Domestic violence: She faced her ex in court. Then the police visits started | SMH

A few days after her violent ex-boyfriend faced court on domestic violence charges, Sally* was woken by three officers banging on her front door.

“I woke up to a police flashlight shining in my face,” Sally said. “They arrived with lights and sirens and wanted to check every room.”

There had been an anonymous tip to police about alleged criminal behaviour, and officers needed to search her entire house on Sydney’s northern beaches. They found nothing.

After Sally explained the history with her former partner and confirmed she wasn’t in need of support, police flagged her business and home so officers would call first to check on her.

Domestic Violence NSW senior policy and advocacy officer Angie Gehle said misusing police reports and welfare checks is a recognised form of system-based intimidation.

Gehle said survivors have told her about unannounced police visits during stressful periods or false child protection reports.

“It’s systems abuse, using the systems there to protect people against victim-survivors,” she said.

Perpetrators making false reports can be charged with stalking and intimidation, and repeated vexatious reports may constitute coercive control.

Source: Domestic violence: She faced her ex in court. Then the police visits started

WPATH Just Told a Court Its “Standards of Care” Are Only an Opinion | William A Ferguson

In a federal court over the summer, there was a significant event – a momentous event that as of yet, has been under the radar in many circles of the broader culture who don’t closely follow developments in gender medicine.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has essentially admitted that their acclaimed “Standards of Care, Version 8” (SOC-8) is not the definitive standard of care that it is conventionally treated as in its motion to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s lawsuit – co-sponsored by a group of states – dated July 28, 2022. In WPATH’s own words, they have merely been presenting SOC-8 as their free-speech opinion: a source to reference in a field which they now characterize as “medical and scientific uncertainty.”

Clinicians and systems who adhere to it – and treat it as the status quo – will “assume independent responsibility,” claims the filing.

It’s a big step back.

The plaintiffs’ bar can read directly from the official document.

Now hospitals that adopted the guidelines in whole; the insurers who accepted those standards for payment, and the medical boards all stand on equally shaky ground. The internal professional fear that kept dissenting doctors isolated now serves only to highlight the enormity of WPATH’s abdication of that risk. Those that follow the established – no, only now recognized by WPATH as debatable guidelines will be left holding the chart notes, the patient, the treatment history and a potentially ruinous legal battle.

Source: WPATH Just Told a Court Its “Standards of Care” Are Only an Opinion

AFL finds transgender football player allowed to play | 9 News Australia – YouTube

Another Trans Cult? 7-Year-Old Victim Was Groomed to Be Trans Before He Was Found Tortured to Death | Ngo Comment

A woman and two men who identify as trans have been charged in Cincinnati, Ohio in the brutal torture and murder of a young special-needs boy. A Ngo Comment investigation found that the group, which included at least three men who identify as trans, had groomed the child into trans ideology from a very young age and appeared to have plans to transition him before police found him unresponsive in a closet, bound with duct tape and showing signs of torture.

William Michael Evans-Ellis, 7, was recovered from an apartment in the Oakley neighborhood in Cincinnati on Aug. 6. He suffered injuries consistent with being choked and held underwater, beaten and burned. A detective testified in court that it was one of the most disturbing child abuse cases he had ever investigated.

The child was found with “a number of injuries that would indicate physical beatings, blunt force injuries,” he said.

Kaitlin Elizabeth Evans, 38, who is charged, is the child’s biological mother. The two other suspects are biological men who identify as women: “Kirby” Rankin (prior name: Nathan Rankin), 33, and “Nessa” Keaney (prior name: Adamhnán Judaydon Caoilte Lugh Keaney), 23. The three lived together as a polycule and “co-parented” the child to death.

They are charged with murder and child endangerment.

Liberal and legacy media have repeatedly reported that “three women” were charged. This follows a pattern of media outlets obscuring or omitting the trans identities of accused killers and convicted killers in an effort to protect transgenderism. The same pattern occurred in the news media coverage of the Zizian trans death cult.

Source: Another Trans Cult? 7-Year-Old Victim Was Groomed to Be Trans Before He Was Found Tortured to Death

Recent cases and reform on the use of defamation to silence victims – Law Society Journal

In 2022, Siobhan Lamb was bankrupted after reporting the concerning behaviour of her former partner, Sheldon Sherman, to police. After she ended their relationship, his excessive texts, threats to her university education and unsolicited contact with her family caused her distress. Ms Lamb did what she thought was right by reporting this conduct. She could not have been prepared for what unfolded. In Sherman v Lamb [2022] QDC 215, Sherman sued Lamb for defaming him with imputations contained in the police report and by disclosing the contents of that report to his ex-wife’s lawyers.

