Daniel Andrews wants a Feminist funding frenzy

Because, once every so often, a genuine crisis erupts, in the most powerful way imaginable.

These are the words of Daniel Andrews, Victorian Leader of the Opposition. You know you’re being snowed when it’s a “genuine” crisis, because a real crisis, that is an actual crisis, doesn’t need any other word in front of it. A crisis is a real, genuine, fair dinkum crisis. Otherwise, it’s a moral panic.

What crisis has erupted? What was not a crisis last week, or last month, or last year, but has now come so suddenly to the fore that Danny boy feels compelled to use the hit the panic alarm as it “erupts?”

No, we’re not talking about Jihadists coming back from Syria and Iraq. We are not discussing Flight MH17 or the ongoing civil war in the Ukraine. We are not in bushfire season, and no one in Melbourne has been diagnosed with the Ebola virus. What could be happening “in the most powerful way imaginable?”

Why its domestic violence, of course. And not just any old domestic violence, but Domestic Violence Using Feminist Approved Definitions, Terms and Statistics.

The absurdity of Andrews is just too much. Are we seriously to believe that, just recently, there has been a dramatic upswing in domestic violence? That men who were nice to their wives yesterday have suddenly started using their fists today?

And of course, we are not discussing women being violent to either their partners or their children – no matter how many children they kill. No, just nasty, smelly, good-for-nothing men.

Daniel Andrews’ pledge to have a Royal Commission into Domestic Violence was made at the Labor Conference last year. Presumably, this distraction was called for because the CFMEU scandals, and Labor poor results federally, have caused a panic about Andrews’ own political future.

Whether or not there actually would be a Royal Commission, the rhetoric would go down well with the Feminist factions within the Labor party as well as the media, and Andrews needs all the friends he can get.

Family violence is the leading contributor to death, injury and disability among Australian women under the age of 45. Just think about that. This is systemic.

If you want to, you can check out the link below to Bev Armitage’s fine article on these domestic violence woozles. The key phrase is leading contributor, with the other candidates apparently being obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and illicit drug use. How much of a contribution? Apparently Domestic Violence contributes a massive 9%. Which means it is the biggest little fish in the pond.

The actual, real and genuine leading causes of death and illness for this age group are:

  1. Anxiety & Depression
  2. Migraine
  3. Type 2 diabetes
  4. Asthma
  5. Schizophrenia

Also, consider this to get a better flavour of the erupting crisis in a powerful way. The other false statistic often quoted by Feminists is that domestic violence claims the life of one woman a week in Australia. Sometimes that gets pushed out to every week and a half, but lets leave it as high as 52 a year for the purposes of this discussion.

In 2010, 862 females were killed by accidental falls in Australia, and 253 females were killed by accidental poisonings. Neither of these, incidentally, makes the top ten of all causes of death for women.

Now, I know that Feminist morons will now take the stance that one is one too many, and I’m not saying Domestic Violence is something to be taken lightly, but for females, falling over is 1,600% more deadly.

Aha! You might say, but accidental falls happen mostly to older women and Andrews is talking about women under 45. The average age for those killed by accidental poisonings was 45.4. But further, consider this: of the 545 women who committed suicide in 2010, 280 were in the under 45 category.

In other words, women are far more at risk from accidents or themselves than they are from any man by a long, long way.

No matter how you cut it, the talk of an erupting crisis that is a “national emergency” is clearly Andrews creating a moral panic while he gets on his trusty steed to save the damsels. It is pure propaganda.

The other tack favoured by Feminists is to claim that these figures cover only the domestic violence that we know about. Andrews played this card too at the Labor conference.

And all of you in this room know a victim and you know them well.

But you might not know who.

Why doesn’t the Labor leader call on all the women in the party room to come forward, there and then, and out their abusive partners? Why doesn’t he call on the male Labor faithful to come forward and repent? If it’s the big emergency he says it is, why are those attending the Labor conference somehow immune?

Instead Andrews pretends to offer a fresh look at the problem.

If our solution to this crisis is simply more of the same policies, then we will just see more of the same tragedies.

It is not true to say that the policies themselves have caused the tragedies he refers to. However, to claim that the policies have been ineffective depends on what you think the policies are for. They are certainly ineffective at reducing violence. However, the next set of measures that come from the proposed Royal Commission will be just as ineffective in that regard too. But that’s not really what they are designed for.

What they have been incredibly effective at is increasing the revenue of all kinds of government departments and so called not-for-profit organisations. Not just the refuges, but organisations like the White Ribbon Campaign which collects all kinds of government funding for “education programs” as well as their “awareness campaigns.” And the Department of Human Services is bigger than most multi-national companies.

The multi-billion dollar divorce industry is similarly boosted with the introduction of the “family violence” fault into the “no-fault” divorce. More mothers can and do use the expanded definitions of violence every year to get revenge on he-who-did-not-live-up-to-expectations.

Yes, we will see more of the same policies. In fact, despite his rhetoric, that is exactly what Andrews is proposing. The only real change the Royal Commission might bring is to increase the reliance on extreme Feminist ideology to bring about “solutions.” How extreme?

We have to admit the system isn’t working. We have to commit ourselves to its complete upheaval. Another dollar here or there won’t do. We have to change it all.

All? How does Andrews propose to change it all?

A royal commission will give us the answers we don’t have. It will hear from survivors, experts and support groups.

Any guesses as to why we’ve got the current “system?” For centuries, it has been a crime to assault people – even if that “people” happens to be a man’s wife. In recent times, however, the current regime has been fashioned by our legal and political elites following guidance by those very “experts” and “support groups.”

Whenever anyone has dared question the wisdom of the wise, of course, “survivors” are paraded in the media to show how heartless the doubters are.

And the Royal Commission won’t just be hearing from them. According to the Labor party strategists Hawker Britton:

The Panel will be headed by an eminent Australian judge with experience in family law, with a panel of survivors and support providers to advise the Commission.

Same as it ever was.

Of course, the point is that the “system” should never actually “fix” the “national emergency.” No, it should remain a “genuine crisis” so that Feminist agencies such as the White Ribbon Campaign can get more funding, legal elites can have more Royal Commissions and the like, and politicians like Andrews can grandstand.

What Andrews’ Royal Commission will produce, if he gets his way, will be more recommendations for more funding for more organisations, more social workers and more legal conferences to draft up more laws. In that sense, the next Feminist Funding Frenzy will be larger than all that has gone before.

What we should be afraid of, however, is that this moral panic will lead to even more erosion of men’s legal rights as politicians like Andrews paint them as the eternal villain of this drama. It is likely that there will be a push to relax rules of evidence while pushing the onus of proof onto the accused.

On the face of it, this will be done to “punish the guilty” as Andrews foreshadows. However, the real effect will be to drive up the statistics so that the panic merchants can demand a even greater Feminist Funding Frenzy on the next round.










Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: