Wow. After all those years of seeing discrimination against men becoming ever more blatant and intense, who would have thought that one crazy dude in the White House could threaten this highly successful feminist enterprise. We will have to see how it all pans out, but Trump’s decision to eliminate all government diversity programs is causing ructions in the mighty international DEI industry which has spent decades creating programs and policies designed to ensure women are advantaged over men, particularly white men, at every turn. Note that Trump’s Executive Order 14171 is titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” Even though most of the howls of outrage from woke folk is focussed on the impact of racial affirmative action policies, merit-based opportunity would be a real novelty for white men working in colleges and government organisations across America who are used to being at the bottom of the heap. A report from the American ABC shows no interest in the notion of “merit-based opportunity” but chooses instead to wail about the impact on a young female researcher working on intestinal parasites in India – supported by diversity-based funding which is now under threat. The news story reports on legal challenges to Trump’s Executive Order and quotes a defiant professor determined to fight back, “We’re doing DEI whether they like it or not.” Well, professor, most people don’t like it. The endless discrimination against men is far from popular – look at that strong vote from young men which helped sweep Trump into power. Australia’s Opposition Leader Peter Dutton named the problem in a recent podcast, saying young men were feeling “disenfranchised and ostracised”, and fed up with being passed over for jobs. As Dutton put it, “They’re pushing back and saying, ‘well, why am I being overlooked at work for a job, you know, three jobs running when I’ve got, you know, a partner at home, and she’s decided to stay at home with three young kids, and I want a promotion at work so that I can help pay the bills at home.’” DEI is responsible for men finding themselves pushed out. And now, finally they are allowed to complain about it. With the new zeitgeist encouraging people to give voice to their discontent about diversity programs, the public mood has even forced corporate America to take notice. Look what’s happening in the corporate world where so many big companies are now choosing to scale back their DEI programs. Last year a host of companies moved in this direction: American Airlines, Boeing, Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, Nissan, Walmart. Amazon, META and McDonalds took similar measures just last month. Even the public broadcaster, PBS, has got rid of their DEI department. Now that’s a real turn-about for this huge anti-male propaganda unit. Not much sign of change yet in corporate Australia but as they say, “when America sneezes, the world catches a cold.” Hopefully the same applies to the anti-DEI sentiment. What’s driving this vibe shift in the USA is clear evidence that DEI is no trivial matter. It’s not just unfair, distorting the productivity of workplaces by eroding meritocracy, creating resentment, and distrust. But it also puts lives at risk. This has been on display, front and centre on the world stage, in a number of startling recent news stories. Take the attempted assassination of Trump at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. How could we ever forget the utter clown show of those bumbling female secret service agents who staggered around looking bewildered, with one struggling to holster her weapon. It turned out that the Secret Service had been working towards a goal of 30% female hires, pushed by Kimberly Cheatle, the Secret Service Director who was forced to resign over her handling of the fiasco. Then came the Californian fires which drew attention to Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley’s obsession with making diversity a top priority for her department rather than focussing on the core mission of ensuring firefighters were capable of doing their jobs. Peak lunacy came when the head of DEI in the LA fire department sneered at the notion that female firefighters should be able to carry men out of a fire. Naturally Trump drew flak by suggesting that the Washington plane crash could be related to the Federal Aviation Administration recruiting workers “who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative.” Since then the FAA has refused to name the jobs available to such people in their organization, but the evidence is clear that the organization’s diversity push risked bringing in workers unsuited for high stakes, high pressure roles. The reaction to this sequence of events has been a flood of “DEI – EQUALS - DIE” social media posts as people voice the widespread public perception that compulsory diversity is not only mad but dangerous. That’s what I have been hearing for many years: police officers complaining of female colleagues who cower in police cars at the slightest whiff of trouble; army officers nervous about female members of their team who can’t manage the very physical aspects of their role; firefighters reporting on the high injury rate of female colleagues who struggle with their loads; and mining personnel with safety concerns when women with minimal experience are pushed into management roles in their high-risk industry. But there’s another risk arising from decades of DEI distorting our workforces, particularly in the public sector – namely misguided policy driven by biased, feminist management. I’ve written before about the systematic discrimination against men which has occurred in our public service, with affirmative action programs relentlessly recruiting more women than men and pushing them into senior ranks. I reported that 31 of the 