In the first instance, Sherman won. Jarro DCJ found Ms Lamb injured his reputation with no defences available. This bankrupted Ms Lamb, who was forced to pay not only the $10,000 in damages awarded, but also—as the losing party—Sherman’s enormous legal costs.

Lamb overturned the decision on appeal by way of a trustee in bankruptcy on a point of law related to qualified legal privilege. In Bill Karageozis as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Siobhan Lamb v Sherman [2023] QCA 258, the full Queensland Court of Appeal found the defence of qualified privilege in defamation law can attach to police reports even if the conduct reported does not amount to a crime (at [21]). It also found Lamb did not act with malice (at [34]).

While vindicated, Lamb is not a winner. She endured the trauma of protracted legal proceedings and bankruptcy, all because she was a woman who reported escalating coercive control behaviours of an ex-partner to police. Her ex-partner weaponised the law to try and silence her.

Solutions are needed to make it safe for women to report harm at work or at home. Urgent defamation reform is one solution, as is the creation of laws which look to ‘throw out’ abusive lawsuits known as ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’ (‘SLAPPs’). Anti-SLAPP laws recognise the law can be misused to shut down public participation, providing a tool for those trying to silence others. Everyone needs to feel safe when reporting harm, and the legal profession and our systems have a vital role in making that possible.

This problem exists all over the world. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women called the act of threatening survivors with
legal proceedings ‘a form of gender-based violence in and of itself’ in a
2018 report.

As Lamb’s case and research illustrate, communicating with just one person can constitute the publishing of defamatory material. The reality is that accusing a person of sexual harassment or violence will inherently meet the threshold of harming a person’s reputation, because that person may be perceived as a perpetrator of harm.

Should a victim-survivor refuse to apologise and withdraw their imputations they must rely on a defamation defence. If they rely on the truth defence, their case may come down to credibility and evidence. An obvious issue is that sexual harassment or abuse often occurs without witnesses, so many victim-survivors’ claims cannot be corroborated.

The defence of qualified privilege is most relevant to reports of misconduct to human resources or an employer. As was shown in Lamb’s case, this defence is made out if a defendant can prove they had a legal, social or moral duty to communicate the information and the recipient had a reciprocal interest in receiving the information. However, as with Lamb, it is not straightforward and, importantly, relies on a full trial to be successful. Further, this defence can be defeated if a court determines the defendant acted with malice.

On 22 September 2023, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General approved the Part B amendments of the model defamation laws, to extend absolute privilege to police reports, reasoning that ‘feedback from stakeholders suggests the defence of qualified privilege does not provide a sufficient safeguard against this deterrent effect’. But they stopped short of extending that to all circumstances where a person may report, curtailing the potential benefit for victim-survivors.

Magar v Khan [2025] FCA 874 (‘Magar v Khan’), the landmark sexual harassment case run by Redfern Legal Centre with Dilan Mahendra as counsel, contained a defamation concerns notice. Biplavi Jarga Magar, a migrant worker, was sexual harassed while working at a Mad Mex chain restaurant. When she reported the conduct, she was met with a concerns notice from Sher Khan alleging she had defamed him. Instead of backing down, Magar, with her legal team, sought to classify this concerns notice as ‘victimisation’ (at [62]).

Pursuant to section 47A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (‘SDA’), it is unlawful for a person to cause detriment to another because they have made a sexual harassment complaint. Magar v Khan tested these provisions and the Court confirmed a concerns notice sent in response to Magar’s sexual harassment complaint constituted acts done in contravention of the victimisation provisions of the SDA (at [158]). Not only did this case see a groundbreaking $305,000 in damages, but it also set a precedent, encouraging alleged perpetrators and their lawyers to consider how they use legal processes when responding to sexual harassment victim-survivors.

The Human Rights Law Centre, in its 2024 report, Stop the SLAPP, defines a SLAPP as an exploitative use of the law ‘not to resolve genuine legal disputes but rather to silence or discourage participation, advocacy or activism. These strategies create financial and emotional strain on those they target’ (at 4).

Defamation reform in Australia would assist to counter the use of abusive defamation claims. The reluctance of decision-makers to extend absolute privilege to all recipients receiving reports of sexual misconduct sits uncomfortably against the broader epidemic of gendered violence, which our systems are failing to address. However, there is opportunity for reform.

The misuse of law to silence women is not inevitable.

