Darren Mack

Note: If a woman was to kill a man who was raping her, most people would cheer.

But if a man was to kill someone who was trying to take away his children (a far worse crime in the eyes of most people) he would get sent down for life.

And this is justice?

Surely men are entitled to protect themselves from a crime that is - according to most people - far worse than rape?

...

Darren Mack has, allegedly, killed his wife and shot family court judge Chuck Weller.

Fathers Rights Movement Must Condemn Darren Mack Through years of effort, father's rights activists had prised open the lid of debate on whether family courts are biased against men. Mack may well have slammed it shut again. Wendy McElroy

Mack may well have slammed it shut again.??

Whatever else he might have done, Darren Mack has most certainly not slammed any door shut when it comes to father's rights. What on Earth is this woman talking about? You only have to look at what is being said by MRAs around the internet to realise that Wendy McElroy is wrong. 

The veteran [men's] advocate Glenn Sacks has stated, "I condemn without qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack. ... Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy." ...

Goodness. Is Glenn Sacks a clairvoyant? Well, I never knew that. 

How does Glenn Sacks know that Darren Mack is a 'bad guy'?

Indeed, maybe Darren Mack is a 'bad guy' because of the family court system.

Who knows?

"Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's problems--they are the problem."

No. I don't think so. In my view, 'the problem' is caused less by aggressive men like Darren Mack, and caused more by the failings of timid men; like Glenn Sacks! - in fact, timid men just like you, the reader - and, of course, like me - who is now 54, and who said and did very little for so many long years. 

It is you, reading this, who is the problem

In other words, men like Darren Mack are not the major problem that men are facing. It is you, reading this, who is the problem - and, of course, all those self-serving charlatans who have corrupted the family court system in so very many ways in order to stack the odds against men - for profit!

Furthermore, of course, I do not actually see fathers rights groups claiming that men like Darren Mack "are the problem". Nope. I just don't see this anywhere. For example, I do not see Fathers For Justice waving banners saying that aggressive men are the problem.

Yes, of course, they are a problem, but they are not the problem - and they are most certainly not the problem mostly being complained about by MRAs, nor, indeed, by Wendy McElroy and Glenn Sacks - judging by their usual articles.

In other words, the sentiments currently being expressed by these two Men's Rights authors over Darren Mack seem to be nothing more than hot air.

I would also point out that Glenn Sacks is endorsing a feminist lie by insinuating that the environment (the 'system') in which men dwell does not affect their behaviour. (It affects only women, apparently.) And, of course, if this is so, then what is the point of him forever advocating any changes in the family laws?

After all, if Glenn Sacks believes that, Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's problems, then, presumably, Glenn Sacks thinks that men do not react badly to the very system about which he spends most of his own life complaining. So why, in fact, does Glenn Sacks bother to complain about the system since, according to him, men remain relatively unaffected by it?

many men are reacting very badly to the corrupt systems that western governments have put into place.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that many men are reacting very badly to the corrupt systems that western governments have put into place. And, indeed, one of the reasons that so many men in the fathers rights movement seem so 'deranged' is because they have been through absolute hell - for a very long time. And some of them are very definitely mentally ill as a result. And some of them look as if they are suffering from PTSD or something like it - even years after their various turmoils began.

Let's call it Battered Fathers Syndrome, for want of a better term.

Wendy McElroy and Glenn Sacks are simply desperate to distance themselves from Darren Mack - for obvious reasons - but, in my view, they should be more honest with themselves and with their readers. These two authors are forever pointing out that fathers are being cheated by the family courts, and for them to pretend that their publicly-expressed sentiments will not add fuel to the anger that so many men already feel - quite justifiably so, in my opinion - seems cowardly and disingenuous.

After all, they are surely intelligent enough to realise that their various articles describing how unfairly men are being treated by the 'system' are bound to have some significant impact upon men who are, say, already completely overcome with anger at what they have experienced. 

Of course, I do not know whether Darren Mack is just a violent thug with too high an opinion of himself, or just a hapless father who simply could not take it any longer.

But, whatever is the case, ...

1. I feel sorry for him, for his children and for all those close to him who are going to be very deeply affected by what he has probably done.

2. His actions will not harm the father's rights movement; because the internet has changed the rules of the Consciousness-Raising game.

