Subject: Dr Fiona Girkin Case and Institutional Response to Evidence-Based Domestic Violence Discourse
a world wide phenomenon.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express concern regarding the reported suspension and institutional response to Dr Fiona Girkin of the University of Tasmania, whose work on evidence-based policing in domestic violence cases has triggered disciplinary actions, social media backlash, and media-led discreditation.
This case raises serious issues regarding academic freedom, methodological integrity, and the ideological capture of public institutions, particularly in the context of policing and gender policy. The implications extend beyond any single professional and directly affect the broader scope of science-driven policy and free discourse in Australia.
1. Scientific Validity and the Evidence-Based Imperative
Dr Girkin’s efforts to train police officers to assess domestic violence scenes based on evidence rather than presumptive gender roles reflects long-standing calls in criminology and sociology for impartial investigative procedures. Numerous international peer-reviewed studies support her stance:
-
Straus, M.A. (2006) found that women are as likely as men to initiate domestic violence (Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma).
-
The 2025 Medical Journal of Australia survey indicated 45.5% of domestic violence victims were male—a figure that strongly contradicts the “male perpetrator/female victim” orthodoxy.
-
Archer, J. (2000) conducted a meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin of 82 studies and concluded that women were slightly more likely than men to use physical aggression against their partners.
Dr Girkin’s initiative was a scientifically grounded correction to a biased system, not a personal ideological crusade. Her removal raises deep concerns about institutional hostility toward evidence that contradicts prevailing feminist narratives.
Gendered Violence: A One-Sided Narrative
Despite a growing body of international evidence showing gender symmetry in domestic violence, the cultural and political framework in Western countries continues to frame men exclusively as perpetrators and women exclusively as victims. This reductionist view informs everything from media representation to government funding and academic discourse.
For instance:
-
In France, government reports on domestic violence overwhelmingly exclude male victims. Yet a 2019 study by INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies) found that 28% of domestic violence victims were men—a figure almost entirely absent from public discourse.
-
In Germany, the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) reported in its 2023 overview that 1 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were male. Despite this, government-funded campaigns like “Zuhause sicher?” target only female victims.
-
In Sweden, a country hailed for gender equality, studies have shown boys and young men are less likely to receive services or psychological support when they report abuse, due to entrenched stereotypes of male invulnerability.
The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), though well-funded, continues to allocate the majority of resources to female-focused initiatives, often ignoring male victimhood despite pan-European studies showing comparable or underreported male suffering.
2. Institutional Cowardice and Ideological Compliance
The response by the University of Tasmania and Tasmanian Police—initially supportive, then swiftly dissociative—demonstrates a troubling pattern of institutional volatility under activist pressure. Such conduct:
-
Undermines trust in public institutions’ ability to resist mob-driven policy shifts.
-
Promotes a censorship culture that delegitimizes dissenting academic voices, even when those voices are rooted in peer-reviewed research.
-
Threatens due process by using vague “behavioural policy” breaches as pretexts for career-damaging administrative measures.
This reactionary suppression does not reflect a principled commitment to public safety or justice—it is appeasement masquerading as professionalism.
Fathers in the Family Court: Institutionalized Dispossession
The Family Court system, both in Australia and throughout Europe, has institutionalized gender bias. Fathers face systemic hurdles when trying to secure custody or report abuse by female partners:
-
In Australia, government data shows that fathers win primary custody in only around 3–5% of contested cases. Allegations by fathers against mothers are statistically less likely to be taken seriously, often dismissed as retaliatory.
-
In UK family courts, a 2020 Ministry of Justice report admitted there is a “systemic failure to acknowledge parental alienation and female-perpetrated abuse.” Fathers are frequently silenced, even when presenting court-admissible evidence.
-
In Spain, the Ley de Violencia de Género (Law Against Gender Violence) criminalizes domestic violence only when committed by men. Male victims have no legal equivalence, creating an unconstitutional double standard in the justice system.
These policies do not merely reflect social attitudes—they institutionalize discrimination, erasing male trauma from the record and preventing boys and men from accessing justice.
