Julia Gillard and Domestic Violence: When The Abuser Cries Wolf

julia-gillard-what-australians-think-of-herLast month in the Townsville Bulletin, Betty McLellan wrote a piece likening some of the unpleasant public discourse around Julia Gillard to domestic violence, an analogy that may also have some merit in examining the PM’s own actions and words.

Gillard’s dominance and control was evident in her orchestrating the unprecedented ousting of a first term elected prime minister, executed in a clinically cold manner following repeated denial of intent.

Subsequently acknowledging Labor’s failings as “losing their way” she then coerced and proffered false promises just as a serial abuser does to entice the electorate to accept her back.

In the parliament Gillard regularly practices verbal abuse and uses repeated derogatory taunts directed at the opposition.  This behavior is of course reciprocal and practiced on both sides of the house, just as there is gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence.

No one would believe that only LNP or only Labor politicians, behave badly in parliament or in general, nor should we believe that only men perpetrate intimate partner violence, when there are more than 200 well-designed peer reviewed studies confirming gender symmetry.[1]

Gillard’s forte however is the counterpart to financial abuse in the home sphere. Promising no carbon tax but instituting a carbon tax, reckless wasteful spending, record debt and deficits, yet still increasing the countries “credit card limit.” Financial mismanagement that sees many Australians struggle to meet their basic needs.

Gillard’s association with the misuse of public funds predates her election to parliament, dating back to the scandal of the early 1990’s when she set up banks accounts for her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson, an Australian Workers Union state secretary accused of ripping off union money.[2] More recently she has shielded Craig Thompson from proper scrutiny for his alleged offences, even more bewildering because of the association with prostitution, something an EMILY’s List feminist PM by definition should contest.

Yet Julia remains in denial about her abuse of the electorate, embarrassingly self-promoting on the world stage at the G20 whilst arrogantly demeaning other countries.

Unfortunately this is where the analogy ends, in the domestic sphere being fearful of her behavior and its impact on our “Australian family” we could take out a restraining order, force her to desist and have the relationship adjudicated in court.  This would happen purely on the basis of our alleged fears whether or not such fears held any merit. The 70% of Australians who don’t want her as PM however have no choice but to remain in the bad relationship, whilst she continues her destructive course.

Greg Canning




If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

Other Related Articles:

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.


  • Wes says:

    Sounds like a clear case of Battered Voter Syndrome, complete with Post-Election Stress Syndrome…too bad the nightmares are when we’re *not* awake. Kind of makes you want to go to sleep and be awoken by car crashes and hockey-masked serial killers.


  • Howard Beale says:

    Gillard’s False Allegations

    Strike while the irony’s hot. Recall PM Gillard’s [Finkelstein] response to “false” allegations about her involvement with former boyfriend Bruce Wilson and the siphoning off of $500K of union funds into false bank accounts set up by her.

    Herald Sun 30 August 2011

    Gillard: “So the only question here really is how is it that a false allegation about the Prime Minister is published in The Australian newspaper without anyone from The Australian contacting me or my office for a comment?

    “And it does raise in me the question: I’m the Prime Minister of the country, I can get up on Monday morning and get the mobile numbers for people like the editor of The Australian newspaper and make a call to get something like that clarified.

    “I do really wonder what happens to an Australian, perhaps someone who lives in the Illawarra or one of the suburbs of our great cities who for whatever reason is caught up in a news story and has a false allegation made about them and no one’s bothered to contact them about it either.

    “How do they actually get it fixed given they’re not in the same position as me to make calls to the editor of The Australian newspaper?”

    The story was killed and the journalists sacked.


    What has not been reported is that three months later Gillard repealed the protections against knowingly false allegations in her unilateral family law (family violence & other measures) Bill.

    In addition this redefines family violence so widely that everyone must be presumed guilty which underhandedly sabotages any possibility of court ordered shared parenting of children after separation.

    By eviscerating the 1000 year old fundamental principles of Western jurisprudence, namely, the presumption of innocence and protection from perjury parents now face family court ordeals of truly Orwellian proportions:

    Their children can be taken away simply by accusation without necessarily any show of wrongdoing, and they can be suddenly told they can be arrested for trying to see their own children without government authorization.

    Many will be forcibly removed from their own homes, which can then be confiscated and sold, again without any legal infraction. For this purpose the formerly repealed main tactical weapon for sole custody, the interim protection order, has been reintroduced back into the family law Act without explanation. Protection orders are the cashcow of the judiciary accounting for 30-50% of civil litigation profit.

