Response to email from Adam

Thank you for your comments. We agree with you wholeheartedly that children, women and men are all entitled to their inalienable human rights and that all violence against all people is wrong. We agree with your comments in relation to men’s health and the disease burden and mortality rates resultant of prostate cancer, depression and suicide. We agree with your support for Beyond Blue and your endorsement of the work Jeff Kennett has done in raising the profile of depression amongst Australian men, and men’s health as a priority. I agree that the profile of prostate cancer needs to be raised in proportion to the size of the problem. As for the discrepancy between publicity on prostate cancer and breast cancer, perhaps we need to question why men have been less active in drawing attention to this issue.

Even while wearing my white ribbon, I have been wearing a ‘Mo-vember’ myself because I am passionate about men’s health! I believe that many men’s reluctance to seek early medical assistance is based on unhealthy, traditional and ‘lesser’, narrower conceptions of what it is to be male (e.g. stoic & tough). I believe that the traditional narrower conceptions of what it is to be male contribute to the vulnerability of Australian men to poor mental health outcomes, including depression and suicide. I personally aim and struggle to become more fully ‘man’ in a broader sense. I believe that by broadening the spectrum of possibilities available to men in representing their masculinity, we allow for greater expression of our humanity. In years gone by, men were discouraged from displaying affection and emotion. By being able to kiss my children goodnight and tell them that I love them, I am experiencing a more satisfying experience of being a man. By crying when I am moved by compassion, sadness or love, I am more fully human.

I am sorry to hear of your personal experiences of being on the receiving end of bias. I was also sorry to hear of your friend who was physically assaulted by his x-wife. I am not so macho, or so naive as to believe that women can not and do not perpetrate violence against men. However, I do recognise that violence perpetrated against men by women is statistically very much less frequent, whereas male violence against women is perpetrated at such a level that nearly one out of every two women will experience physical or sexual abuse by a man in their lifetime. In regard to your comment about ‘kangaroo courts pumping up domestic violence statistics’ that are ‘rubbery’, I would like to point out that both the ABS Personal Safety Survey 2006 and the AIC Mouzas and Makkai Survey 2004 both rely on a randomised sample and do not draw on statistics from the criminal justice system.

The White Ribbon Campaign draws attention to male violence against women as a serious issue that affects too many Australian women. The rationale for this focus is supported by nationally representative statistics. However, this is not to say that we are blind to other types of violence, such as violence against children or violence against men and we would fully support anyone seeking to campaign on a platform of non-violence.

Violence against women and violence against men: What the latest ABS data can and can’t tell us

The Personal Safety Survey, released by the ABS in October 2006, gives us some useful data on men’s and women’s experiences of violence. But it can’t tell us everything.