Source: Recent cases and reform on the use of defamation to silence victims – Law Society Journal

Pauline Hanson was once dubbed ‘queen of the men’s rights movement’. Her 30-year career shows why | The Conversation

Over recent weeks, Pauline Hanson made headlines for her comments on domestic violence. She declared domestic violence is “a two-way street”.

Media outlets then unearthed a 2025 podcast episode in which Hanson called paid domestic and family violence leave a “holiday”, and alleged domestic violence diverts police attention away from “real crime”.

While Hanson says her comments were taken out of context, her stance on domestic violence is not new.

In fact, as I chart in a forthcoming piece in Australian Historical Studies, her identification with male grievance has been core to her politics since day one. She’s been dubbed “queen of the Australian men’s rights movement”.

Yet this aspect has been largely overlooked by journalists and scholars alike, overshadowed by her attitudes toward racial diversity and immigration.

Defender of men’s rights

In 1996, Hanson told a journalist:

I think the most downtrodden person in this country is the white Anglo-Saxon male.

In 2023, she said in parliament:

[…] but, no doubt, I will be the only woman today speaking for the most oppressed and neglected minority in Australia: men.

As evidenced by these two quotes, almost 30 years apart, Hanson has consistently cast herself as an unwavering champion of men’s rights.

Though the manosphere has been trending in recent years, it’s just the latest manifestation of the men’s rights movement, which took off in the 1960s.

A subset of this movement is the fathers’ rights movement. Its followers believe the push for women’s rights has gone “too far”, that the Family Court is under feminist rule, and that the “feminist domestic violence industry” weaponises family law against men.

At the core of both movements is a simultaneous belief in male supremacy and male victimhood, with women as the primary villain in both cases.

Hanson championed the men’s rights agenda long before the rise of the manosphere. Hanson 1.0 (1996-98) and Hanson 2.0 (2016–) alike adopted many of the movement’s demands as core policy. This was most evident in attacks on family law for its supposed anti-male bias, a victim-blaming rhetoric of domestic violence and general anti-feminist sentiments.

Hanson vs the Family Court

Since the 1990s, Hanson has been an ardent believer in the myth that men are victimised by the Family Court system.

In her 1996 maiden speech, she attacked both the Family Law Act and child support scheme for being biased against “non-custodial” (male) parents, arguing the former “brought death, misery and heartache to countless of Australians” while the latter “has become unworkable, very unfair and one sided. Custodial parents can often profit handsomely at the expense of a parent paying child support”.

After successful lobbying by men’s rights groups, in 2019 Hanson moved for a parliamentary inquiry into the family law system and was appointed as its deputy chair.

Throughout the inquiry, Hanson endorsed evidence from the men’s rights groups invited to give testimony, while disparaging bodies representing single mothers and women’s legal services.

Hanson vs domestic violence

Hanson has long advanced men’s rights movement myths about domestic violence.

Demonstrating the increasing radicalisation of Hanson 2.0, in her 2016 maiden speech she warned the murder of women by their former partners out of “sheer frustration” would increase unless men are treated with more respect in “this unworkable system”.

Hanson vs feminism

Lastly, Hanson has been staunchly anti-feminist since her early days in parliament, appealing to men who feel directly threatened by feminism.

In a 2019 parliamentary speech, she stated she had had a “gutful of hearing from man-hating feminists […] I’m sick and tired of this constant criticism of men in Australia, especially if they’re white”.

Source: Pauline Hanson was once dubbed ‘queen of the men’s rights movement’. Her 30-year career shows why

Exclusive: Tony Abbott’s ICAC comments a ‘warning’ to News Corp | The Saturday Paper

An expanding group of Liberals say the position of federal Liberal president Tony Abbott is “untenable” as a New South Wales corruption inquiry probes allegations of a $2 million far right-wing Christian conspiracy to take over the party.

The former prime minister stunned Liberal colleagues this week by using an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald to diminish the ongoing work of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and justify the dealings of the Opus Dei-associated Reformers sub-faction that the ICAC is investigating as part of Operation Rosny.

The source said Abbott was attempting to undermine the ICAC, but he was also signalling a warning to the Murdoch press not to cover the investigation with too much prominence.

“He’s signalling to right-wing media like The [Daily] Telegraph and The Australian and others to not report on it – and they’re reporting very little on it – by saying that he’s not going to validate it,” the moderate MP says

The first weeks of the Rosny hearings – including intercepted phone calls, messages, emails, metadata and rat emojis – have exposed the internecine war within the Liberals and drawn in senior figures such as Angus Taylor, Abbott, the late former Liberal figure Teena McQueen and Tudehope.

