Domestic Violence Act 2018: Republic of Ireland.


On foot of a press release from the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ireland The Domestic Violence Act 2018 came into force (became law) on the 2nd January 2018, repealing the previous legislation on domestic violence


  1. The following are repealed:

(a) section 51 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 ;

(b) the Domestic Violence Act 1996 ;

(c) the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2002 .”


Link to Domestic Violence act 2018 is here:

From: Irish Statute Book: Domestic Violence act 2018


Naturally enough the Minister made an “announcement” and as is the wont of politicians he made sure to curry favour with those whom he believed to be “experts” on “domestic violence” and took a stance which he believed would position himself as an advocate and supporter of those “experts”

From Department of Justice Press Release: Minister Flanagan brings landmark Domestic Violence Act into operation

“I would like to acknowledge the work being done by organisations who support victims of domestic violence, and their contribution in strengthening the provisions of the Act.”

One of whom is Catriona Gleeson of Safe Ireland – one of many many “domestic violence services” for WOMEN and only women, where this prize idiot (aren’t they all?) pontificated in this article about one aspect of the new legislation – Coercive Control.

From: New offence of coercive control in domestic violence law

“Caitriona Gleeson, Programme and Communications Manager with Safe Ireland, said coercive control is effectively domestic violence.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland she said it is “where somebody in a relationship deliberately sets out to deliberately put in fear and control the other person’s life.”

“There certainly are aspects of the behaviour that will always be very difficult to prove, however there is lots of behaviour that is investigated properly and documented properly will result in convictions, and that’s what we’re hopeful for.”

Ms Gleeson said Ireland is the third country in the world to introduce this new offence. England introduced it a number of years ago and Scotland more recently.

She said there has been significant uptake in training among gardaí ahead of the introduction of the new law but feels more training is still needed.

Edit: As I was writing this I opened this article with a view to addressing Ms. Gleesons “crowing” over similiar legislation being introduced in the UK – I have just realised I forgot to add it.

Controlling girlfriend ‘first woman convicted’ of new domestic abuse offence

And from the article:

“A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.”

Ryan Nugent in the Irish Independent quoted extensively from another “expert” on “domestic violence”

Director of women’s aid in Ireland Margaret Martin in this article

“Another change is that a violent or sexual offence committed by a person against their spouse or person they are in an intimate relationship with will be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing. This was welcomed by director of Women’s Aid, Margaret Martin.

“We have long argued that when a perpetrator is a current or former intimate partner of the woman that this should be an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one when it comes to sentencing to acknowledge the unique position that the perpetrator is in, including the fact that they have intimate knowledge of and access to their victim and so brutally betrays that trust.”

And here:

“Ms Martin said that additional resources need to be included if the new act is to be a success.

This includes more resources for gardaí and courts as well as specialist support services.

“From January 1, 2019, women must feel change quickly. It must be positive, it must be practical and it must make them and their children safer from abuse,” Ms Martin said.

“What is promised on paper must be fully resourced to be effective in protecting those affected by domestic violence.

“We are concerned that an already overstretched system will see an increase in demand when the new provisions commence,” she warned.

Ms Martin also said that Women’s Aid supports the extension of eligibility for safety and barring orders for those in relationships but who are not cohabiting.

“This change will make a significant difference to the safety of younger women.

“We also welcome the move to prevent abusers to communicate electronically with their victims, a step in the right direction to address the digital abuse and online harassment of women by partners and exes.”

Out-of-hours sittings of the District Court will be held to provide orders in emergency situations.

“We hope that the Garda will use this provision to offer vulnerable women the chance to apply for immediate protection when it is needed and that this measure is adequately resourced, so that it will work in practice,” said Ms Martin.”

By the way – these “quotes” represent almost the full content of Mr. Nugent’s article – he simply handed over the “reporting” to this “expert” on domestic violence and threw in a few sentences linking together this “experts” quotes – great example of……..journalism Mr. Nugent.

In May this article was published by Men’s Voices Ireland

The paragraph that jumped out at me from: Men’s Voices Ireland

The Domestic Violence Act May 2018

was this one

“Hearings took place before the committee on Feb 19 and Feb 26 2014 at which 24 groups or individuals were called. Nobody presented any evidence on the rates of perpetration as between men and women, attempted to give a balanced nonpartisan view of DV, instance the principal features of DV including many surprising recent findings or to show the extent to which men are also victims. An enormous amount of evidence which challenges the official narrative was thereby omitted.”

I’m actually a bit surprised you were shocked and surprised at the way these committee hearings went guys?

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, bear with me, I have a copy of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 sitting right here on my desk beside me as I type this. I’ve been through it twice now – and while I am not purporting in any way shape or form to be giving a detailed analysis of this piece of legislation – at this time – one thing has quite clearly caught my eye – actually a couple of things – but lets just focus, for the moment on this one thing.