HERE’S WHAT THE PSS CAN TELL US;
(1) Men are more likely than women to experience violence.
(2) Women are most at risk in the home, and from men they know. Men are most at risk in public spaces, and from men they do not know.
(3) Over their lifetimes, men are more likely than women to be subjected to physical assault and less likely than women to be subjected to sexual assault.
HERE’S WHAT THE PSS CANNOT TELL US;
(1) The PSS cannot tell us much about domestic violence to women and men.
(2) The PSS does tell us how many men and women have experienced at least one incident of physical assault by a current or previous other-sex partner in the last 12 months.
(3) But the PSS doesn’t tell us much more than this, because of the narrow way in which it defines violence. The PSS doesn’t tell us much about how many incidents there were, whether the violent act was a one-off or part of a pattern of abuse, who hit first, whether the violence was in self-defence, how serious it was, if anyone got hurt, etc.
(4) Domestic violence typically is defined to involve a variety of physical and non-physical tactics of abuse and coercion. Not all the women and men counted above are living with this.
(5) The PSS tells us how many women or men were subject to at least one physical assault by a partner, but this doesn’t tell us much about the *impact* of the violence: fear, injuries, etc.
(6) So, if we want to use the term ‘domestic violence’ to refer to the experience of chronic abuse and subjection by a partner or ex-partner to strategies of power and control, we can’t say that every one of the PSS’s 73,800 women or 21,200 men above is a victim of domestic violence.
(7) Therefore, the PSS isn’t much use in assessing women’s versus men’s experiences of domestic violence. Acts-based approaches such as that used in the PSS are unable to distinguish between distinct patterns of violence in heterosexual couples – because they tell us so little of the extent, dynamics, impact, or context of violence.
(8) Acts-based approaches, because of the narrow ways in which they define and measure violence, tend to produce claims of gender ‘symmetry’ and ‘equivalence’.
(9) However, data from other approaches shows that women and men *do not* have the same risks of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to be subjected to a range of controlling strategies, to fear for their lives, to be sexually assaulted, to experience post-separation violence, and to use violence only in self-defence.
Yes, some men do experience such forms of intimate partner violence. And this is rarer than among women. And in general, men are most at risk of violence from other men. If we’re serious about addressing the violence that men suffer, this is what we should be focusing on.
WHAT THE PSS CAN TELL US: MORE DETAIL
(1) The PSS shows that, in the last 12 months, one in 20 women and one in 10 men were the victims of violence. 5.8 per cent of women, and 10.8 per cent of men, experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence.
(2) Among the large numbers of men physically assaulted each year, in the most recent incident close to 70 per cent were assaulted by a stranger and less than five per cent were assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner. In contrast, among the female victims of physical assault, 24 per cent were assaulted by a stranger and 30 per cent were assaulted by a male partner or ex-partner
Also, a substantial proportion of assaults on women – nearly as many as those by partners or ex-partners – are perpetrated by other male family members and friends. Of all females physically assaulted in the last 12 months, in 27.7 per cent of cases the most recent incident involved a male family member or friend. Among men on the other hand, only 10 per cent involved a male family member or friend.
Most violence to men is public violence, taking place in streets, outside licensed premises, and in other public spaces. The most common location for violence to women is domestic: their homes, their partners’ homes, or other familiar locations.
(3) Since the age of 15, 41 per cent of men experienced physical assault, compared to 29 per cent of women. On the other hand, 16.8 per cent of women experienced sexual assault, compared to 4.8 per cent of men. This gender contrast holds too for other forms of sexual coercion and violence: obscene phone calls, indecent exposure, and unwanted sexual touching.
WHAT THE PSS CANNOT TELL US: MORE DETAIL
(2) From the PSS data, a total of 73,800 females and 21,200 males experienced at least one incident of physical assault by a current or previous other-sex partner in the last 12 months. In other words, females comprise 78 per cent and males comprise 22 per cent of victims of physical assault by a current or former partner in the last year.
(3) To assess people’s experience of physical violence, the Personal Safety Survey asks if they have ever experienced one or more of a series of physical acts. Have they been pushed, grabbed or shoved; slapped; kicked, bitten or hit with a fist; hit with something else that could hurt them; beaten; choked; stabbed; shot; or subject to any other kind of physical assault (being burnt, hit by a vehicle, etc.) We could assume that any person who has experienced any physically violent act by a partner or ex-partner has experienced ‘domestic violence’. (This would exclude assaults by other family members, and sexual assaults by a current or previous partner. And it would define domestic violence only in terms of violent ‘acts’, rather than the presence of fear or injury or other forms of power and control. But let us leave these for the moment.)
