In what reads like a paid Advertorial, but is a subscriber only exclusive, able to be viewed by non-subscribers; the Courier Mail apparently interviewed Pauline Hanson. This time about what she would do if she was the Prime Minister. What is in it for her voters? Not much. Not much at all. Let’s take a look at just one idea – Prenuptial Agreements. Pauline now wants to interfere in our bedroom lives. GTFO!
They often say that in populist politics, that there is a wider agenda at play. It appears that 20 years of opinions on race and religion, makes Pauline a dull girl. Now she wants to be dictator and chief in our private lives. What is it about the genuine romance and happiness that most couples enjoy, that she simply won’t put up with?
The power has really gone to her head now. Enshrining in law and forcing couples to sign a prenuptial agreement is a blatant intrusion into our private lives.
Seriously Pauline, stay out of our private lives and get the hell out of my bedroom!
Pauline Hanson has revealed, if she was Prime Minister, all couples should have to enter into mandatory prenuptial agreements. That means, that Pauline Hanson would make it a law, that you must sign a prenuptial agreement.
No free choice for you. This is Pauline taking away your personal freedom. Taking away your freedom of choice in a matter concerning your private life. If this was a Muslim country she would tell us the Muslims are controlling the women. But in Australia we have Pauline who wants to control all of us.
What Pauline says goes. Because she has had it up to here with being tolerant of happy couples who may never ever get divorced. Hanson is twice divorced with a string of other failed relationships. This does not mean everyone is as unlucky in love as she is. Nor does it mean should dictate to everyone else.
It is not clear if these agreements are for married couples or all couples. This is Hanson’s answer to the Family Court. After all, it is not only married couples who have children. It is not only couples with children who lose out in divorce settlements or break-ups. Once again, no deep thought has gone into this by Hanson.
Once again, she has not thought this through and is actually betraying her voter base.
PHON voters are said to be white, male over 40 years of age. They are traditionally right-wing voters, living in regional or rural communities. However, it is also this group who Hanson claims to support for domestic violence and Family court. What Pauline is proposing here, may result in severe distress for victims of domestic violence.
We all know that the suicide rate is the highest in this group. We also know that the prevalence of family violence towards men in this group is emotional violence, demeaning their self-worth, control of finances and personal freedoms. Yet, a prenuptial agreement can place more pressure on a couple, not less.
What is Hanson doing to protect the men in her voter base? The vulnerable men who may feel forced (well they will be by law) to sign a prenuptial agreement. The men who may feel forced to put in place what their partner insists on. This goes both ways of course, but this is purely focusing on Hanson’s own voter base. Hanson is a great big ball of contradiction.
Domestic violence has phases. No one signs a prenuptial agreement when they are at logger heads with each other. Typically, they are very much in love.
If one person has a controlling nature, it would be very easy make financial control of another person legal. Especially, when the other person is in blinded by love. Way before things turn ugly.
One of the most common cited pitfalls of a prenuptial agreement is distrust. This inflames a relationship and cause more friction and more arguments. Sometimes interfering in-laws insist on terms.
I know part of Hanson’s “charm” is that she is not very intelligent. Not a higher educated ‘elite’ to put it in the Hansonite’s lingo. Hanson should always seek expert advice. This should be not negotiable. She should understand the pros and cons and how it will affect vulnerable people. Hanson should assess all risks, before she thinks of enshrining something in law.
That is her responsibility to all citizens as a politician.
In this case, this thought bubble may actually harm the very people who vote for her.
A domestic violence victim is not always aware their partner is controlling them, until it is too late.
If someone is in genuinely violent relationship, a prenuptial agreement can make it even harder to get away from the abuser, depending upon what is in the agreement.
Pauline Hanson is setting the ground work for those in relationships who want control over others, to have this control legitimately.
As discussed above, prenuptial agreements can have pitfalls. The law should always protect the vulnerable who are subject to these pitfalls.
What if the controlling party, threatened to leave if they did not put in the prenuptial agreement what they wanted? Someone being controlled is dependent. The abuser knows this.
What if the prenuptial agreement including giving sole custody to one parent and you felt forced to sign? Signing away your parenting rights? Manipulative partners can use this as a guilt towards the victim that they don’t trust them (the abuser).
If it is a Hanson Government mandated requirement, you may have absolutely no choice, but to give up your own freedoms. You may lose more than you have bargained for.
Politicians should aim to legislate to protect the most vulnerable in society. In the case of anyone in a domestic violent/controlling relationship. Hanson is doing the opposite with this proposal and it may have severe consequences.
In addition, prenuptial agreements are already available in Australia, entered into of a couple’s own free will. Entering into private bedrooms and forcing couples into a signed legal agreement, in my view, is extremely un-Australian. It is downright dictatorial.
Since when have we just laid back and accepted a politician making decisions that are private matters for our bedrooms? Most people don’t. Most people now even recognise that who we marry or what gender they are, is no longer the business of the Government but our own.
Unless you can afford a very good lawyer, you could end up much worse off than what the State may protect you for already. Coupled with Kevin Andrew’s idea of mandatory marriage counselling, between Hanson and Andrews Lawyers and Marriage Counsellors will be making a packet from laws mandated by a Hanson led Government.
Prenuptial agreements are normally for the very wealthy in society – of which Hanson is one of them, as she is a multi-millionaire. Maybe her voter base should consider that maybe she does not really speak for them on this issue and push this back to her to explain.
Explain why she thinks her opinions and laws belong in our bedrooms?
Also, ask her to explain if she gained financially from either of her two marriages which ended in divorce and did either of these contain a prenuptial agreement? According to this article, “Pauline Hanson’s Bitter Harvest” the ex-husbands may be sued if they answer your questions. So it may be best to start asking her directly.
Or perhaps ask her yourself. Ask, “Is it normal for someone to go from barmaid, to divorce first husband, then to a plumbing business, then divorce said second tradie husband, then to fish-shop owner to $500,000 dollar house, to a multi-million dollar lifestyle in 20 years?” Ask her how she actually did it.
I don’t know about you, but in my world, this is not normal.
How dare Hanson dictate to anyone when her married life has been far from perfect.
Pauline Hanson is always the first one to tell people to stay the hell out of her private life, but she thinks she is the self nominated Queen and can interfere in ours! I seriously do not think so.
Hanson does not live in my world and she certainly does not speak for me. She can shove her forced prenuptial agreement where it fits and stay the hell out of my bedroom!