I remember a 1986 campaign by the Office of the Status of Women that one in three women would have experience of domestic violence based on a US study "Behind Closed Doors" by Straus Gelles and (Gloria) Steinmetz. What the campaign ignored was that that study found half of this experience was as a perpetrator not victim. Likewise when Pru Goward headed up OSW she ridiculed a claim that DV took up more of police time than all other activities combined. What she did not realise was that claim came from her own organisation the previous year. It had misinterpreted what police call a domestic (visit to domestic premises including neighbourhood disputes over tree dogs and parking) and equated it with domestic violence. Have to be careful with figures from official sources.

This policy will have the opposite effect to what it hopes to achieve, in my opinion.

It assumes for a start that employers do not already possess compassion for their employees, when this is clearly not the case. It assumes that employers and other staff members, (because this will absolutely affect them), should take on responsibility for the private lives of their employees, and assumes that the employee wants this.

This legislation will encourage employers, who already have a huge amount of responsibility regarding staff and customer safety, to avoid hiring those with domestic violence issues, or to dismiss those whose domestic violence issues are brought to their place of employment. (but of course this will not be the official reason for sacking them).

It would be better to start making the perpetrators of domestic violence responsible for their own crimes, instead of trying to make the rest of society responsible for preventing them.

"It would be better to start making the perpetrators of domestic violence responsible for their own crimes, instead of trying to make the rest of society responsible for preventing them. "

While I have been employed by people who really did not (do not ) care, I agree Judith, this is asking a lot of employers.

Employers are not the perpetrators of domestic violence. While more family friendly working environments are to be lauded. This idea is not the responsibility of an employer who must consider the effects on all their staff.

Domestic Violence is a crime, it is an affront to human dignity and well being, it reaches out to affect all of us whether directly or indirectly and we must deal with it where it occurs - in the supposed safety of the home. Employers can merely help by understanding their employee as they should if an employee is injured or sick, but I agree with Judith, it is not for the employer to be placed in a position. I agree that such regulation would result in more hapless employees laid off than actually helped.

Victims need to be taken seriously and perpetrators held to account. This is a matter for police and our system of law, not employers.

Dianna, I absolutely agree about victims being taken seriously, and perpetrators held to account. I think there needs to be a very clear view of what domestic violence is. The view of this crime has been muddied so much by the inclusion of things like psychological abuse, verbal abuse and financial abuse. While these are all horrible things for victims to suffer, they are not violence in terms of being immediately life threatening to the victim or others around them, but these acts of abuse are lumped in with the actual acts of physical abuse that is domestic violence, and in my view this gives rise to the actual crimes of violence, causing injury and death, to be not taken as seriously as they should be.

Until there is a separation made between acts of abuse, (which are serious, but not life threatening, and also very hard to prove), that do not physically endanger the victim, and the crimes of physical assault, rape and in some cases murder, there will be this ongoing view that domestic violence, (even the term domestic violence lends to the view that it is not a real crime but a less serious social issue), is something of a social problem, rather than a legal issue.

I would like to see legislation that does not conflate acts of non-violent abuse, with actual violence, and the attitudes of those that should be protecting all citizens to change, to recognise that physically harming one's spouse or family member, is no different to physically harming a stranger. Sentencing should also reflect this.

I was both physically and psychological abused by my ex-husband. As a result, I find it difficult to separate the two. My nightmares tend to revolve more around the psychological abuse than the physical. But then my ex was oh, so well-controlled... as he would point out that he never left a mark when knocking me to the floor.

Of course immediate physical harm must be evaluated as the brutal behaviour it is - as with any other crime of assault.

However, I don't think that other forms of abuse be regarded as somehow lesser. It is bullying and controlling behaviour, it exists across all our institutions, but in the family home it is far more hidden and elusive to prove.

While I feel for anyone who is the victim of any abuse, conflating the two, physical violence, and non-violent abuse, legally, just makes it harder to change the attitude that domestic violence is less serious than other crimes of violence.

We do not, in our society, treat bullying and controlling behaviour, with the same seriousness as actual physical violence, because there is no immediate threat to the victim or others.

How can we not treat crimes that injure and sometimes kill the victim, as different from abuse that serves to make the victim very unhappy, or afraid, when they clearly are very different threats and outcomes? We should be helping those that are the victim of bullying and controlling behaviour, and that is happening in our society, but the help we give will be, and needs to be different to that which we give to victims and possible victims of actual violence. These are the people in greatest danger.