Because of the narrow way in which the PSS measures violence, these figures do not tell us whether this violence was part of a systematic pattern of physical abuse or an isolated incident, whether it was initiated or in self-defence, whether it was instrumental or reactive, whether it was accompanied by (other) strategies of power and control, or whether it involved fear. (In addition, we only know the relationship to the perpetrator for the most recent incident.) In this regard, the PSS is similar to many other quantitative studies using measurement instruments focused on violent acts. Instruments such as the Conflict Tactics Scale focus on ‘counting the blows’, although most CTS-based studies provide more information than the PSS on the severity of the physical acts involved.
(4) Violence prevention advocates typically use the term ‘domestic violence’ to refer to a systematic pattern of power and control exerted by one person (usually a man) against another (often a woman), involving a variety of physical and non-physical tactics of abuse and coercion, in the context of a current or former intimate relationship. It is simply not the case that every one of the 73,800 women noted above is necessarily living with this. All experienced at least one violent act by a partner in the last year: for some this was part of a regular pattern of violent physical abuse, but for others it was a rare or even reciprocated event. The PSS itself gives us some sense of this. Among women who had experienced violence by a current or previous partner since the age of 15, for a little over half (54.2 per cent) there had been more than one incident (ABS 2006a: 37).
(5) Related to this issue, noting how many women or men were subject to at least one physical assault by a partner does not necessarily tell us much about the impact of domestic violence on the victim. Women may see the emotional impact of physical aggression as more significant than the physical impact, and the emotional impact is influenced as much by judgements of threat and intent to harm and their own self-blame as by the degree of force used or injury caused (Gordon 2000: 759). In addition, women may experience the impact of non-physical tactics of control and abuse – controlling their movements, destroying property, verbal abuse, mind games, and so on – as more damaging than physical aggression. The PSS does allow some slight assessment of the emotional impact of partner violence. For example, among women who had experienced violence by a current partner or a previous partner since the age of 15, close to 20 per cent (19.7 and 18.3 per cent respectively) had experienced anxiety or fear regarding this in the last 12 months (ABS 2006a: 37). This does not tell us about fear or anxiety among women who experienced partner violence in the last year, but it does suggest that large proportions of women who have ever experienced a physically violent act by a partner or its threat are not ‘living in fear’.
(6) We can certainly say that every one of the 73,800 women above is a victim of violence, using the definition of violence adopted by the PSS. But to the extent that we use the term ‘domestic violence’ to refer to women’s experience of chronic abuse and subjection by a partner or ex-partner to strategies of power and control, we cannot claim that every woman here is a ‘victim of domestic violence’. Domestic violence advocates offer sympathetic images of battered women as victims living in fear of violent, controlling male perpetrators. These images are accurate for much violence between heterosexual partners or ex-partners. But we cannot assume, and should not imply, that they hold for all the women and men identified in the PSS as involved in physical aggression (Gordon 2000: 773).
(7) For these same reasons, there are also real limits on the extent to which we can use PSS data to adjudicate the debate regarding women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. As Dobash and Dobash (2004: 331-2) note for acts-based approaches such as that used in the PSS, ‘acts’ “are stripped of theoretical and social meanings and, as such, provide an inadequate basis for describing or explaining the violent acts of men and women.” In particular, these approaches are unable to distinguish between distinct patterns of violence in heterosexual couples. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what Johnson (2000) calls “situational couple violence”. Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “intimate terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely. Acts-based studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority. Because the PSS tells us so little of the extent, dynamics, impact, or context of violence, it is inadequate as a single source of information, whether on female or male victims of domestic violence.
(8) Acts-based approaches, because of the narrow ways in which they define and measure violence, tend to produce claims of gender ‘symmetry’ and ‘equivalence’ (Dobash and Dobash 2004: 332). In other words, they predetermine the questions they set out to assess.
(9) However, data from other approaches shows clear asymmetries in men’s and women’s uses of and subjection to intimate partner violence. When it comes to violence by partners or ex-partners, women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to be subjected to a range of controlling strategies, to fear for their lives, to be sexually assaulted, to experience post-separation violence, and to use violence only in self-defence (Flood 2003; Belknap and Melton 2005; Gordon 2000). Dobash and Dobash (2004) provide a clear example of apparent symmetries and actual asymmetries in domestic violence. Using an acts-based approach found that both men and women were physically aggressive to their partners. But interviews with the same men and women documented that men’s violence differed systematically from women’s in terms of its nature, frequency, intention, intensity, physical injury, and emotional impact.