In every section empowering “someone” to make an application under this piece of legislation the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

Let me repeat that – the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

THE PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION for protection, for an order, for ANYTHING under the provisions of this legislation is consistently referred to as – THE APPLICANT.

There is no “presumption” contained in this Legislation that “The Applicant” is or can be automatically FEMALE.

The person, who in the context of court proceedings in relation to any provision against who an Order is being sought pursuant to the provisions of this piece of legislation is consistently referred to as THE RESPONDENT.

Again there is NO “presumption” that the “Respondent” is or can only be MALE.

There is no reference IN ANY SECTION to SHE – as in “SHE MAY”, are you following my logic?

So, notwithstanding any bullshit from women’s aid, from safe Ireland or any of the innumerable “charadees” sucking up the vast majority of “resources” to address the issue of “domestic violence” this legislation is EQUALLY applicable in its provisions to both MEN and women.

As I said previously – I am literally reading and studying this legislation as we speak – so when I have not only gone through this with a fine-tooth comb, and when I have reviewed what I presume will be a new procedure for making applications under this legislation I will publish a further article.

The reason for this is simple – all “Motions/Applications” have a format, a particular way of doing it – this format involves submitting certain forms and following certain “Orders of the Court”

Because ALL the previous legislation has been repealed – this will require NEW “Rules of the Court” and probably the current “Forms” will require amendment/change/re-formatting.

My apologies for getting a bit technical – but if you think that some slimey counsel, usually paid for by women’s aid or any of the other cesspits of feminist propaganda won’t try and trip you (any man) up, invariably going into court as a lay litigant because you (any man) used the “wrong form” didn’t do something “technical” think again.

There is one final point I would like to make here – and I refer to the section on “coercive control: Section 39 and strongly suggest you review the research and analysis with regard to parental alienation – and perhaps see if you can spot the commonalities in particular Section 39 (2) (a) and (b)

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person’s behaviour has a serious effect on a relevant person if the behaviour causes the relevant person—

(a) to fear that violence will be used against him or her, or

(b) serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities.

(emphasis added)


If I achieve nothing else today by posting this, with the caveat, I have not had time to do a thorough analysis and/or a proper legal search (to link other provisions of law to this legislation i.e., the Constitution, The ECHR etc.) except this:

If you are a MAN and you are reading this, or have been reading any of the articles referenced above and have inculcated the message that The Domestic Violence Act 2018 is ONLY FOR WOMEN.


This legislation applies to YOU – as a man, as a human being, as an Irish Citizen

  • Every single provision of this Legislation can be used, invoked and applied BY YOU. AS A MAN.
  • You as A MAN are entitled to every single protection available under this Legislation AS A MAN.
  • You AS A MAN are entitled to under the provisions of this legislation to go into COURT on a Motion/Application exactly like any woman can.
  • And further – you as A MAN are entitled to be granted an Order (whatever form that Order takes) under ANY provision of this legislation AS A MAN, as a human being – and – as an Irish Citizen.







Irish Feminism Has Found its Super Mangina – Ian Hughes.


Ian Hughes is an Irish blogger and recently one of his blog articles

found its way onto the the title of this putrid piece of apologia by a male person for feminism says it all – it is entitled –

Why are men more likely to be violent than women? Link here.

and…it is complete, unadulterated rubbish.

Before I get into this piece of feminist drivel – how do I know that Ian Hughes is a super mangina?

Simples – I went onto his blog and checked his sources –for what he laughably calls “the facts”

Here they are.


1.Feminism and Men, Nikki van der Gaag, Zed Books, London, 2014, page 198

2.Men Explain Things To Me, Rebecca Solnit, Granta, 2014, page 30

3.Men Explain Things To Me, Rebecca Solnit, Granta, 2014, page 23

4.Quoted in Understanding Violent Crime, Stephen Jones, Open University Press, 2000, page 73

5.Feminism and Men, Nikki van der Gaag, Zed Books, London, 2014, page 62”


Well now! There’s a bleeding surprise. NOT.

He does provide three links in the body of The Journal article – which – yep – I clicked on.

The first leads to a NY Times article – Is Delhi So Different From Steubenville? Link here and the second goes to……….wait for it………wait for it.

Steinem: More women killed by partners since 9/11 than deaths from attacks, ensuing wars

Yesirreebob – that would be Gloria Steinem, Gloria. Bloody. Steimem!

There is a third link provided in the body of the article on The Journal, which apparently is the source for his contention that:

“Research into group violence, such as racial and homophobic assaults, has shown that violent groups are typically made up of four different types of offenders: thugs for whom violence is their normal means of resolving disputes; xenophobes who blame others for their own troubles; sympathisers who become involved through peer pressure; and politically motivated offenders, who are usually educated and indulge in violence in pursuit of their political beliefs.”

