Coercive control

4. Roll out to target men

Coercive control laws are currently on hold in Queensland, despite having legislation ready to criminalise this behaviour.  Governments are currently spending many months and many millions of dollars putting in place structures and people who will control the legal system once the laws are in operation. 

What’s happening here is really alarming – a lesson in how completely all our key institutions are controlled by ideology determined to damage men. The goal is blatant discrimination, to falsely promote males as the only perpetrators of this behaviour. Here’s a deep dive into what is actually taking place. 

The lie that women are always victims never perpetrators

The whole coercive control edifice rests on a total mistruth – namely that this pattern of controlling behaviour is something that men do to women. When Evan Stark wrote a book inventing the whole idea he asked his audience to take that “on faith”. However, evidence quickly emerged that his faith was misplaced:

  • Bates et al found “no substantial sex differences” and their “results do not support the male control theory of Intimate Partner Violence.”

  • In another study, the same team found “no sex differences in the use of controlling behavior or physical aggression.”

  • Robertson et al found that it was generally something partners did to each other – “coercive control was predominantly reciprocal in nature.”

  • Kaspiew et al found that, in Australia, there were no difference in feelings of coercion before separation but it is men who are more likely to feel coerced and controlled after separation.

  • US CDC data shows that men are 36% more likely to be victims of coercive control – 17.3m men vs 12.7m women.

  • Coercive Control in Australia is six times more common in the LGBTIQA+ population who make up 21% of victims but only 3.5% of the population

  • ABS data shows that: 

    • 47.7% of victims of emotional abuse by a current partner are males. 

    • 65,500 males and 36,800 females had a current partner who deprived them of basic needs such as food, shelter, sleep or assistive aids. 

    • 42,000 males and 26,400 females had a current partner who threatened to take their child/ren away from them.

  • ABS has also found that Australian women and men are “just as likely” to experience emotional abuse.

Setting up discrimination against men

Stark’s assumption “Man bad, Woman victim” was clearly wrong. The new draconian laws against coercive control should ensnare as many women as men. But, just as the feminists have fixed the system to ensure that domestic violence restraining orders are mainly issued to women, given the control they have over our policing and justice systems it’s been a simple matter for them to insinuate zealots from the domestic violence industry into this system to “educate”, pressure and control when and how coercive control laws are enforced. 

After all, the sisterhood in the UK had already blazed a path, showing how easy it is to ensure the relevant institutions are all singing from the feminist songbook.  

UK and Ireland

When England criminalised Coercive Control in 2015, they blazed a trail to ensure that the law enforcement was totally discriminatory. Now, the Crown Prosecution Service cheerfully admits to discrimination – though they prefer to describe it as a “gendered approach to prosecutions”. That sort of discrimination has been standard in Australia for some time but the key contribution from England has been to address the problem that not all police are keen to comply with feminist decrees.  

In a remarkably short time after the English legislation was introduced, more than three quarters of police and staff were “educated” in the unwritten rules of the system (usually described as “gender dynamics” and “emphasising gender”). This resulted in an impressive 40% increase in arrests. However, it turned out that this effect wears off after a few months and arrests of men decline. It was discovered that, for optimum results, the re-education needs to be repeated every 8 months – valuable learnings for the Australian roll-out.

The result was that in 2020, even though women are just as likely to commit coercive control, English men made up 99% of prosecutions. And in the few cases where women were convicted – not one was jailed. In short, the system is breathtakingly effective.


Tasmania criminalised coercive control even before the UK but didn’t initially roll out a system to train police and courts. Consequently, not a single charge was laid in the first 3 years. But, since then, under the banner “Safe at Home”, the Domestic Violence industry has achieved significant influence over the police and the courts. 

Consequently, despite a late start, the Tasmanian system has managed to ensure that not a single woman has ever been prosecuted. Among their other achievements is that those accused (usually without evidence) under the Family Violence Order (FVO) system can be forced to wear an electronic monitoring device (EMD) that uses GPS technology to track them. This is seen as a trial and is supported by the Commonwealth government so expect wider deployment.