Michael Flood, November 9, 2006.

WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM

What Can One Man Do?

Wearing the White Ribbon is a starting point. Read on if you would like to learn some practical steps towards making violence a thing of the past:  

1. Listen to women… learn from women
The path starts with listening.  Who knows better about violence against women than women who experience it?  Learn about violence by asking a woman who trusts you how violence has affected her life.  Then, if she feels comfortable to talk, sit back and listen.

2. Learn about the problem
The basic rights that most men enjoy — safety in their homes, ability to go out at night, a job free of harassment — are a source of fear for women in much of the world. The fear is greatest in women’s own homes. A common myth is that most violence is committed by strangers. In fact, women are most at risk from men they know — husbands, boyfriends, fathers, relatives, employers, and caregivers

3. Learn why some men are violent
Men are not naturally violent. There have been societies with little or no violence. Studies over the past century have found that half of the tribal societies studied had little or no violence against women, against children, or among men.  Furthermore, even today, in many countries the majority of men are not physically violent.  Violence is something that some men learn.  Men’s violence is a result of the way many men learn to express their masculinity in relationships with women, children, and other men.

4. Wear a white ribbon
Change will occur if we each accept personal responsibility to make sure it happens. As men who care about the women in our lives, we can take responsibility to help ensure that women live free from fear and violence. Each year men around the world are wearing a white ribbon up to and on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  Wearing a white ribbon is your personal pledge never to commit violence against women.

5. Challenge sexist language and jokes that degrade women
Sexist jokes and language help create a climate where forms of violence and abuse have too long been accepted. Words that degrade women reflect a society that has historically placed women in a second class position. One of the most difficult things for men is to learn to challenge other men.

6. Learn to identify and oppose sexual harassment and violence in your workplace, school, and family
Sexual harassment refers to unwanted sexual advances or sexually oriented remarks or behaviour that are unwelcome by another person. Flirting and joking are fine if they are both consensual and wanted.

7. Support local women’s programs
Around the world, dedicated women have created support services for women who are survivors of men’s violence: safe houses for battered women, rape crisis centres, counseling services, and legal aid clinics. Women escaping violent situations depend on these services.  These and other women’s organisations deserve men’s support and our financial backing. That’s why we encourage local White Ribbon Campaigns to raise money for local women’s programs.

8. Examine how your own behaviour might contribute to the problem
If you’ve ever been physically violent against a woman, if you’ve committed sexual assault, if you’ve hit, pushed, threatened, kicked your spouse or girlfriend, then you have been part of the problem. If this happened long ago, admit what you did was wrong and make amends if possible. But if such behaviour has any chance of continuing, then you urgently need to get help getting to the root of your problem. Don’t wait until it happens again. Please act today.

9. Work towards long-term solutions
Ending violence against women won’t happen overnight. Real solutions are truly long-term solutions. Changes in attitude, behaviour, and institutions take time. We must look at how we raise future generations. We must teach our children, by example, that all forms of violence are unacceptable, and that for boys to become men, they do not need to control or dominate women, men, or children.

10. Get involved with the White Ribbon Campaign’s educational efforts
The White Ribbon Campaign is the largest effort in the world of men working to end men’s violence against women. It is a grass-roots effort, relying mainly on volunteers. It needs your support.

Adapted from Fact Sheet 4, www.whiteribbonday.org.au

WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM

Focusing on men’s violence against women does not mean that other forms of violence are okay or don’t exist

The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on men’s violence against women. But this in no way means that this is the only type of violence that occurs, or that it is the most common form of violence, or that other forms of violence are unimportant. It simply means that violence against women is an important social problem that deserves attention.

Like other anti-violence campaigns, the WRC is motivated by the fundamental belief that *all* forms of violence are wrong, whether their victims are female or male, and whether their perpetrators are male or female. Organisers of the WRC would be delighted to see other campaigns focused on other forms of violence, such as violence against men, and these would complement the WRC.

There are important reasons to have a campaign focused on violence against women, rather than having a single campaign focused for example on all forms of violence, as follows.

Violence against women has specific dynamics that should be the focus of specific attention. For example, while the violence that men experience often occurs in public and by perpetrators who are not known to them, the violence that women experience often occurs in relationships and families and by perpetrators known to them.