For example, if my employee was being verbally abused, or receiving nasty emails, or phone calls, I would suggest she seek advice and counselling, and cease contact, as much as possible, with the abuser.

If my employee was injured, or threatened with bodily harm, I would call the police myself, and advise him/her to press charges, and seek protection or a restraining order against the perpetrator.

Other forms of abuse such as bullying, require a different response.

" We do not, in our society, treat bullying and controlling behaviour, with the same seriousness as actual physical violence, because there is no immediate threat to the victim or others."

Suicide Ms Olney, suicide. I am not prepared to go into details for the titillation of a few - but self harm is a common result of bullying!

Is suicide a common result of bullying Dianna? Please provide some data to back this statement.

Suicide may be the result in some cases, but with the extent of bullying behaviour that occurs in our society, I would not call it a "common" result.

I have yet to meet a single person who has not experienced bullying at least some time in their lives, and they are all alive.

I was under the impression that is is common knowledge that results of bullying and/or other types of emotional abuse affected the mental and physical well being of many who fall victim to such tactics. True, not everyone commits suicide, however to claim that bullying is of little consequence or danger is very disappointing, I thought you more open minded than that.

Here is a list of sites to edify you.

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=bullying+%2B+mental+health&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&redir_esc=&ei=0yIkUcORAuStiAeFzIC4Ag

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=4.1028

http://learn.beyondblue-elearning.org.au/whatitslike/

For the record the only reason I am alive right now is because of my neighbours intervention on my 6th suicide attempt. The other 5 were over a period of years since I was a teenager. Maybe you will think again before dismissing emotional abuse. Thanks for you casual dismissal of those you know were bullied and did not develop attempt suicide or develop depression. Lucky them!

For other people who are abused, many may go on to bullying others or even become physically violent - thus the circle completes.

Dianna, not in any of my posts have I dismissed emotional or psychological abuse as not being a serious issue, in fact I have stated the exact opposite, and I have a great deal of empathy for people who have suffered in this way.

What I have said, is that this type of abuse requires a different response to that of actual physical violence, where the threat is immediate, and the victim is in immediate danger. Please read my posts before accusing me of dismissing what is an important issue.

Some people who have suffered abuse may go on to become an abuser, this is well known, but most people who suffer abuse do not go on to become abusers, just as most people who suffer abuse, do not go on to commit suicide. Exaggerating the problem does not help those that suffer abuse, any more than dismissing the problem. I have done neither, I have simply pointed out that different forms of abuse require different responses.

I do not differentiate between physical violence or emotional abuse - both are traumatic, both require appropriate support. Just because mental illness is not visible like a black eye does not lessen the evil emotional abuse causes!!

One of the worst things to happen to a victim is to not be listened to, believed or taken seriously. Also, emotional abuse is often the precursor to violence.

I will not engage any further with you as you have not been where I have and clearly want to create levels of abuse. IT IS ALL BAD. I STILL HAVE NIGHTMARES!

Dianna, you have no idea what abuse I may have been through, or what physical violence I may have been subjected to, and yet you dismiss my views, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of.

There are levels of abuse, just as there are levels of physical violence, this is what our legal system is based on. The response from the police and legal system, a workplace, the health system, and even friends and family, will be different, and should be different, depending on the nature and extent of the violence or abuse the victim is subjected to.

You may not differentiate but by necessity our legal, and health system must. Otherwise we would see resources used inappropriately, and ineffectively.

I wish you well Dianna, and I hope that you get all the help you need.

I responded to your request which indicated a degree of ignorance regarding abuse:

"Is suicide a common result of bullying Dianna? Please provide some data to back this statement."

I supplied such evidence.

No of course I do not know what your personal circumstances may be - you have offered nothing, other than to say you have friends who were bullied and "and they are all alive".

I find comment like that dismissive - even if you don't. People are all different, what has a negative impact on some people does not necessarily impact others.

As for resources we simply do not do enough to help people nor do we focus on the perps who are the cause of such misery.

As for you self-proclaimed compassion - I'll have to take your word for it.

Dianna, you did not supply data supporting your statement that suicide is a common result of bullying.

You exaggerated the incidence of suicide as a result of bullying, by saying it was common, in order to add weight to your views.

I will not be giving out any personal details of abuse and violence I have survived, this information is private and not for public consumption. It also does not add to my objective view of domestic violence and abuse, and the responses needed to help the victims, and prosecute the offenders.

