Melbourne’s Future Terrorist Group is Back in Black

Whilst the counter terrorism community was focusing on militant jihad cells, overlook was the extreme right wing group, “Black Shirts” is back in the media spotlight.

State leaders and scholars have often struggled with defining terrorism. Australia has legally defined terrorism as the following:

In Australia, what constitutes an act of terrorism is defined in Commonwealth legislation. The Criminal Code Act 1995 states that a terrorist act means an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Further, the Act states that ‘the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

i. coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

ii. intimidating the public or a section of the public;

and where the action

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c) causes a person’s death; or

(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or

(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to: (i) an information system; or (ii) a telecommunications system; or (iii) a financial system; or (iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or (v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or (vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

In 2002, before the inquiry into family law and the introduction of shared parenting the black shirts were in the media spotlight:

“The Blackshirts say that their only intention is to promote the sanctity of marriage, and they believe that to achieve this aim adultery should be punishable by death. Furthermore, they warn that if the law does not change they may resort to dragging adulterers from their homes and lynching them….Blackshirts, who must renounce any partner taken since the breakdown of their marriage, have picketed Melbourne’s family law courts for more than a decade, but only in the past year have they begun going for people in their homes….Despite having three separate exclusion orders imposed on them, they are expanding beyond their Melbourne base, according to Mr Abbott, and expect to begin activities in every state of Australia within the next 12 months. They claim to have as many as 300 members” – David Fickling, The Guardian, Monday 26 August 2002

“A Melbourne grandmother today told a court of her absolute terror when a militant men’s group demonstrated outside her daughter’s suburban home last year.

The County Court heard how the Black shirts, dressed from head to toe in paramilitary style garb, staged a series of demonstrations outside two homes in East Doncaster in September and November last year.” – Nick Lenaghan The Age August 6 2002

“Abbott says. “I’m very angry, but I don’t yell. I just make a list of men and women to die.”

The words are shocking, but Abbott does not seem to notice. He is consumed by what he sees as betrayal.

For Abbott, those who leave a marriage – and they are now mainly women – are evil.” The Age December 20 2002

“Smiling as he walked from the court, the most extreme figure in the men’s movement vowed to continue his vigilante action, and to launch a new political party. Despite looming prison time if he breaks the law in the next 18 months, Abbott said: “I’m not deterred in the least. It only strengthens my resolve.” –By Peter Ellingsen The Age October 3, 2004

“I’ve received emails and seen public statements over the years by extremist white supremacists, ‘fathers-rights’ activists, gay-haters and anti-Muslim bigots all of which could be seen as ‘expressing support for politically motivated violence’.

This report confirms that the planned anti-terrorism laws are targeted fairly and squarely at Muslims, even though there has yet to be any explanation as to why the existing laws are inadequate. Inciting or planing violence is already an offence under the existing Criminal Code.” Andrew Bartlett Bartlett’s blog NOV 2, 2005

So what does it have to do with shared parenting? Everything. Lindsay Jackel is the Victorian state director.of the Shared Parenting Council, the owner of the alias Manumit and also a recruiter of the blackshirts:

____________________________________________________________________

—–Original Message—–
From: Manumit Exchange [mailto:manumit@…]
Sent: 26 July 2002 17:41
To: Manumit Exchange
Cc: jeffface@…; fried@…
Subject: (AUS) Blackshirts

Some of you may have already heard a little about this group. Below is a
composite of various articles about the Blackshirt group in Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, fwd fyi by way of background.

Additionally, several associated articles follow, and are in turn followed
by various commentary.

The group is organised and in your face. They are Dads who have lost
everything, have received no justice or fairness at the hand of a feminist
(family and magistrates) court and legal (government) system (when they
were taught in school that they would if innocent), have nothing to lose
and are frustrated and angry. Their hopelessness has turned to despair and
to depression. The Blackshirts offers them community and hope.

John Abbott, their leader, is known to me. He is both angry and committed.
He will not be deterred and, if necessary, will no doubt be prepared to be
a “martyr” to the cause.

—

Victoria is a southern state of Australia.
Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria.

_________________________________________________________________

After they caused terror into the lives of women, children and the elderly, they seized the moment by establishing a non profit organization no different to the non profit organisations that funded militant Islam, now black listed.

Amongst the mountains of commentary on the behavior of terrorists, many concur that targets are usually unprotected and easy. It is well established within the history of war strategies, that by targeting non-combative civilians mostly women and children provides a greater impact in their goals to instill widespread fear and traumatic impact.

Under the Howard government, the black-shirt leaders and members were gratified and rewarded for their acts and overlooked as terrorist despite many commentators struggling to define the variance. After the 9/11 attacks, state leaders have learned some very hard lessons about diluting the term and using it for political gain. It was only because, the previous prime minister was aligned with similar beliefs and values that this group was able to run riot on women and children, disseminate nearly all of the few protections available for the abused and even sabotage the humane culture that Australian society has taken so long to grasp.

The Shared Parenting Council is bias

Although news coverage on family law is relatively low, but mostly in the favour of fathers. The Shared Parenting Council of Australia claims to represent fathers and mothers. Pay attention to some details and this organisation represents fathers:

President
Michael Green QC

Vice President (1)
Barry Williams
[Lone Fathers Association Australia]

Vice President(2)
Coral Slattery
[Family Law Reform Association NSW]

Vice President (3)
Greg cairns (Retired)

Vice President (4)
Terry Bowker
[Reliable Parent’s Inc]

Executive Secretary
Wayne Butler
Mobile: 0411 850 677

Federal Director
Edward Dabrowski
Mobile: 0409 917 345

State Director (QLD)
Peter Marsh

State Director (NSW)
Tevor Bock

State Director (VIC)
Lindsay Jackel
[Nuance]

State Director (SA)
Vacant

State Director (WA)
Joan Hopkins
Telephone: 08 9474 9552

State Director (TAS)
Vacant

Territory Director (ACT)
Jim Carter
[Lone Fathers Association Australia]

Territory Director (NT)
TBA

Should the Shared Parenting Law be Changed?

A recent report released by professor Chisholm revealing that a number of children are at risk and consequently recommended changes in the shared parenting law. Mens groups are angered by the recommendation, whilst children’s groups champion the notion.

But should the law revolve around mens rights? Are mens rights violated and if so how are they more violated than children’s rights or say victims of domestic violence which make up a majority of women?

Professor Chisholm proposed in the report to consider the merit of involvement that the parent had before separation but omitted any reference to mothers and fathers. So why are mens groups claiming that they would lose contact? Where a parent would lose contact in Chisolms recommendations is where there are substantiated findings of family violence. So what do mens groups really want?

According to Kathryn Joyce, in America, mens groups have become frighteningly effective where they have managed to block domestic violence laws. The question remains, how effective will they be in Australia?