Violence against women has specific causes that should be the focus of specific attention. For example, violence against women is sustained in part by cultural beliefs (held by a minority) that men have the right to physically punish their female partners, that males should be dominant in households, that some women ‘ask’ to be raped, and so on. Similarly, violence against men is sustained in part by cultural beliefs that if a man’s honour or status is challenged, he must respond with violence, violence between males is legitimate and exciting, and so on. If we had a campaign that lumped together these different forms of violence, we would be unable to address the specific features of these diverse behaviours. And our campaign would be ineffective as a result. (For the same reason, campaigns focused on other social problems such as tobacco smoking or drink-driving often focus on specific populations and/or specific forms of this behaviour, as well as giving out the general message that such behaviours are unhealthy or wrong.)

The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on violence against women because this is an important social problem. And this campaign is compatible with, and would complement, other campaigns focused on violence against men or other, specific forms of violence (such as child abuse, homophobic violence, and racist violence).

Republished with permission Michael Flood, 2006.
WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM

Saudi Arabia Gang Rape Lashes

Following her appeal, a Saudi Court has increased the sentance of a gang rape victim to 200 lashes and six months jail, punishment for travelling alone in a car with a non-relative male prior to the attack. Her seven attackers sentences now range from two to nine years. 

The woman’s lawyer Mr Lahem, whose license to practice has been revoked, has stated that in the Court’s view the woman who was 18 at the time was guilty because she was in the car with an unrelated male and the gang rape would never have happened if she had not met up with the non-related friend.   

Whatever the woman’s actions were prior to the gang rape, there can be no justification for violence against women. On the eve of White Ribbon Day, we join others from around the globe in protesting this decision of the court. Take action by sending a letter to King Abdullah asking him to publicly express his objection to the ruling.

King Abdullah Bin ‘Abdul’ Aziz Al-Saud

The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques

Office of His Majesty The King

Royal Court

Riyadh

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Telegram: HM King Abdullah, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Salutation: Your Majesty

How Embarrassing: Attitudes that Support Violence

Who has perpetrated the greater violence against women – Matthew Newton, or his lawyer Chris Murphy?

You may be surprised to learn that you don’t need to be violent yourself, to be contributing to the problem of violence against women. It is possible to hold violence-supportive beliefs that make it more likely for an individual to be violent against women. Furthermore, if these beliefs are commonly shared, it can increase the likelihood that a community will have higher levels of violence against women.

VicHealth 2007 has identified a number of ’violence supportive attitudes’ that:

• trivialise violence and its impacts (as for example when domestic violence is portrayed as nothing more than normal relationship conflict, or rape is portrayed as something women fantasise about);
• blame the victim of violence (as in the belief that women ask for rape’ in their manner of dress);
• [deny] violence occured (as in the case of claims that women frequently falsify violence) or that certain behaviours are not violence (illustrated by the view that forced sex in marriage is not rape, reflected until recently in some states criminal law for example Victoria 1981);
• [justify or excuse] violence (such as the belief which diminishes men’s responsibility for rape by asserting that it occurs because they cannot control their need for sex).

Some examples of myths about violence against women:

• Violence Against Women is uncommon. Wrong: Up to half of all women will experience male physical or sexual violence
• Alcohol is to blame for family violence. Wrong: Alcoholic is implicated as a trigger in only some instances of family violence.
• Family violence occurs in other communities, or ‘ethnic’ communities’ not around here. Wrong: Family violence affects all classes and communities.
• Domestic violence victims ask for it, why don’t they just leave? Wrong: No one asks to be hurt, and sometimes leaving is more difficult than it sounds.

Let’s return then to our original question of who has perpetrated the greatest violence against women? We know that Matthew Newton plead guilty to attacking his former partner at their Rozelle home in Sydney, 2006. Therefore by his own plea we are left in no doubt about whether he actually committed an offence. We applaud his admission of guilt and sincerely hope that he takes steps to ensure that his actions are never again repeated. 

But now let’s review some of the reported statements made by Matthew Newton’s lawyer, Chris Murphy, and see if they reflect any of the violence supportive beliefs or myths outlined above?

• Chris Murphy was reported as describing the assault charges against the entertainer as a “very minor matter”. According to the Sydney Morning Herald 17 January 2007, he reportedly stated “Ninety people died in Iraq today, most of them kids,” “This is a very minor matter.” 