There are allegations of a promised $2 million in illegal, concealed political donations from fugitive property developer Jean Nassif, and the painting of key Reformers Jean-Claude Perrottet, Robert Assaf and Christian Ellis as obsessively believing they were doing God’s work to shift the party to a conservative Christian stance.

The Reformers had a four-year target to bring in 5000 new Christian conservative Liberal members and take over control of the Liberal state executive. At the same time, they allegedly attempted to oust the centre-right powerbroker Alex Hawke in the seat of Mitchell and moderate Julian Leeser in Berowra.

In an interview with The Australian last month Abbott called the ICAC an “activist agency”, and in this week’s interview he appeared to question the commission’s judgement and take a side on the issue of corruption.

The inquiry heard about the make-up and influence of a shadowy hard-right leadership forum known as RELM, or Right Elected Leadership Meeting.

Source: Exclusive: Tony Abbott’s ICAC comments a ‘warning’ to News Corp | The Saturday Paper

What 7.30 didn’t tell us about puberty blockers – Women’s Cooee

Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council is due to present an interim report shortly as it works its way – at a glacial pace – towards the creation of national clinical guidelines for trans and gender-diverse youth. Enough of an excuse for the ABC’s 7.30 current affairs program to give us a 15-minute plug for puberty blockers on 28 July. Stephanie Dalzell opened her piece with quotes from Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson (what self-respecting ABC viewer would ever agree with anything they said?) and used the term ‘sex assigned at birth’ in her opening salvo. (Sex is observed at birth, Stephanie. Pu-lease!)

The segment did include the opinions of a couple of medical opponents: Dylan Wilson, a paediatrician but not a psychiatrist; and Philip Morris, a psychiatrist but not a child psychiatrist – a fact the segment went to some pains to point out. As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Jillian Spencer would’ve been perfect for the program. But no. 

While we’re at it, we should also mention that in the segment the ABC once more trotted out Associate Professor Ada Cheung, and once more failed to tell us she’s a self-described ‘unwavering ally’ of the trans community. Instead she’s described as just an ‘endocrinologist’.

We also note there wasn’t a hint anywhere of the existence of a feminist critique of gender identitarianism in general. The segment didn’t take on the evidence of children being diagnosed and treated as having been ‘born in the wrong body’ when they do not conform to traditional sex-role stereotypes, or of young people who are same-sex attracted being identified as suffering from gender dysphoria. 

Source: What 7.30 didn’t tell us about puberty blockers – Women’s Cooee

Minns government rejects expansion of hate speech laws after review recommendations made public – ABC News

The Minns government has rejected key advice from a review it commissioned, which recommends hate speech laws be extended to protect more members of the community.

As a result, inciting hatred against people based on sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, religion and other characteristics will not be made illegal under the Crimes Act.

Inciting hatred based on race will remain a criminal offence.For months, the government refused to release the review by former Supreme Court judge John Sackar KC, which was completed in November last year.

The government clashed with upper house MPs who were seeking to force the document’s release, resulting in the parliamentary suspension of Labor frontbencher John Graham.

“The NSW government has decided not to expand the existing criminal offence of inciting racial hatred to apply to additional protected attributes,” Attorney-General Michael Daley said.

“The government’s view is that expanding the racial hatred offence to cover other attributes raises complex questions about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the consistent application of the criminal law across the community.”

[Ed: Some good news. Minns should be less coy about a sensible decision.]

Source: Minns government rejects expansion of hate speech laws after review recommendations made public – ABC News

Does the force fear feminists? | Unherd | Julie Bindel

In February, Detective Constable Rachel Fletcher helped secure the conviction of the predatory pedophile Ross Jackson, who was jailed for 23 years for a catalog of child sexual abuse offenses. What no one outside court that day knew was that Fletcher had already been removed from public-facing duties as she was herself under investigation for gross misconduct. Northumbria police had nevertheless asked her to return to the case — “through gritted teeth”, in her telling — because without her the prosecution risked collapsing.

Six months later, she was sacked. “I’m now on the barred list alongside Wayne Couzens and multiple rapist David Carrick,” she tells me.

Her crimes, though, were of a rather different order: remarks deemed sexist and transphobic. Colleagues alleged that she repeatedly referred to men in derogatory terms, regularly stating “I hate men”, “fucking men”, and on one occasion, “all rapists are men”. She also faced complaints for comments about transgender people. The allegations were upheld, and the career of a detective who spent 24 years investigating violence against women and children was summarily terminated.

Source: Does the force fear feminists?