3. Media Complicity and Narrative Engineering
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and specifically reporter Ellen Coulter, played a key role in distorting public understanding of Dr Girkin’s claims. Citing out-of-context crime charge statistics—which fail to account for systemic under-reporting of female violence and procedural biases—constitutes statistical malpractice.
Ironically, prior ABC reporting had condemned female misidentification as perpetrators, thereby indirectly affirming Dr Girkin’s concerns. The abrupt reversal in tone reflects media inconsistency driven by ideological preference rather than journalistic integrity.
Boys and Male Youth: Abandoned by Support Structures
The social stigma against male vulnerability begins early. In schools, welfare programs, and child protection services, boys are routinely overlooked:
-
A 2023 UNICEF report quietly acknowledged that boys make up 48% of child sexual abuse victims globally—but are half as likely to receive post-trauma care.
-
Suicide rates among young males are staggeringly high. In nearly all EU countries and in Australia, young men between 18–25 are 3 to 4 times more likely to die by suicide than women in the same age group—yet funding for mental health disproportionately favors women and girls.
-
In Canada, a leading boys’ mental health charity, BroTalk, reports that many male adolescents believe “there is no place for their pain.”
This epidemic of invisibility has serious intergenerational consequences. Today’s silenced boys become tomorrow’s silenced men—fathers, sons, and partners who have been trained to suppress suffering and stripped of legal and social recourse.
4. Silencing of Dangerous Knowledge
Perhaps the most disturbing implication is that Dr Girkin’s work is not being contested on factual or scientific grounds, but rather suppressed entirely. This has chilling implications:
-
It signals to researchers and professionals that only findings that conform to a dominant ideological script will be tolerated.
-
It weaponizes disciplinary procedures as a means of ideological control.
-
It deters future academics from exploring controversial but important areas of social science.
The treatment of Dr Fiona Girkin is emblematic of a global suppression of inconvenient truths. When scholars or professionals expose symmetrical patterns of abuse, they are smeared, sanctioned, or erased. Dr Girkin is simply the latest in a long line of professionals punished for violating a gender dogma that equates criticism with betrayal.
The implications are dire:
-
Free speech in academia is being systematically undermined by ideological enforcement.
-
Data-driven policy is replaced with politically convenient myths.
-
True victims of abuse—regardless of gender—are abandoned for the sake of maintaining a narrative.
Cultural Gaslighting and Media Double Standards
The media’s asymmetrical treatment of gendered violence exacerbates the issue. When male perpetrators commit heinous crimes, headlines are immediate and wide-reaching. Yet equally brutal acts committed by women receive a muted response:
-
The Toowoomba murder by Ellouisa Brighton Gibson, in which three children were burned alive, barely made national headlines. In contrast, the 2020 Hannah Clarke tragedy, committed by her estranged male partner, led to sweeping legislative reform and national memorialization.
-
In Austria, a woman who stabbed her partner to death in 2021 cited “emotional manipulation” as her motive. The press lauded her “courage” in escaping abuse, despite lack of corroborating evidence.
-
In Norway, women convicted of abuse receive, on average, 35% shorter sentences than male offenders, even for identical charges of grievous bodily harm or child abuse (2022, Norwegian Penal Review Commission).
These discrepancies are not just anecdotal—they reveal a pattern of cultural gaslighting that treats male suffering as either unimportant or deserved.
Conclusion
Dr Fiona Girkin’s situation is BOTH a matter of men’s rights AND a litmus test for the integrity of science, institutional courage, and intellectual freedom in Australia. The failure of Tasmania’s university and law enforcement leadership to defend evidence-based practice is a dereliction of public trust. The absence of a Federal Minister for Men and Boys in Australia and many other countries highlights a serious gap in the nations approach to gender policy. While there is dedicated leadership and funding for women’s issues, no equivalent exists to address the unique challenges facing men and boys—such as male suicide, educational underachievement, workplace deaths, family court bias, and the underreporting of male victims of domestic violence. This imbalance reflects a systemic neglect that reinforces harmful stereotypes and prevents meaningful support for half the population. True equality requires that the needs and wellbeing of men and boys be recognised at the federal level with the same seriousness afforded to women and girls. The silencing of data inconvenient to popular narratives compromises our understanding of domestic violence, inhibits effective policy, and ultimately harms victims of all genders.