By referring to the assault charges as ‘a very minor matter’ it appears that Mr Murphy is minimising the criminality, or seriousness of violence against women. By referring to children killed in Iraq, he diverted attention from the seriousness of acts of violence against women.

• It was reported in The Australian on 17 January 2007, that Mr Murphy had told the court the charges were the “residue of an expired relationship”.

One could alternatively describe the charges as resultant from criminal actions, or violations of human rights. We hope that by describing the charges as the residue (or all that remains of an expired relationship), Chris Murphy was not suggesting that violence is a normal part of intimate relationships.  

• In the Sydney Morning Herald 12 June 2007, it was reported that Mr Murphy stated that it was not a situation of a drunken husband being a regular wife-beater.

In case Mr Murphy’s comments are misinterpreted here, we wish to clarify that alcohol does not cause domestic violence. Blame for domestic violence should not be directed at alcohol itself but at the person who chooses to inflict the violence. Using alcohol is never an excuse or justifiable explanation for violence against women.

• The Sydney Morning Herald further reported Chris Murphy’s statement that “The last words this young man told [x-partner] before the [charges] came into effect was that they loved each other.”

Again, in case this be misinterpreted, we would like to clarify that loving relationships do not involve violence. One of the most damaging aspects of family violence is the ‘brain washing effect’ or cycle of being violently hurt, and then being later told ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘I love you’.

Attitudes that support Violence against Women are an embarrassment. Let’s not remain silent but be courageous in challenging comments that perpetuate violence.

WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM 

How Embarrassing: Jason Johnson in blue

Jason Johnson with the Blue baggers? Read on:

 I started my career and I’ll finish my career with the Essendon Football Club. So is this embarrassing? Without a doubt. But nothing is more embarrassing than living in a country where almost half the women will be victims of physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime. So if wearing this makes Australian men realise just how serious this is, honestly I don’t care how embarrassing it is.

Jason Johnson Midfielder
Essendon Football Club 1997 -

http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/TVC-Campaigns-42.aspx

How Embarrassing: Gorden Tallis in Blue

Thought you would never see Gorden Tallis in a Blues’ jersey? Read on: 

 

I gave more than 10 years of blood, sweat and pain to the Maroons. So am I embarrassed to be wearing this? You bet. But nothing is more embarrassing than knowing that my kids are growing up in a country where almost half of the women will be victims of physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime. So if wearing this makes Australian men realise how serious this issue is, you know, I don’t care how embarrassing it is.

Gorden Tallis
Second-row forward
Queensland, 1994 – 2003

http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/TVC-Campaigns-42.aspx

How Embarrassing: Brendan Cannon in Black

Those of you who thought they would never see Brendan Cannon in an All Blacks jumper are in for a shock!

 

 I fought through injury and a near fatal car accident so I could wear the green and gold. So, is this embarrassing? Of course! But nothing is more embarrassing than knowing that my little girl is growing up in a country where almost half the women will be victims of physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime. So if wearing this jersey makes Australian men realise how serious this issue is, quite frankly, it’s worth the embarrassment.

Brendan Cannon, Hooker
Australian Wallabies, 2001 – 2006

To check out the advertisement go to:

 http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/TVC-Campaigns-42.aspx

WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM

State of Emergency in Pakistan

Thank you to S Hussein for your comments on General Musharraf, President of Pakistan, the situation facing women in Pakistan, the current ’state of emergency’ and your call for expressions of concern from International White Ribbon Day campaigners. 

We unreservedly join with you, members of the international community, Amnesty International and the United Nations in voicing alarm and dismay at the detention of human rights and opposition activists. We support the calls from Amnesty International and from the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to immediately release those detained or to clarify their status, to lift restrictions on the media, take urgent measures to return to democratic rule and to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled.

We share your concern that under the guise of fighting terrorism, the rights of those in opposition, from the judiciary, the media and social activists including women’s rights activists have been infringed upon.

If anyone would like to share their concerns with the High Commissioner for Pakistan in Canberra H.E Mr. Jalil Abbas Jilani, they can email him: parepcanberra@internode.on.net 

WHITE RIBBON DAY TEAM