Time To Castrate Judges?

Fact 1. At least 90+% of people - both men and women - would rather be forcibly raped, sexually assaulted or heinously abused than lose their children.

Fact 2. Some judges are now exonerating women who have killed their partners on the grounds that they have been 'abused' by them.

From these two facts, it should follow that judges should be exonerating men who kill women who have taken away their children (because - as both sexes agree - this is worse than being 'abused').

In other words, if it is considered legitimate for a woman to kill a man for 'abusing' her, then it should surely be legitimate for a man to kill a woman who is taking away his children - something that is considered to be worse than 'abuse' by both genders.

Indeed, it should follow that judges should be exonerating men who kill judges who have taken away their children.

And when the men's movement is strong enough, it will surely be argued by many men that men who have killed judges who took away their children should be exonerated.

And, no doubt, many men will engage in highly vocal and aggressive public campaigns to have released from prison any men who have been imprisoned for killing judges who took away their children.

And, do you know what?

Their campaigns will be successful; because that's how a world works when it is not based on justice but on the demands of powerful activist groups.

And in the same way that the feminists and the women's groups have cheered loudly outside of the courtrooms as women who have killed their partners have been set free on the grounds that they were merely responding to 'abuse', men's groups will cheer as men who have killed judges will begin to walk free.

They will be heroes.

They will have fought the oppressors who have taken away their children and who have helped to destroy the fabric of their own societies by making it impossible for men to be fathers; or even to be men.

They will be given medals and bravery awards.

(Just as was given to Kiranjit Ahluwalia by Tony Blair's wife because she killed her husband while he was asleep; e.g. see Does The Home Office Willfully Stir Up Domestic Violence?)

But, Angry Harry. Exonerating men who kill judges is encouraging violence! It is encouraging murder!

Nooooooooooo.

Silly man. Of course it isn't!

It such a thing was encouraging murder, then these most noble and just of judges would not now be exonerating women who have killed their partners.

They would not doooo such a thing.

For they are just!

No. No. Women are not encouraged to commit acts of violence or murder when they know that they will get away Scott free.

No Sirreee.

Those good judges and politicians have told us so - by both their words and their actions.

Their views are unmistakable!

But, Angry Harry.

The majority of people are not going to support exonerating men who have killed judges - or even politicians.

Why not, if they took away their children? That's even worse than rape!

And just about everybody says so.

(And, in a few years time, it will actually sound like it's a lot worse than rape!)

Anyway.

Who needs the support of the majority? A few thousand persistently angry men will do the trick.

You see. As the organism of 'men' grows, and thousands of men begin to demand their rights back, and thousands of men begin to understand what they have lost by having been denied contact with their very own children, some of them will be none too pleased.

To say the least.

Some of them will be very hurt.

Yes indeed.

Very hurt.

All those lost years!

Never to return.

They will be positively fuming.

And some of them will even be genuinely crazy. You should see some of them already in the movement! Boy. Would I hate to be on the wrong side of them if they got too fired up.

And the organism that is the men's movement will gradually be winding them up - unwittingly, of course.

There is no way of avoiding this.

And there sit the smug-faced judges who claimed that they were dishing out justice when they took away the children from these fathers, exonerated women who killed them, and who even corrupted the whole system of justice so that they would be at the mercy of whoever might accuse them.

These judges won't have a moral leg to stand on. And, even more importantly, they will have no address where they can hide.

But there you are. What do you expect? This is the kind of thing that happens when judges and politicians are morally corrupt.

Ho Hum.

And then, of course, after a couple of killings (totally justified, of course, judging by today's notions of justice) the judges and the politicians will back off.

the whole system is being stacked against men. We need to change it."

"Hmm," they will say. "Perhaps it would be better after all if we do not exonerate women or give them bravery awards for the cold premeditated murders of their partners. And perhaps it would be best if we gave a little more support to fathers. And, come to think of it, the whole system is being stacked against men. We need to change it."

But let me make it very clear that I would never advocate violence unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent worse violence.

Never!

But many men will soon be arguing most strongly that a man who killed someone who was involved in taking away his children should be exonerated. And that's not advocating violence.

There's a difference!

Indeed, the noble judges and politicians tell us so.

And I am merely following their lead and bowing to their superior moral wisdom.

If they say that it is OK to kill men because they have 'abused' you, then, so be it.

And if they think that it is OK to applaud and to hand out bravery awards to women who have killed their partners, then, so be it.

Also see

Judges

Eight Horrible Facts