to draw due to differences and inconsistencies in recording data, it is apparent that in most jurisdictions a significant minority (between one fifth and one quarter) of respondents on protection orders are female. Given what is known about the gendered nature of DFV and women’s use of violence, this proportion of female respondents suggests a likelihood of victims/survivors being misidentified as perpetrators of DFV.""" - this is a good example of propaganda defined below

"""2016 Dec 05 Dr Gregory White Independent Psychiatrist

The relationship with his ex-wife has contributed in a

significant and substantial way to his psychiatric

psychological and emotional state since early 2012, and has

continued to do so during 2015 and this year (2016).

On the one hand, despite the claimant's past and more recent adversity,

traumata and psychosocial stressors, he partly (but not completely and not

largely) overcame them by working bard, applying himself with his studies, and

taking his occupation as a paramedic - to his credit - very seriously."""

What becomes Disturbing is the Consitutional Concept of the SEPERATION OF POWERS. A Truly Independent Judiciary that is not influenced by the State, and holds the State accountable to the Constitution of Australia. 

ANROWS: "The views of Australian Judicial Officers on Domestic Family Violence perpetrator interventions" appears to conflate the Seperation of Powers Principle, particularly by a political organisation with a tendancy to dictate to the reader rather than inform and the disturbing fact is the Judiciary and legal profession does not appear to see anything amiss, with excluding the possibility of male victims where the caveats of "some men are victims but the majority are perpetrators" simply negate these caveats as a throw away comment attempting to consider the other side. 

"Ultimately, this (gendered violence) is not a highly relevant argument as no one should be subjected to violence, especially within an intimate relationship and no child should grow up watching one parent batter another. Even one domestic violence victim is one too many, regardless of the genders involved (Kelly, 2002)… Victims of IPV committed by women may be burned (Duminy & Hudson, 1993; Krob, Johnson, & Jordan, 1986), have their genitals attacked (Balakrishnan, Imel, Bandy, & Prasad, 1995), or suffer broken bones and teeth (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992). Women often use weapons against their victims as a way of minimizing the size/strength differences with male victims (McLeod, 1984) and are more likely to throw objects and threaten a partner with a weapon (McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006)."

The fact is the public is now armed with this "misinformation", the language and tone, dictated messaging in ANROWS publications incites people to hate and be pre-armed with the bias dictated to them by the State via ANROWS with the co-operation of the Judiciary who participated in the ANROWS misinformation publications. The information in this website shows what the State, ANROWS and part of the Judiciary have accomplished... | excluding the alternate argument

 -----IN ALL INSTANCES OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, THE MALE IS GUILTY UNTIL IT CAN BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT HE IS NOT GUILTY----- 

The information shows how, the public in their occupations join the call to abandon due process because the messaging tells them that it is fact and portrays the notion that all men are potential "wife beaters". The matter of Borg v R is an example of what the State has achieved. 

--- USING EMOTION TO DISARM CRITICAL EVALUATION OF INFORMATION CAMOFLAGED UNDER THE VEIL OF A  NOBLE CAUSE, WHILE THROUGH MISDIRECTION ARE ACTUALLY WIDENING THE GRASP OF THEIR SUBVERSION OF THE LAST IMPEDIMENT TO THEIR GOALS, THE CONSTITUTION, AND ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY OF STATE. THE RISE OF NAZI GERMANY HAS SIMILARITIES UTILISING THE MISDIRECTION FOR THE EMOTIVE HATE (JEWISH COMMUNITY), DISTRACTING THE PEOPLE TO UNLEASH HATE ON THE TARGET MINORTY, WHILE THEY OVERTHROW THE JUDICICARY AND TAKE CONTROL OF THE NATION. ---- 

The psychological phenomenon that will naturally reject this website is called "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE" and is described in Nils Melzer's UN Report on Psychological Torture. Myself and my family have witnessed the arbitrary biased driven assumptions and disregard for due process and a fair hearing in not only family law but criminal and civil.  

--- NO ONE HAS ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR HARMING ANOTHER UNLESS IN SELF DEFENCE ---THIS INCLUDES DIRECT MORE OBSERVABLE FORMS OF HARM AND INDIRECT WHICH IS MORE SINISTER AND CALCULATED BECAUSE THE PERPETRATOR IS STRATEGIC IN ITS DESIGN --- 

12. [ see Exhibit [RF0A1L] VOCAT Hearing before Tregent J. at highlighted ]

[458] 00;05;07;04 - 00;07;25;05

Hon. Tregent, J.