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=bullying+%2B+mental+health&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&redir_esc=&ei=0yIkUcORAuStiAeFzIC4Ag

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=4.1028

http://learn.beyondblue-elearning.org.au/whatitslike/

Thanks for posting the links Dianna, but you have still not provided any data to support your statement that suicide is a "common" result of bullying, the links you supplied show a connection between bullying and suicide, which I would suggest is already well known.

The links do show that bullying is a serious problem, and one that needs addressing, (and is being addressed), and the links are excellent for those that are victims of bullying or want to help someone they know that is a victim of bullying.

Beyond Blue has been an organisation that I have found very helpful personally, and would recommend to others, as is the Kids Help Line for children.

Enough, Judith. You are simply being pedantic. You have not had time to study all the information on the links I provided, before you responded to my repeat posting of links.

We do not do enough to prevent violence from occurring because we ignore those who are being emotionally abused as "not serious".

Like the police who cannot act unless someone is attacked, ignoring abuse because it may not lead to physical or self harm is simply reprehensible.

I also have a feeling that you will want the final word, so be it. You'd be surprised how much can be learned about a person even though they have kept their experiences private.

Good luck to you, Judith.

Wow, you call me pedantic, a liar, and you dismiss my views because they simply disagree with yours. I would call that bullying behaviour.

Its not about the final word Dianna, although you seem to think that is important, it is not.

As for your links, I have visited the websites you posted, in the past, and have had a lot of interest in the subject, and as I said, BeyondBlue is an organisation I have found personally very helpful, you can take what ever view you want from that, but as I use my real name on this website, I will keep my personal experiences private. You are, however, free to make what ever assumptions you like about me, I prefer to deal with what I know, rather than what I think I know, about someone else.

You have been creating straw men arguments. The original article, that I responded to, was about the legislation that recognises domestic violence can affect the work place and worker, and how employers are supposed to respond. My posts were on topic until you tried to make it all about you Dianna, its not.

I don't agree with you that we are not doing enough to prevent violence from occurring, because we ignore those being emotionally abused as not serious. I think there are a lot of excellent strategies in place to help those that are emotionally abused. I also believe that it is up to the individual to take some responsibility for their own situation.

In particular, employers are very limited in how they can respond to someone who they may suspect is being emotionally abused.

The police do not ignore abuse, they are simply limited in what they can do to respond. If the victim does not make a complaint to the police, or friends, neighbours or work mates of the victim, do not bring it to the attention of the police, with evidence, then how are the police to know that any thing is occurring at all? They cannot monitor everyone, 24 hours a day, just in case an abuser turns violent.

It is a pity you have chosen to make your posts an attack on me as a person Dianna, rather than discuss the topic. It is an interesting topic, that needs discussion.

It's Dianna's and her cronies' standard fare. I was called autistic for daring to suggest that traditional marriage, in which both parties participate for mutual benefit is a superior arrangement to the current view being promoted by feminists that men and women are inherently in opposition.

That was after I was accused of being to blame for the failure of my marriage because I suggested that the current social, legal and welfare paradigms act as "pull factors" to reduce incentive to persevere with a marriage that may be less than perfect, even if reasonably satisfactory and told that my experience of being dragged through the court six times over 10 years was a mere personal anecdote that meant I was bitter, twisted and hate women.

Your problem is that you thought you were having a grown-up discussion. You'll know better than to try in future - some people are forever stuck in pre-adolescence.

Craig, I'm not interested in your condemnation of Dianna, (for the most part I actually agree with Dianna's views, we simply differ on some aspects, you will see this if you read my posts in this thread). I am disappointed that Dianna has chosen to attack me personally, rather than discuss the points I raised, as I usually find Dianna's posts to be well thought out, and interesting.

Our personal experiences will influence our views in many areas of life, we can choose to allow our experiences to narrow our views, or we can choose to take a more objective approach. I choose the latter.

OK.

I have never called you a liar. Nor dismissed your POV, merely asked that you expand your understanding of the link between bullying, violence and suicide.

Therefore, am going to have to agree to disagree with you.

I believe more can be done to educate, reduce and even prevent violence - be it physical or emotional. As a species we are far more accepting of difference than we were even 100 years ago. There will always be the extremists, but for the most part I like to think that Homo sapiens is increasing its emotional intelligence.

I would be interested in what practical measures you may think of that would be able to reduce or prevent violence, Dianna.

I think there is already a great deal of awareness about bullying, and domestic abuse and violence, so I would also be interested in how you think further education would be helpful, and what form this education should take, for example, we already have many organisations and public campaigns about this issue, what more do you think we could do?