Elsewhere in Australia ​

Now other states are criminalising coercive control, they are proceeding very slowly to ensure that the policing and justice system is fully primed beforehand to achieve the sort of discrimination they seek.

Since criminal law is under control of the States, the Commonwealth doesn’t play a major role in enforcement of these new laws. However, the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) is doing its part to inculcate bigotry among those who make up the judicial system. Their work largely centres on producing the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book which encourages judges and magistrates to assume all accused men are guilty and all women are victims. The fundamental lie they use to support this is that “coercive control is […] mainly perpetrated by men against women.” And, for proof, they cite Evan Stark, who never actually claimed to have proof. 

Apart from the bench book itself, the AIJA is also doing presentations and workshops on feminist beliefs “to facilitate judicial education about coercive control.”


NSW finally announced their new legislation had become law in June 2024 – after making sure all the key institutions were pumping out the same propaganda. Their plans would do Goebels proud:

  • Based on the UK experience there will be regular re-education of police to get them to target men.

  • Feminists from domestic violence services will be permanently based inside police stations to influence and control policing.

  • There’s a proposal to have police forced to wear video cameras so that their behaviours can be monitored by the women enforcing the rules. 

  • UK did not dare interfere with the traditional independence of the judiciary. However, in NSW, moulding the judiciary and prosecutors is seen as more important than controlling police. There will be a particular focus on jury directions so that juries can be swayed towards desired outcomes.

  • The NSW Government will fund public campaigns that portray men as dangerous and violent – similar to the infamous Our Watch campaigns. Similar programs in schools will teach that boys are bad and violent and girls inevitably victims.

The head of DVNSW says we will get “an entirely new way of policing”. The NSW politician Mark Latham was more blunt – the plan is “retraining police and judicial officers to only pursue male offenders”.


The Queensland government passed laws to criminalise  coercive control in  March 2024 and announced they would be enforced by 2025. In the meantime, they plan “system-wide reform” to expand the existing Domestic Violence system. Currently, plans include:

  • Regular re-education of police to teach them to target men by remoulding police “culture, values, and beliefs.” In key areas, holding approved “values and beliefs aligned with the work and role of the unit” will be mandatory.

  • Police “operational policies and procedures will […] incorporate a strong understanding of the gendered nature of domestic and family violence.” In other words, policies will be explicitly discriminatory.

  • Like NSW, feminists from domestic violence services will be inside police stations to influence and control policing.

  • A “co-responder model” is being trialled in which the feminists will go out with police on callouts to monitor and direct them.

  • Female-only police stations are currently being trialled – staffed only by women and intended to only help women. This gender apartheid policing may be a world first.

  • As in NSW there will be appropriate re-education of judges and magistrates.

  • The Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to discriminate in a similar way to the UK with their “gendered approach to prosecutions”.

  • All lawyers in Queensland will need to successfully complete regular training on feminist beliefs about domestic violence as part of their mandatory continuing professional development.

  • The Queensland Government will fund public campaigns and school programs that portray males as dangerous and violent and females as victims. 

The consequences

The end result of this feminist control system is that men are prosecuted and women are treated as victims regardless of evidence. They can then use statistics such as “74% of perpetrators were men” or “95% of coercive control victims were women” as proof of the “Man bad, Woman victim” dogma. This, in turn, allows them to justify the discrimination that creates those outcomes. Neat trick, eh?

One of the pillars of our system of government is that “government cannot discriminate against specific individuals or groups when it administers justice.” That pillar has been eroded but now feminists are demanding that it be smashed. 

Police and judiciary have long been conscripted to one side of the gender wars, but this time they are being asked to send men to jail over something that feminists have invented specifically to destroy them. Let’s hope this proves a bridge too far.