Do you know where it leads to? To a scholarly article? Nope. Perhaps an academic journal? Nope again. Alright – a paper about the dynamics of group violence? Wrong again.

It is a link to…….an ad for a book – NOT the actual book, NOT any source material, nope – it is simply the retail information for a book – which apparently ISN’T AVAILALBE as an ebook.

Sooooooooooooooo, if you wanted to verify Ian Hughes source material, you can’t – unless you go onto amazon and buy the book!

Hmmmmmmm, so far Ian Hughes has failed miserably to back up his ludicrous contentions with anything even remotely resembling adequate verifiable reference material.

Two articles and an ad for a book just don’t cut it Ian.

But, but, but – he cites some references in the blog article! Indeed he does – and oh boy – if you wanted to, you couldn’t find more dubious, compromised, tainted and probably corrupt sources than the two feminists he cites.

Let’s start with Rebecca Solnit – link here (its wikipedia, but I couldn’t be arsed researching a feminist)

“Solnit is credited with the concept behind the term mansplaining, a habitual gender-based condescending language style that emerged shortly after her April 2008 blog post “Men Explain Things to Me,” although she did not invent the portmanteau word itself.[17][18][19] The term has since been widely adopted.[19]

She is also the author of this little gem: Why “Mansplaining” Is Still a Problem

A snippet:

“The battle for women to be treated like human beings with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of involvement in cultural and political arenas continues, and it is sometimes a pretty grim battle. When I wrote the essay below, I surprised myself in seeing that what starts out as minor social misery can expand into violent silencing and even violent death.”

Solnit is – a professional whiner – sigh.

What about Ian Hughes’ other feminist source? Nikki Van Der Gaag. Well, she is also the author of this: Why involve men in work on gender equality? Link here.

This is her little gem:

“First, because the focus on men does not always come from a gender equality perspective, but from the idea that it is men who are now the victims. For example, Atlantic Monthly ran an article noting that men are becoming redundant with an ‘unprecedented role reversal now under way’. And in 2010 Newsweek ran a cover story on ‘reinventing masculinity’, analysing assertions that women are taking over the world – or at least the US.

This is dangerous nonsense. Of course there are individual men who face rape or violence from women, but they are in a tiny minority. Overwhelmingly, it is still predominantly women who face abuse, violence and discrimination from men. Things may look better in the rich world, but for example, in the US, a woman is battered by her intimate partner every 15 seconds in the UK, women working full time still earn on average 15.5% less an hour than men. Globally, women hold only 19% of positions in national parliaments.

Second, there is suspicion from feminists, and from some women and women’s groups about working with men. (Not to mention the scepticism from some women and men about the value of gender work at all in our ‘post-feminist’ era). They question men’s motives. And they feel that the debate is hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women. They are right.”

(emphasis added)

How many falsehoods, lies and misinformation did you spot?


Ok so – you may be wondering why I haven’t torn into Ian Hughes actual article.

Good question. As soon as I saw the title and the sub-heading of his article

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

I had two thoughts – first, this is going to be shit and I’m going to want to kick something (ouch by the way) and second – I wonder which feminazi is pulling his strings?

The reason for the second thought is simple – it is patently obvious that brand feminism is toxic and getting more so day by day – and what do women (feminists) do when they are failing to achieve their goals through their own efforts?

They rope a man in, wind him up like one of those monkeys with a drum and push the poor sod out into the firing line.

It isn’t so much violence by proxy, but propaganda by proxy – you see feminism depends on male acquiescence in sufficient numbers for its very survival. Seriously.

It also depends on male guilt for all those supposed aeons of “oppression” and a continuance of assuaging that guilt by lots and lots of compliant………………………FUNDING!

Feminists neeeeeeeeeeed other men to whip all those non compliant men back into line – they have realised that the shrieking nagging bitter old harpies of feminism are waaaaaaaaaaaaaayy past their sell by date and that the “youngsters” of this supposed new wave of feminists are quite simply vacuous morons – ergo – feminism needs compliant men to lay some man guilt on the boys!

Eeeeeemmmmm, good luck with that!

Van Der Gaag actually makes a valid point – there are approx only about 19% ish of politicians who are female – but she, like all feminists misses the point.

First – that’s because women are less interested in pursuing political careers and second – so bloody what!

Lastly – as feminism and its never ending demands, whining and caterwauling reaches that point where it is definitely getting on everybody’s last nerve – one lives in hope that sanity, reality and commonsense starts to prevail and “being female” is as about as relevant as being tall, or short, or having blue eyes or red hair.


Apparently (according to Ian Hughes) – The Republic of Ireland is awash with the bodies of battered, murdered and assaulted women – in fact Irish women have allegedly been at the receiving end of unrelenting violence and assault in this State for decades, eons – forever.

Except this is not true – in fact it is an outright lie – a fabrication – a fraud – complete and utter horseshit.

Let’s start with murder – Homicide – the ultimate act of violence. Link Here, the first thing to state is that Ireland has one of the lowest rates of Homicide in the world.

“During the study period there was a total of 205 incidents resulting in the death of 214 victims. The average population of the State during this period was 3,575,900 and this gives an average homicide rate for the five years of 1.2 per 105 per year.”


That’s 1.2 persons out of every 10,0000 – that’s 0.0012%

Depending on which feminist you can bear to listen to, or read, its either 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 – so what would the actual numbers of those “percentages” be? based on the female population of The Republic of Ireland.

20% (1 in 5) would be 715,180           

25% (1 in 4) would be 893,975          

But the ACTUAL average rate of 0.0012% would be………………43

Can you spot the astronomical difference between the actual average of 43 and the feminist “percentage” of 715,180? Hard to spot, isn’t it? Those two numbers are sooooooooooooooooo close!


But – let’s be fair – (an unknown concept for feminists) and let them have one of their “statistics” and calculate a rate of “two women a week murdered”

That would add up to 102 women a year out of an average female population of 1,808,083

102 (102.1567)            women murdered per year would represent 0.0057% of the average female population of The Republic of Ireland.

The actual average number of female victims of Homicide yearly in the Republic of Ireland is – 10. This works out at less than one per month.

The average numbers of male victims of Homicide in The Republic of Ireland yearly is – 32.

For the hard of thinking (feminists) three times as many males are victims of Homicide in the Republic of Ireland than females.

Yet – not only do feminists go into hysterical paroxysms over female Homicides while ignoring the three times as many male Homicides – the mainstream media follows suit and peddles this toxic feminist shoite that a female life is not only worth more than a male life – but even when a female does kill – she is given a pass – see below.

The most prolific and poisonous of all misinformation (outright lies) agents is womensaid – and this is what they claim on their website:


“Since 1996, there have been 204 women murdered in the Republic of Ireland. 127 women (62%) were killed in their own homes. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


During this same period 1,061 men were murdered in The Republic of Ireland.


“In the resolved cases 78 women (53%) were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


During the period 1994 – 2005 out of a total of 205 Homicides – 46 male perpetrators killed a female and 20 female perpetrators killed 15 males and five females. The remaining homicides were of a male killing another male – usually in an unpremeditated incident precipitated by a quarrel and while intoxicated.


“Another 52 (35%) women were killed by someone they knew (e.g. brother, son, neighbour, acquaintance). Thus, a total of 130 women (89%) were killed by someone known to them. In all of the resolved cases, 99% of perpetrators were male and 1% was female. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


Naturally womensaid, and no doubt Ian Hughes won’t be mentioning this:


“In the present study female perpetrators killed a spouse in 7 (35%) cases, or a family member in 9 (45%) cases. In only a single case did a female perpetrator kill a stranger.

The corresponding figures for male perpetrators are the killing of a spouse in 18 (10.2%) cases, and family members in 25 (14.1%) cases. In 47 (26.6%) cases the victim of a male perpetrator was a stranger. “


(From Homicide in Ireland 1994 – 2005 – see link below)

Womensaid are doing the usual feminist two step – sleight of hand – or for the more pragmatic – outright lying by omission – creating a smokescreen of hysteria around the figures of female victims of homicide while ignoring not only the greater numbers of male victims of homicide but the fact of female killings of males, and other females.

Look at it this way – out of the total of 205 homicides between 1994 – 2005 – 51 females died as the result of unlawful killing – 46 were killed by a male and 5 were killed by a female – 10% of them were killed by females NOT 1% as stated by womensaid.

Having said all that – all unlawful deaths are a tragedy – ALL of them.

The only year where the Census and the Crime figures correlate is 2002, the female population in 2002 was 492,760, in that year 9 victims of homicide were female this represents 0.00183% of the total female population of The Republic of Ireland, 43 victims of Homicide were male.


What this means is that 99.9% of Irish women didn’t die and probably won’t die from being “unlawfully killed”.


For the total numbers of Homicides from 2006 – 2013 see here;

Between 1994 and 2005 there were 120 female victims of Homicide in The Republic of Ireland – during that same period there were 381 male victims of Homicide.

The average number of female victims of homicide over that 12 year period was 10 per year. If we take that average figure and calculate for the years 2006 to 2013 (8 years) we get another 80 female victims of Homicide. Then we add 80 to that figure of 120 and get 200 – which is pretty close to the figure of 204 cited by womensaid from 1996 – 2014.

Except they do not mention the 1,061 male victims of Homicide during that same period.

So over the course of the period 1994 – 2013

204 victims of Homicide were female

1,061 victims of Homicide were male.

Nor do they, or Ian Hughes expend one single solitary moment of concern or even sympathy for ANY male victim of unlawful killing.

But there’s more. From – HOMICIDE IN IRELAND 1992 – 1996 – Dr. Enda Dooley – Link Here.

“In 151 (73.7%) of the 205 cases the main victim was male while in the remaining 54 (26.3%) cases the victim was female. In 200 cases the gender of the perpetrator was known and in 180 cases (90.0%) the main perpetrator was male with a female perpetrator in the remaining 20 (10.0%) cases. Overall there has been little alteration in the male to female perpetrator ratio.

In 134 cases both victim and perpetrator were male while in 46 cases a male perpetrator killed a female victim. In the 20 cases where the perpetrator was female the victim was male in 15 cases and female in 5 cases.

As has been shown previously female perpetrators are significantly more likely to kill a spouse or family member compared to males.

In the present study female perpetrators killed a spouse in 7 (35%) cases, or a family member in 9 (45%) cases. In only a single case did a female perpetrator kill a stranger.

The corresponding figures for male perpetrators are the killing of a spouse in 18 (10.2%) cases, and family members in 25 (14.1%) cases. In 47 (26.6%) cases the victim of a male perpetrator was a stranger.

This difference (spouse or family members vs others) is highly significant (X2 = 24.2; p<0.00001).”

(emphasis added)

Male spouses are three times more likely to be killed by their female spouses than female spouses are to be killed by their male spouses.

In fact, this study goes on to say this:

“The present study has confirmed the finding previously that the ‘typical’ homicide in Ireland occurs late at night and involves the killing of a man in his thirties by another, somewhat younger, man. Frequently one or both parties will have been intoxicated and the incident will not have been premeditated.

In the majority of cases the victim and perpetrator were known to each other and the incident occurred in the context of an argument or quarrel. The majority of perpetrators co-operated with the subsequent investigation

In the small number of cases involving female perpetrators the victims were more likely to be related to the perpetrator and to be young.

Homicide remains overwhelmingly perpetrated by males on other males. In the small proportion of cases involving a female perpetrator the victim is much more likely to be a partner or family member.”

(emphasis added)

From this study it is patently clear that when women kill they overwhelmingly kill their spouses/partners, of the relatively small numbers of unlawful killings in the Republic of Ireland those by men are of other men during the course of a fight/quarrel/argument and it is generally unpremeditated – ie – manslaughter.


Figures extracted from: Here


There is one area where the female “rate” reaches 50% – getting away with murder!


“Similar to the previous study finding was that female perpetrators were significantly more likely to have a nolle prosecui entered. Of the 20 cases involving a female perpetrator 10 (50%) had a nolle prosecui entered compared to 19 of the 180 where the gender of the perpetrator was known to be male (X2=19.52; p<0.0001).”

Of those 20 cases were the perpetrator was female – 15 of those victims were male – five were female.


*Nolle Prosecui = Do Not Prosecute.


Let me put that in clear unequivocal terms – 50% (half) of female murderers “get away with it” and 10.55% (one tenth) of male perpetrators do.

Have you any idea how totally unbelievable it is that one half of a set of murderers are given a pass (nolle prosecui )

These people took someone’s life!

Except they’re not just people are they? They’re WOMEN!

Who do they kill? They kill their spouses/partners, their relatives…………………….and their children, and they have a fifty/fifty chance of getting away with it.


“The overall picture of the relatively small number of homicides which might be attributable to mental disorder is one of domestic tragedy. To a disproportionate degree these events involve close relatives, more likely involving a female perpetrator and a young victim and usually occur in a domestic setting.

There is often a well documented psychiatric history (though by no means necessarily any history of previous violent behaviour). Unlike the situation in ‘normal’ homicide acute intoxication is rarely a factor in these events.

The striking factor concerning this particular category is the high proportion of cases which are discontinued. Only four of the fifteen cases resulted in a court verdict. There were no convictions for Infanticide recorded during the study period (three of these cases involved the killing of a child under the age of one by his/her mother and so, potentially, would have been liable to this verdict, if it was raised).

Only two of these fifteen cases resulted in a psychiatric verdict (Unfit to Plead or Guilty but Insane). In all only three (1.5%) of the 205 cases in this study received a legal psychiatric disposal and this is a marked decrease from the proportion (5.1%) in the period 1972-91.”

(emphasis added)


By the way, for all those idiots who posted comments to the article in The Journal ignorantly declaring “it’s an excess of testosterone” blah blah blah. YOU. ARE. WRONG, on two counts – first for giving any credence to this garbage by Ian Hughes in the first place and secondly for spouting ignorant rubbish yourselves.

From: Testosterone does not induce aggression, study shows: Date: December 9, 2009

Source: University of Zurich


New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior. A study with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one’s own status.”

And this:

Testosterone increases honesty, study suggests: Date: October 10, 2012

Source: University of Bonn


Testosterone is considered the most important male hormone, associated with aggression and posturing. Researchers have now been able to demonstrate that this sex hormone surprisingly also fosters social behavior. In play situations, subjects who had received testosterone clearly lied less frequently than individuals who had only received a placebo.”


Let’s go back to Hughes’ foundational premise that:

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

If this is true, then it is true for The Republic of Ireland – more women are killed by male violence than by cancer and traffic accidents “combined”– we’ll stick to those two – we don’t get much malaria here in the Republic of Ireland – and not much “war”.

But – if it is not true – then the platform upon which Ian Hughes has built his “argument” crumbles into dust.

These are the actual figures for female deaths from all forms of cancer, and road traffic accidents (RTA) and Homicide in the Republic of Ireland from 1997 – 2005

Year     Cancer RTA    Total 

1997    1636    122      1758    Female Homicides – 13

1998    3471    102      3573    Female Homicides – 9

1999    3430    111      3541    Female Homicides – 8

2000    3546    81        3627    Female Homicides – 10

2001    3559    82        3641    Female Homicides – 13

2002    3433    83        3516    Female Homicides – 9

2003    3593    78        3671    Female Homicides – 8

2004    3577    61        3638    Female Homicides – 6

2005    3664    80        3744    Female Homicides – 9


Central Statistics Office: Deaths Registered Provisional (Number) by Sex, Cause of Death and Quarter. Link here.

National Crime Council: Homicide Victims by Sex 1994 – 2005. Link Here.


 Res Ipsa Loquitr


It goes without saying that this kind of putrid garbage is par for the course from feminists – from a male person it is outrageous – in particular because Ian Hughes claims to be “scientific” I have news for you Ian – regurgitating feminist claptrap is NOT even close to being either scientific or factual – unless you consider pulling numbers and statistics out of your arse “scientific”

I rarely do this, but I demand that Ian Hughes correct the outrageous falsehoods and misinformation in his article and APOLOGISE to the vast majority of Irish men who do not, have not or ever will perpetrate violence of any kind against anyone and for peddling such egregious poisonous and fraudulent rubbish.

I will leave you with some advice Ian Hughes – I definitely wouldn’t turn your back on your new feminist pals – and just to be on the safe side – if I was you – I’d sleep with one eye open. Launch New Campaign to Highlight Domestic Abuse Against Men in Ireland


Of all the issues faced by Irish men – the most hidden and least acknowledged is being the victim of a violent and abusive partner – even by men themselves today launched it’s campaign to bring this hidden trauma to the public consciousness.

“Amen, the Navan-based voluntary group which provides support to male victims of domestic violence, has come across some extreme cases involving men who have been hit, kicked, slapped, stabbed with scissors or had boiling water thrown at them.

 Another problem is a widespread contemptuous or dismissive attitude to male victims of domestic violence. Niamh Farrell, manager at Amen, says: “We’ve had a regular flow of men coming in to talk about physical abuse. They feel they can’t report it because they don’t think they’ll be believed — women hitting men is not taken that seriously.”

“It can take men a while to take it seriously themselves — they’ll often endure sustained abuse before they come forward and only come when things are really bad.

“Women don’t take it seriously — if Nigella Lawson had done that to her husband it probably would not have got the same coverage even though it would be equally as serious.”


THE hidden agony of men whose abusive partners demand their wages and demean them with an ‘allowance of €20 to €30’ a week is revealed in a new report.

 They are among thousands of men seeking help for physical, emotional, psychological, financial and even sexual abuse perpetrated by their female partners or wives.

 Some are having to wear make-up to cover bruises and feel humiliated and demoralised, the annual report of Amen, the support service for men revealed.

 The organisation is reporting a strong demand for its services with more than 5,225 contacts last year, a rise of 18pc.

 These contacts include helpline calls, one-to-one meetings, court accompaniments, emails, text messages and letters.

 One in four men who is contacting the support service say they are being physically abused by their partner or wife. Three-quarters are suffering a combination of verbal, psychological and financial abuse. And about 1pc of men who are seeking help are being sexually abused by their partners, according to the figures.

 “Many men have expressed that they ‘envy’ males who have physical scars because the scars from emotional or verbal and psychological abuse are far more damaging,” the report said.

 “The constant criticism and belittling have a long-lasting, damaging effect on a victim of domestic abuse,” it said.

 Since the service started in 1997, support staff have heard accounts from men who have experienced severe and at times life-threatening physical abuse.”


It is way past the time for feminists to shut the hell up about “violence against women” and time to start talking about violence BY WOMEN.


It is way past the time to start talking about violent PEOPLE – to start recognising that violent people are violent because that is how they are – NOT because they are male – or even because they are female – but because they are violent and abusive.