96 government agencies now have 70% or more females, including in key policy areas like health and social services. We now have huge swathes of our public service utterly controlled by women, including many feminists captured by anti-male ideology. These are the people shaping our public policies, spending vital taxpayer funded resources and drafting our laws. This means when it comes to policies that should be saving lives, they are only interested in one side of the equation - saving women. One obvious example is the domestic violence bureaucrats pouring billions of dollars into resources they claim protect women from dangerous men, whilst utterly ignoring the safety of men and their children who are at risk from violent women. Law professor Augusto Zimmermann exposed this shameful state of affairs in his powerful lecture at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference last year. Our key research funding body, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is massively supporting women’s health research, whilst neglecting work that could save men’s lives – despite women living on average four years longer than men. Look at this revealing graph from James Nuzzo – who blogs at The Nuzzo Letter. But the most striking example of biased bureaucracy is the utterly shameful distortion of our suicide prevention policies which for decades have wilfully refused to target men – even though 7 of the 9 people who kill themselves each day in this country are male. The National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement identified 15 priority populations yet didn’t target men as a priority group. The latest strategy mentions specific groups of men, such as indigenous and LGBTQI men, but no programs targeting the broader population of ordinary men. It’s no wonder Australia’s suicide prevention policies are such a dismal failure. Over the last two decades (2000-2021) suicides worldwide dropped by 6% but in this country they went up by 39%. Analysis by the Australian Men’s Health Forum in 2020 showed that 4 of 5 beneficiaries of suicide prevention policies were female, and little has changed since then. And now we have Coroner’s report data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing that among men 25-44, the biggest cause of suicide is now “problems in spousal relationships circumstances”. It is appalling that our suicide prevention programs are ignoring this key trigger for male suicide and refusing to provide services to support men going through this process. It's no coincidence that these suicide prevention bodies are staffed almost entirely by female health bureaucrats, women who have no interest in saving the lives of ordinary men, and no intention of opening the can of worms that is our biased family law system. This system is a key part of the reason why these family men are killing themselves in such numbers – a system designed to chew men up and spit them out. Any decent suicide prevention program would ask what can be done to protect men from this fate. None of that is going to happen whilst biased female hands are steering the ship of state. Dismantling DEI in our bureaucracies would be a small, but critical step towards a policy framework that cared about women AND men. But given the grip of feminism on all Australian institutions, we’re a very long way from that right now. Yes, ideologically driven diversity programs are killing people. We must promote this fact to ensure the demise of DEI in Australia. But first, with the Federal election coming up we need to alert politicians to growing public outrage over the ongoing scandal of Australia’s failed suicide policies. You MUST help. Arguably this is the issue that best illustrates the scandalous indifference of the political class to the plight of men. All it takes is a few minutes of your time to contact your local politicians using our draft letter system. Click this link and you will be given details of your local MP and a draft letter to send to them. It would be great if you could also send this to your local Senators and the Cross Bench Senators. We are told the Opposition is considering a major revamp of suicide policies with a focus on men. Now’s the time to put the pressure on for some policy announcements to help convince people that, despite the pandering of the Morrison government to the feminist lobby, the Opposition might now deserve their vote.

The whole business is a mess. For years now, our media and sexual consent courses have been getting the law totally wrong about intoxication and consent - with the result that growing numbers of mostly young men are finding themselves wrongfully accused of rape.   Two highly significant NSW cases have called out their wrong thinking, drawing on expert forensic toxicology evidence to explain why you can give consent while intoxicated. Just because you can’t remember what happened doesn’t mean you didn’t consent to sex, say these judges. The accused men in these cases were found not guilty because of this vital principle. In addition, the judges awarded costs against the crown and made it clear these cases should never have ended up in court. Both cases attracted headlines and ultimately contributed to the decision by the Crown Prosecution office to hold an audit into whether sexual assault cases are being supported by unsatisfactory evidence. These are important decisions, which should help clarify an issue causing endless strife in personal relationships. Less so, the recent decision by Justice Michael Lee in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case. Justice Lee concluded this case also revolved around intoxication and consent and made unjustified assumptions about the effect of alcohol on Brittany Higgins’ state of mind and memory.   