3. The Darren Macks of this world are not the 'problem'. Fundamentally, we are the problem.

Darren Mack's Attorney Seeks to Have Prosecutor Removed From the Case District Attorney Dick Gammick is a witness in the Mack case ... but he says that this will not get in the way of what the justice system is designed to do (NOTE: Link defunct).

any official who is involved in the taking away of a person's children has nothing legitimate to complain about should they become the target of that person

My own view, for what it is worth, is that any official who is involved in the taking away of a person's children has nothing legitimate to complain about should they become the target of that person. And if, as is claimed, Judge Chuck Weller has, indeed, taken away the children of people then I have no sympathy for him in his current situation.

Hiding behind 'the law' does not absolve people from the wrong that they do.

Laws are made by men, not by God, and, in most cases, laws are nowadays made by a bunch of self-serving politically-corrected officials who have only their own interests at heart.

My view is that when you purposely hurt people, do not be too surprised if they turn around and hurt you back, and do not be too surprised to discover that others have very little sympathy for you when this happens.

And when it comes to officials denying fathers or, indeed, mothers, decent contact time with their very own children, I simply have no sympathy with them should they come under attack. Indeed, I often think about all the thousands of men who have committed suicide as a result of what they have done.

Of course, I am not suggesting that everyone would feel this way - perhaps not even the majority - nor that they should feel this way - but my guess would be that millions of men would, indeed, feel the same way as I do.

the men's movement is here, it is growing, and it is unstoppable.

And this is something that certain officials are increasingly going to have to deal with - because the men's movement is here, it is growing, and it is unstoppable.

I used to be in awe of judges - well, certainly the high-ranking ones. I was always very impressed with what seemed to be their wisdom, their intelligence and their high levels of learning.

Now, quite frankly, these people make me sick. They are nowadays mostly nothing more than puffed-up lawyers who have sold whatever integrity they once possessed for money and power. And they will suck up to any brand of politics that they think will help them on their way. 

And, clearly, I am not alone in thinking this, ...

Corrupt Justice System In Canada Radical feminism is supported by ...; supine prime ministers and go-with-the-zeitgeist justice ministers; and a critical mass of ideologically aggressive judges, whose juridical archives, bristling with subjective, gender-biased judgments, discredit their vocation and call into question the whole notion of equality under the law. 

+ Feminism still trumps gender equality in family court. ... women never lie (or are justified when they do) and men want access to children only to control women. Barbara Kay -  a woman!

All in all, therefore, it is surely time for those in the legal profession - and, indeed, in any other profession where political correctness, lies or prejudice against men or boys are manifest - to start saying, "No. I will not be a party to this. And, henceforth, I am going to oppose what is going on very vigorously." 

there is no excuse for people nowadays not to take up activism over issues that are of real concern to them.

Ten years ago, it would have been virtually impossible for individuals and small groups to do this effectively. But the new technologies have changed the situation very dramatically indeed - and so there is no excuse for people nowadays not to take up activism over issues that are of real concern to them.

Furthermore, thanks to the internet, people who are prepared to expose the truth about those whose behaviour could legitimately be deemed to be 'unworthy' by most others, will find that they have great power.

Huge power, in fact.

As such, those who demonise, disadvantage or discriminate against men - by  word or by deed - are going to find themselves having an increasingly tough time. Indeed, the power that is eventually going to oppose them will turn out to be absolutely colossal. And, to make matters worse for them, it is going to come from within as well as from without.

After all, men are everywhere.

And so my guess is that the shooting and wounding of judge Chuck Weller is likely to be a mere trifle compared to what the future holds for some of those people who continue to mistreat men; e.g. see my piece Eight Horrible Facts.

Finally, I really hope that, if found guilty, Darren Mack is not given the death penalty - as some people seem to be proposing -  because I oppose the death penalty very strongly. And I also find that I can neither condemn nor condone what seems to have happened, because I do not know enough about Darren Mack, and because I find the moral questions concerning this matter very confusing indeed. 

But there are two things that I do know.

1. Western judges concerned with relationship matters are corrupt, and they are heaping huge injustices on to men, and, hence, also damaging very significantly our social structures and our societies.

2. If Darren Mack is given the death penalty, then the power of the men's movement will increase.

(Also see Why Violence Is Often Justified to understand  why it is 'justifiable' for men to react with violence on occasions where their family life is threatened by corrupt family law courts.)