Okay. Now, what I'm going to do Mr Ferrara is I'm going to explain my decision. I terms of

whether I found that there is an act of violence has been perpetrated, in, you by your former

wife. Appreciate that, umm, the difficulty always the tribunal, the Victims of Crime Tribunal,

the aim is to try to assist people who have been victims of crime. Obviously, our job is a lot

easier if there's been a finding of fact or place of guilty, by in another location in the

magistrate's court or the county court or somewhere else.

[460] I don't have anybody else to cross-examine you. I don't have. So I had to be everything

I had to take the evidence in chief from you. You did a good job of doing that yourself

anyway, but then I had to challenge the evidence to some extent just to see whether I

accepted your version of events. And I can indicate, having heard your account of what took

place, you demonstrated it as well. And given the fact that you did receive a deep injury to

your lower lip, because it was penetrating through the surface, I accept your account that

you were otherwise assaulted in the manner that you say by, ah, Ms, ah,*****

[464] 00;08;20;04 - 00;09;59;20

Hon. Tregent, J.

No, and and they've [police] got the difficulty too that they have to, they have to know that the

burden that they have to establish is beyond reasonable doubt. So that's where it becomes

more difficult for the police. And that's why a lot of prosecutions don't proceed. People, as I

say, may never be charged, they might be charged and the the withdrawn, prior to them

getting anywhere. And look, I appreciate the talk and you you're very honest in terms of

taking responsibility for your offenses which occurred. And this is obviously a very

bad time in your life, as I've noted from both, that other extra information you

provided to me.

Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda. [Females as perpetrators]

Comparatively deliberate selectivity and manipulation also distinguish propaganda from education. Educators try to present various sides of an issue—the grounds for doubting as well as the grounds for believing the statements they make, and the disadvantages as well as the advantages of every conceivable course of action.

[1] Aggression is defined as intra-species behaviour carried out with the intent to cause pain or harm (Tremblay, Hartup, & Archer, 2005). This definition covers the forms of aggression identified as aggression between nations or states, adopted by the Unite Nations General Assembly in 1974, but it also applies to the interpersonal violence that affects our everyday lives. The behaviour can be physical, mental or verbal, and should not be confused with assertiveness or anger. Aggression can also be classified as hostile (usually regarded as having an emotional or retaliatory context) or instrumental (predatory or goal oriented)...

[2] It is accepted that men are more likely to express their aggression in ways that are physically violent, and that women will behave in indirect ways, being less capable of exerting the same physical force. This somewhat simplistic viewpoint is reflected in every major theoretical perspective on aggression; comparative, evolutionary, biological, psychological and social models all reiterate that men/males are the aggressors. Women are viewed as only using aggression in passive, submissive or emotional ways... 

[3] In 2005, Richardson reviewed thirty years of research on gender differences in aggressive behaviour. She found that the assumption that females were not aggressive could not be supported, as studies did, in effect, demonstrate the opposite. Women in laboratory studies did respond to provocation and could not be described as passive. The conclusion is that the major point of difference is not in the form of aggression, but the relationship between aggressors, or aggressor and victim....

[38] Archer and Coyne (2005) define indirect aggression as an alternative strategy to direct aggression. Like overt or physical aggression, the aim of indirect aggression is to harm the victim, often by damaging the victim’s social status or self-esteem. Different terms have been used to describe indirect aggression, including relational aggression or social aggression. As

Archer and Coyne have shown, these terms all describe the same essential behaviours by the perpetrators. 

Indirect aggression can include reputation destroying gossip, threats, insults, ostracizing or excluding behaviour, and breaking of confidences. Most forms of indirect aggression are devious; they allow the perpetrator to deny any harmful intent and to claim that the victim misunderstood. 

In this way, indirect aggression is safer for the perpetrator than direct physical aggression, which cannot as easily be disavowed.

[167] Domestic violence has traditionally seen the woman as victim, not perpetrator, but increasingly the evidence suggests women are just as likely to be the abusive partner in a relationship, whether physically, psychologically or emotionally. The broadening definition of domestic violence (Walker & Gavin, 2011) means that there are opportunities to look at abuse within relationships that do not follow the pattern of male aggressor and female victim. Inclusive terms provide better opportunities for research and practice to counteract bias and not to ignore hitherto hidden populations of victims, including those victimized at female hands. Chapter 5 examines these positions and attempts to suggest ways in which policy can be education- and research-driven.