Our national TV station RTE ran a report earlier today about this launch on the news programme Six One News –  Report starts at 29.10 mins



Kristallnacht – Déjà Vue – Detroit – 2014


“Kristallnacht, literally, “Night of Crystal,” is often referred to as the “Night of Broken Glass.” The name refers to the wave of violent anti-Jewish pogroms which took place on November 9 and 10, 1938, throughout Germany, annexed Austria, and in areas of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia recently occupied by German troops.

Instigated primarily by Nazi Party officials and members of the SA (Sturmabteilungen: literally Assault Detachments, but commonly known as Storm Troopers) and Hitler Youth, Kristallnacht owes its name to the shards of shattered glass that lined German streets in the wake of the pogrom—broken glass from the windows of synagogues, homes, and Jewish-owned businesses plundered and destroyed during the violence.”


There is none more fundamental Human Right that the right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Belief and Speech – but this basic Human Right encompasses more than just this.

“Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition — this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is

the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.”


Instigating, calling for, threatening, or perpetrating violence against those who do not believe what you believe, who do not agree with your opinion, who do not think the way you think – is akin to the progrom that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews – and Kristallnacht was the first salvo in what became one the most horrific murderous periods of genocide in human history – and it began with broken glass.

Feminists have now embarked on preparations for another Kristallnacht – 76 years after that first Kristallnacht – because they do not believe that anyone has the right to believe, think or articulate anything other than what they believe, think or articulate.

Feminists are the new Nazis.

As a free citizen of the Republic of Ireland I declare that in my opinion feminism is a hate movement, a terrorist organisation and is akin to Nazism.

That anyone who collaborates with, supports, endorses or stands idly by and refuses to condemn feminism in all its manifestations, roots and branches is equally culpable, equally complicit is supporting a terrorist organisation, a hate movement and an ideology that has no other comparison other than to Nazism.

On June 26 – 29 2014 A Voice for Men (AVfM) intends to hold an International Conference on Men’s Rights in Detroit – the hotel at which this conference is being hosted has been in contact with Paul Elam owner and publisher of AVfM to make him aware that serious threats of violence, and of death threats have been made against not just conference attendees but the hotel, its staff and other guests.

From a reading of the communication sent to Paul Elam from the hotel – two things are clear – the hotel is taking these threats seriously, and the hotel also expects the conference organisers to pay for the protection of the hotel, its staff, its guests and conference attendees.  Including attendees from other sovereign states – we’ll get back to this shortly, and anyone who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Against terrorists.

Except – the issuing of credible threats is a Federal Criminal Offence in the US – it is a crime.

“b)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(c)Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”


(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, § 63,Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), (H), (K),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

See also


18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any   communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of ‘intent.’ Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

The holding in United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992) confirms this statement. In DeAndino, the court held: “A criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C.S. § 875(c) does not contain a specific mens rea element. However, such a statute is not presumed to create a strict liability offense, because mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crime denounced.”

In other words, ‘federal stalking,’ as this crime is also known, is not a strict liability crime but it does require prosecutors to prove that the accused committed the offense. Thus, the ‘wording’ of the e-mails and the e-mails themselves are critical evidence in these cases.

Threats of injury must be found in the e-mails sent by the accused. As the Court held in DeAndino, the words in the [e-mail] message must fully, directly, and expressly set the elements of the statutory offense.

For instance, in Tuason, the wording of one of his e-mails said: “Mulatto kids are ugly freaks that should be destroyed. . . The blackie should be castrated. I want people in public malls, photo shoots, TV studios, radio, concerts, arenas, restaurants, NBC TV, Bravo TV, parties, sidewalks, etc. to stare and stab dead any blackie with a white girl like “SS”. . . If not, I “HK” WILL BOMB THE PLACE.” These words are a clear example of threatening words of injury under the federal statute.

Many other US circuit courts have followed this interpretation in DeAndino. For instance, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth circuit courts have followed this interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) as not requiring specific mens rea (mental state of intent).

DeAndino held that this crime requires three specific elements: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.

Therefore, according to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) sending e-mails with words threatening injury is a federal crime and can be easily proven by showing that it was sent to a person in other state, showing the e-mail, and the wording the e-mail contains.

Thus, individuals prompt to explosive reactions should be cautions when wording their e-mail messages. A simple ‘mistake’ in wording e-mails threatening its recipient with an injury, even if not intended, may typify a federal crime with a harsh imprisonment sentence.”


The communication from the hotel makes reference to “calls” and “other threats” would it be beyond the realms of possibility that these threats were also issued via email, and/or online?

The hotel suggests that AVfM pays for extra police officers in order to protect, the hotel, its staff, its guests and conference attendees. From terrorists, and to take out insurance – against terrorist threats.

I have some questions – is the FBI involved? Are Detroit police investigating these criminal acts?