    The “Other Measures” passed without scrutiny ensure fathers face a panoply of other expropriations, including the attachment of their earnings for years to come with crushing child support burdens that reduce them to penury and even homelessness.

    These debts cannot be altered other than by a Federal Court order and cannot be discharged by bankruptcy – if one cannot pay child support how do they afford the retainer for a lawyer?. Parents will nevertheless be forced to pay fees of attorneys, court psychotherapists, and others whom they have not hired and whose services they do not want under threat of contempt of court.

    These law-abiding citizens will suddenly face indefinite prison sentences, without trial, if they cannot pay these government-imposed “debts” and “obligations” they did nothing to incur.

    To be clear, these family violence amendments have nothing to do with protecting child, in fact, they manufacture by definition and incentive the family violence they purport to redress.

    There was no independent evidence presented that shared parenting increased family violence or failed to adequately protect children. In fact the evidence was to the direct opposite. The proposition that children were at risk because mothers were afraid to make (false) allegations of family violence is fantastical; a disgraceful concoction by the lawyers union to keep their multi-billion dollar divorce-DV gravy train alive and well. Shared parenting reform had reduced litigated divorce (profit) by 22%.

    What evidence is there that the amendments will reduce family violence?

    There is none. It is a guess. Another Malaysia un-solution or carbon tax ruse to change the weather. We know from the same laws in effect in the US for 20 years that family violence & in particular child abuse will increase dramatically at a cost to taxpayers of $112BN/yr.

    However, that is their real purpose, to create a self-perpetuating problem for the left to channel billions of taxpayer dollars to their voters – lawyers, radical feminists, gender academics, DV advocates, the female dominated professions of social workers, child protection & child support workers, counsellors, psychologists, childcare, – to try to solve while crying “family violence” wolf for more funding. The problem is that mass fatherlessness is not the solution but the problem.

    Children from fatherless homes;
    80% of rapists motivated by “displaced anger” (Knight & Prentky, 1987).
    63% of youth suicides (Brent, et al, 1995).
    72% adolescent murders (Davidson, 1990).
    70-85% of youths in state prisons (Wells & Rankin, 1991).

    Much more likely to exhibit violent, aggressive, and criminal behavior (Vaden-Kierman, et al, 1995).

    Have higher rates of mental illness, violence and alcohol and drug use (Berman 1995; Duncan, et al, 1994)

    and engage in greater and even earlier sexual activity (Metzler, et al, 1994).

    Girls from fatherless homes are:
    Over twice as likely to give birth as a teenager (Breivik & Olweus, 2006).
    164% more likely to give birth before marriage (Aquilino, 2010).
    92% more likely to end their own marriage (Aquilino, 2010).

    Children from fatherless homes represent over 70% of high school dropouts

    In short these fatherless children, in addition to being 33 times more likely to be abused themselves and 300 times more likely to die from abuse, drop out, become drug addicted, suicide, criminalised, involved in gangs, suffer mental illness, teen pregnancy, which in turn creates a self-perpetuating generational cycle of violence and child.

    Family violence will continue to increase until we learn to stop listening to those hysterics paid by the government to cry “family violence” wolf.


    Howard Beale Reply:

    Larry Pickering resurrected the the Gillard/Wilson story on Facebook. The Gillard Left has already had it removed and Larry banned for three days with threat of permanent ban.

    Have a look at the untold story with further developments before it disappears. The Ashby/Slipper case – consequent of another Gillard feminist “sexual harassment” law fiasco – will likely be used to justify a crackdown on “subversive” sites.

    “We rely on the media for our information. When information is suppressed by media itself (Fairfax and News Ltd) to protect their own interests it is not merely a serious matter, it tears at the very fabric of our democracy.

    In this instance, Julia Gillard was able to visit the offices of News Ltd (highly unusual in its self) and suppress certain information damaging to her. Media were demonstrably co-operative and complicit in that suppression.

    There is profound paranoia surrounding this story. This suppression is an indictment on the very media we could once trust to deliver us truth.

    Since the Gillard/Wilson article was resurrected on this page, Senators Brandis and Joyce have demanded answers in the Senate. More importantly sacked Attorney General, Bob McClelland, is stirring the murky pot in the Lower House.”



Leave Comment


Subscribe to Fathers4Equality Email for Updates