In the context of this particular article, while I agree with giving employers information about how they can respond if an employee comes to them for help with a domestic violence issue, I don't believe an employer should be required to respond by law. I can see many employers being confused as to when they should act, and even if they should act, in what is essentially a police issue. The likely outcome would be that employers simply sack the employee to avoid a legal minefield.

I don't have a magic wand Judith. I cannot stop people from simply wanting to win arguments or to stop bullying.

All I can do is speak out when I encounter bullying and manipulative behaviour.

I disagree that there is sufficient awareness regarding bullying. Why not take at look at:

https://theconversation.edu.au/preventing-suicide-among-gender-and-sexual-minorities-11637

Do you think there is enough being done to help LGBTI people from being abused or discriminated against?

I don't. We wouldn't require articles such as this one or the above mentioned if there was enough being done.

I do agree that employers have a multitude of balls to keep in the air - this is where government can help more than it does. For example, in Victoria recently the Baillieu government cut legal aid funding.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/judge-slams-legal-aid-cuts-20130212-2eakg.html

How does this act assist the more marginalised people in our society?

Instead of trying to prove me a fool (and maybe I am) why don't you think of some solutions instead of attempting to cast everything I have put forward on these pages as worthless? I am beginning to get the idea that you are not so much interested in a discussion as in winning a debate. May be I've misunderstood you...

Judith, for the most part I also agree with Dianna and yourself. What I object to is the simple fact that she and her cronies are happy to throw all sorts of personal aspersions about, of the vilest kind, while pretending to be greatly offended at the mere expression of a different pov. You, apparently, feel the same way, if your previous posts are anything to go by.

I also try to take an objective approach in my own views, I only mention my personal experiences because they stimulated my initial interest in the issues around gender, abuse, family breakdown, etc. It is precisely because I have experienced what can happen to perfectly ordinary men who find themselves within that system that I am more willing to question its ethical foundation and the assumptions made by people who have never experienced it for themselves, or who see it as a useful tool against oppressive partners.

I see no need to bang on about victims of DV - there are literally hundreds of self-interested people doing that already. My interest is in the people (mostly men, but some women) who face a vindictive ex determined to use the system to punish, which is a group that the DV industry pretends doesn't exist. The way the system is presently constituted, all a woman has to do is claim violence, with no corroboration at all and her ex will find himself facing the full force of a set of laws that effectively overturn the presumption of innocence.

There is something deeply flawed in that, but the Diannas of this world will never see it - what they want is a sanctioned lynch mob.

I'd best clarify my first paragraph. I meant to say that you apparently feel similarly to me about the double standard applied by Dianna in regard to abusive aspersions.

I asked what your ideas may be Dianna, I certainly didn't expect you to have a magic wand, I simply thought as this is obviously an issue you are passionate about, you may have some ideas that others have not put forward or tried.

I have read the article on "The Conversation", that you have linked to, but fail to see this as an indication that not enough awareness exists. It raises some important points, and any discussion about what more can be done, is a good thing.

Your last paragraph is not only personally insulting, it is just flat out wrong, except for your last line, suggesting you have misunderstood me, that is entirely true.

If asking what you think, and what ideas you may have, is viewed by you as trying to prove you a fool, or trying to cast what you say as worthless, (BTW I wouldn't be asking for your thoughts if I thought what you have to say is worthless), then I will not engage with you further. This is not rudeness, it is because you seem determined to see me as someone I am not, and I am tired of defending myself for something that is entirely your assumption and perception.

<"The way the system is presently constituted, all a woman has to do is claim violence, with no corroboration at all and her ex will find himself facing the full force of a set of laws that effectively overturn the presumption of innocence.">

This is not true Craig, a person (man or woman), is innocent until proven guilty. There are no laws that overturn this presumption at this present time, in family law.

Judith, I'm not wrong. An allegation of abuse or violence is required to be considered by the court. In the absence of evidence that violence did not occur, there are few judges who will be prepared to assume it did not.

That places the onus on the one accused and since most violence allegations are by women about men, it gives women a huge stick.

The definition of violence under the Act (S. 4AB(1)) is
"For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful."

How does a man prove that a woman was not "fearful" of him if they have had an argument?

Wow. Just wow. This "research" raises some serious issues. It really would help if the authors of this article could address these concerns in the comments section here.

There's nothing naive about it, Gordon. the agenda is to provide an incentive for women to claim they have experienced domestic violence, thereby bolstering the numbers.

It's illuminating that the survey they sent to self-selecting participants includes the following definition of a violent act by a man

"declined or refused to take care of children".