Again from reading the communication sent to Paul Elam from the hotel – these threats are being made against not just actual attendees of this conference – but hotel staff, hotel guests NOT attending this conference and one presumes any other person who might happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Again – I ask –  is the Federal Bureau of Investigation  involved in what appears to be credible threats of violence and credible death threats?

Back to citizens of other sovereign states who may either be attending this conference or just happen to be guests of this hotel at the same time.

Will the US State Department now be issuing warnings to citizens of other sovereign states intending to visit the United States of America that they do so at their own peril – recommend that visitors bring full body armour and take out either private insurance or hire private security personnel to accompany them on their visit to the United States of America – “Land of the Free, home of the brave” because apparently now, one only gets state police protection and Federal protection against threats of violence, and death threats from feminists, if one pays – the police force.

I recommend that citizens of other sovereign states intending to visit the United States of America, contact their embassies and Foreign Affairs Departments to make formal complaints to the government of the United States of America that threats of violence, and death threats against either US citizens or citizens of other sovereign states are tolerated in the United States of America – if they are made by feminists.

Apparently the targets of these threats of violence or death are irrelevant – whether attendees at a conference, staff of hotels or any other guests who just happen to be there.

So, what is it that the feminists who have issued these threats are “objecting” to? Not by disagreeing, not by legitimately protesting under legally sanctioned “freedom of association” – but by issuing death threats and threats of violence – not just against conference attendees, but the hotel, its staff, its guests, citizens of other sovereign states and any other person who – as I said – happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because they do NOT uphold or believe in that most basic of all fundamental Human Rights.

Freedom of Speech, thought, conscience and belief.


Many people have written about this fundamental Human Right – the prophetic George Orwell

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

Apparently in the United States of America – the home of “Liberty” if feminists don’t like what they hear – they will threaten violence and death against those saying those things they don’t want to hear – so that nobody else gets to hear them either – this would be in pursuit of “equal rights” no doubt?

Several US presidents have also addressed the issue of Freedom of Speech.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

George Washington

It would appear that George Washington knew what he was talking about with regard to “slaughter” as feminists appear to believe that killing those with whom you disagree with is a legitimate way to advocate for “equal rights”

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”

Harry S. Truman

Mr. Truman was prescient – “a country where everyone lives in fear.” From feminists – who will perpetrate violence or fatal injury upon anyone who “disagrees” with them.

How about one of the famous Americans of all time?

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

Did I mention that America prides itself on being the bastion of Liberty and Freedom and Democracy?

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

[The One Un-American Act, Speech to the Author’s Guild Council in New York, on receiving the 1951 Lauterbach Award (December 3, 1952)]”

William O. Douglas

Our own inimitable Oscar had something to say about Freedom of Speech.

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Oscar Wilde

A twist on that most famous of all quotes about Freedom of Speech.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”


Though from the feminist perspective that should read “if I don’t agree with what you say – I will visit death and violence upon you – so that you don’t get to say what I disagree with”


The last word goes to Christopher Hitchens.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

Christopher Hitchens

I would like to add this – for any feminist attempting to pull the NAFALT – (Not All Feminists Are Like That) card – let me say this – ALL feminism is like that – if you subscribe to, endorse, support or turn a blind eye to the toxic roots, murderous and criminal behaviour of ANY section, part, branch of form of feminism – you ARE like that.

And you can kiss my Irish arse.


All quotes from –


For those who think “this has nothing to do with me, am not either a feminist or a MRA/MHRA – storm in a teacup” – then bear this mind.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”


You don’t have to be a feminist or a MRA/MHRA or any other designation to believe in the sanctity of Human Rights – hell you don’t even have to like the human being whose rights you acknowledge as being sacrosanct – even the biggest arsehole on the planet has those Human Rights.

You don’t have to be anything but a Human Being to speak out against injustice, against prejudice, against hatred, against bigotry.

For those feminists caught in that toxic loop – “you must be a feminist” – I’m NOT a feminist – and hey look – my head didn’t explode – an asteroid didn’t hit the earth – the sun didn’t fall out of the sky.

I’m NOT a feminist and I believe 100% in the sanctity of Human Rights – you don’t you are a female supremacist – a supporter of thugs – of terrorists – unless you completely disavow and reject any tenet of feminism –  and you continue to stand idly by and say nothing about what YOUR movement deems a legitimate form of protest – threats of violence and death threats against those who also declare – I’m NOT a feminist.

Not speaking up – turning a blind eye makes you complicit.

These people claim to speak on your behalf – to be the voice of feminism – THIS is what your feminism is – in all its putrid toxic murderous and vile hate-filled glory. Your feminism.

There have been many many people whose beliefs were so deeply held they were worth dying for – YOURS apparently are worth killing for.


Edit – just got notification of this at

“Its Time To Class Feminism As a Terrorist Group”