It’s a confusing verdict in this pivotal case which has dominated our news for so many years. The result is it muddies the waters, adding to public confusion about this vital matter which impacts so negatively on many young people.    Late last year, The ABC’s 7.30 Report ran a segment claiming to explain the law regarding alcohol and consent. As usual, our public broadcaster was intent on pushing a feminist barrow and didn’t bother to do its homework. Their television story featured Bec, a Tasmanian woman who ended up getting very drunk with a male friend in a bar. She recalls driving back to her house but the next day she couldn’t remember what happened after that. She communicated with the friend, and he confirmed by text that they had had sex. It was her lack of memory of the event which convinced Bec that she had been assaulted and led her to a long ultimately unsuccessful journey to try to get him charged. Naturally, the ABC program was up in arms that Tasmanian police failed to prosecute Bec’s former friend.  They dug up an “expert” who claimed that if Bec “can’t remember what’s happened, then there wasn’t consent. And that is a sexual assault”.   “Not true,” says a Queensland specialist in criminal law, Ken Mackenzie, who responded with a feisty blog – “ABC gets the law and science all wrong about consent and alcohol.” Mackenzie has been recently buying into public discussion over a number of issues – having resigned from his position on the Criminal Law Committee of the Queensland Law Society.   “In law, a person may have consented, even if they do not remember,” he writes, quoting expert evidence to show intoxicated people are quite capable of behaving quite normally even if later they suffer memory loss for these events. Confusion arises over the use of the term “blackout” which is sometimes thought to mean passing out, a loss of consciousness, but in fact, it actually includes a situation where a person is conscious, and interacting with his or her environment but the brain is not creating long-term memories of the events. In that situation, a person might be quite capable of giving enthusiastic consent and not remember it. Mackenzie quotes University of Texas psychologists who have researched blackouts: “An intoxicated person is able to engage in a variety of behaviours, including having detailed conversations and other more complex behaviours like driving a vehicle, but information about these behaviours is not transferred from short-term to long-term memory, which leads to memory deficits and memory loss for these events.” “Blackouts are much more common among social drinkers than was previously assumed, and have been found to encompass events ranging from conversations to intercourse. Fragmentary blackouts occur more frequently than en bloc blackouts, but neither type appear to occur until breath alcohol concentrations are 0.06 g/100ml or greater.” (The general legal driving limit in most states is 0.05%) And here, Mackenzie quotes an alcohol rehab guide: “When an individual blacks out, he or she will continue to hold conversations and engage in activities like normal. In fact, outside observers are typically unaware that an individual is blacked out. Depending on how much alcohol the person drank and how impaired other brain functions are, a person in the midst of a blackout could appear incredibly drunk – or barely intoxicated at all.” The truth about these matters is important, said Mackenzie in discussion of his blog on Reddit: “It's about thousands of people going out drinking at parties and clubs every weekend. Some of them decide to have sex. Some of them consent, and have good capacity to consent, but don't remember much the next day. Those ones weren't raped. Creating the belief that they were leads to misery and fear for hundreds of people.” As he explains, “blackout memory does not mean you were too drunk to be responsible for your decisions. You can be guilty of crimes you commit. You can properly and legally consent to sexual interactions.” All of this was spelt out in two recent cases which ended up at the heart of the stoush between NSW District Court judges and the Crown Prosecutor. In R v Smith the issues were very clear. The case involved a woman who had a regular fuck-buddy she’d been seeing for many months, despite having acquired a new boyfriend. On the occasion in question, the two met up and ended up having a heavy drinking session before going back to his home. The next thing she remembers is waking up in his bed around 9 that night. According to the judge, Peter Whitford, the accused gave a “reasonably detailed, coherent and credible account” of their sexual encounter, which included her pushing his head down towards her crutch which led to him performing oral sex. His text messages to her the next day expressed surprise and concern that she had suddenly left after waking up in his bed.   Experts on forensic toxicology who were called by both the defence and the prosecutor agreed that she could have given consent despite her blackout. Dr Pieternel van Niewenhuijzen, the expert for the prosecution, explained that despite the loss of memory people experiencing blackouts “can have conversations, they can drive, they are capable of responding, as though perfectly normally, to external stimuli. …. the person so affected is still capable of functioning in ways that might appear to an observer to be completely normal…. Furthermore, a person in that state may be capable of masking outward signs of intoxication, such as psychomotor difficulties like walking unsteadily and slurred speech; all the more so in someone who is a seasoned drinker." Professor McDonald Christie, expert for the defence, reached similar conclusions: “when a drinker is experiencing a blackout, and not laying down a memory, they may still nonetheless be well capable of functioning in the world. They can carry out everyday tasks, they can engage with people socially, including sexually. He said that whilst they are in a state of blackout, it is possible that people around them, and people with whom they're engaging, may have no appreciation of just how intoxicated they are; all the more so if the person is an experienced drinker and the signs of their intoxication might be masked.” The complainant in R v Smith never said that she didn’t give consent – yet the prosecutors decided to still give it a go. Whitford was scathing about this decision and awarded costs against the Crown. Remarkably similar facts played out in R v Martinez, another case which made headlines last year. I’ve written about this case, where the complainant nine times got totally pissed and had sex with separate men, only to turn around and report them for sexual assault, claiming she’d been too drunk to give consent. All these cases ended up with the men facing a sexual assault charge, although three took a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to lesser offences. Here too, the District Court judge Newlinds called out the prosecutors for pushing through undeserving cases, “drawing the criminal justice system into disrepute.” Here too the complainant instigated the sexual activity but later claimed to have had a blackout. Here too Dr van Niewenhuijzen was called as an expert witness, and pointed out it was quite possible the complainant had given consent, despite her level of intoxication and subsequent memory loss. Here’s Newlinds’ commentary on that: “Her own idiosyncratic definition of sexual assault includes a misguided understanding of the law to the effect that if a person cannot remember having sex with someone else that equates to sexual assault. It goes without saying that is a concept that is not known to the law.” And here too, the jury found the accused not guilty and the judge concluded the case should never have been brought to trial. Newlinds added, “If the jury had known the full picture of the Complainant’s history of accusing men of rape in similar circumstances, the time of deliberation would have been measured in minutes.” The law is clear – intoxicated women may be able to give consent to sex, even if later they can’t remember what happened. There is a spectrum of drunkenness/intoxication. At the extreme end, a person does lose capacity to consent. If they’re passed out, unconscious, then they can’t consent. If they don’t understand what they’re doing or what’s happening, then they can’t consent. The line is expressed differently in the various Australian states and territories. Which brings me back to Michael Lee, the judge who made the recent decision, now under appeal, in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case. Even though Bruce Lehrmann claimed no sexual activity took place, Justice Lee did not believe him and the case then turned upon whether the sex was consensual. Lee found that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins, on the balance of probabilities. He believed her when she said she did not consent. He believed her evidence that, at the time Lehrmann started having sex with her, she was unaware of her surroundings - despite the video footage of her chatting to security guards and then tripping along the parliamentary corridor which was surely evidence that she was “well capable of functioning in the world” less than half an hour before she claimed she turned into “a log”.   Lee’s discussion of Higgins’ alleged log-like state includes references to  “tonic immobility” - a “freeze” response often promoted in the feminist literature on rape but actually based on extremely dubious, flawed science. This is odd because this issue was never raised in evidence, and Lee himself says that he cannot “rely on matters not in evidence” so he had to put it aside and ignore it. If it was irrelevant to his decision, why mention it at all? Hmmm, we note that after the verdict, Higgins thanked Lee for his “trauma informed judgement’ – clearly such references went down well.  Although the judge concluded the couple did have sex, there’s much in the judgement to suggest the consent issue was not clearcut. The judge’s own findings – the evidence showing Higgins’ intentions prior to what happened in the Minister’s office: smooching in the bar, happily going with him back to Parliament House - clearly indicate a willingness on the part of Higgins to do something more than to drink whiskey. Lee found Lehrmann was a young man with only one thing on his mind when the pair drove to Parliament House. The same could be said about Higgins, for the same reasons. Lee said he could not believe Higgins about anything, unless what she said was backed up by some other, objectively true, evidence. Yet his interpretation of such objective evidence is most unusual. Take Higgins’ equivocal message to her ex-boyfriend in response to his question in the days after the alleged offence - “Did you hook up in there or did someone take advantage of you?’’ Her response: “Yes, it was just Bruce and from what I recall. I was barely lucid. I really don’t feel like it was consensual at all.” Somehow Lee finds this supports the Higgins’ rape story. It is all very confusing, particularly when we consider the fact that the R v Smith case was making headlines just as Lee was putting together his judgement, yet he does not give any convincing reason for preferring Higgins’ story over the possibility that she consented, fell asleep later and then later had only fragments of memory about what happened. Clearly a defamation decision has no prescribed role in public education, yet it is most unfortunate this hugely publicised verdict has simply added to the public confusion around intoxication and consent. Just one more damaging legacy from the sorry Brittany Higgins saga.