"How do I feel? I feel as if I have been raped." This was the heartrending cry from the victim of one of the worst of all miscarriages of British "justice." The victim is, of course, a man -- 45-year-old Glaswegian Robert Brown, fitted up by corrupt police for a murder of which he was innocent -- the killing of a woman he never met. Note the vicious sexual imagery: Mr Brown was raped by a degenerate system (one that will worsen to the point of tyranny until the men's movement tears it down).

 he dared to stand as a man rather than crawl on his knees to a corrupt authority

Mr Brown could have been released years ago...if only he had responded to the Parole Board's twisted invitation to confess his "guilt" and seek mercy. He refused to be complicit in the great lie; he dared to stand as a man rather than crawl on his knees to a corrupt authority. He fought for his freedom and won.

He did not win a pardon, because the system can't afford to admit such a grievous "error": the judges who freed him said merely that his conviction (largely on the evidence of a detective later jailed for corruption) was "unsafe and unsatisfactory." Mr Brown's description of his nightmare is a telling one: his rape by a legal system that is a disgrace to the civilized values it claims to uphold is a rape far worse than any imagined in the most lurid fantasies of feminists.

Mr Brown was thrown out into a world he last saw in 1977 with the princely sum of £47

His rape lasted for a quarter of a century. After a false confession was beaten out of him by the detective and he was convicted by a court that chose to believe the perjury of a thug, Mr Brown pleaded his innocence in vain. Had it not been for the tireless dedication of a campaigning journalist -- who is even now banned by the government from telling the truth about the atrocity -- he would be rotting in jail still. After his appeal was upheld Mr Brown was thrown out into a world he last saw in 1977 with the princely sum of £47 from the appeal court and a prison authority travel warrant from London's King's Cross railway station to Glasgow.

As the feminazis continue to subvert the law in this country, using their immense power to get sound convictions against women murderers overturned, Mr Brown and others like him are left to struggle on alone. Unlike the guilty, who are prepared for freedom every step of the journey, the overwhelmingly male victims of the law's criminality have to find their own way in an utterly alien environment. Some men, unable to cope with the wrenching readjustment, kill themselves. Mr Brown was lucky: he was met outside the appeal court by a fellow victim of a gross miscarriage of justice -- Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six.

Mr Hill's Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo) is helping to ease Robert Brown back into the society from which he was torn twenty-five years ago. Again Mr Brown (deservedly) is lucky: in England and Wales, the Home Office is running a pilot support scheme for the victims of miscarriages; nothing is planned for Scotland, where Mr Brown will be resettling. With their customary twisted malevolence, feminists point enviously to the very large sum of compensation owed to Mr Brown -- as if money alone can restore a life wrecked by an evil system. (Mojo's excellent website is http://www.mojuk.org.uk/)

make no mistake, we are at war

I have dwelled at length on the atrocity inflicted on Mr Brown because it is a perfect emblem of all that is rotten in our criminal justice system -- a system that, increasingly, is being used by feminism as a crucial strategic weapon in its war against men. And, make no mistake, we are at war. 

Recent action by the Scottish and English governments on alleged rape and domestic violence by men remove any doubt about the objectives of feminism. To those in the men's movement who still think that we can negotiate with the enemy (especially when it disguises itself as "equity" and "independent" feminism) I say: shed your illusions before they kill you. One can't negotiate with tyranny. It has to be destroyed.

Please scrutinise the record of those who are pleased to call themselves our elected representatives. First, after promising to address grievances over the discrimination against men that is built into Scottish law on rape, DV, divorce and child custody, the Scottish executive denied equality of anonymity to men accused of rape (often by vindictive and/or deranged women). This was a fateful decision by the executive -- and when its full implications are felt by its victims, the consequences for our rulers will be profound.

Second, the executive commissioned a report on DV against men in Scotland whose conclusions, based on interviews with only 44 men, sought to represent the issue as a very minor one. As was intended from the outset two years ago, this scandalous and spurious document gave the executive yet another excuse for doing nothing about women's violence against men. The Scottish executive is fast running out of excuses for its grotesque incompetence in almost every area of Scottish life through which its shaky rule extends. 

Three years after the start of devolved government in Scotland, the Scots are profoundly angry with the antics of the Scottish Parliament, whose ranks boast some of the worst, the most sleaze-stained, elements in my country's public life. These 'honourable' men and women claim to guide Scotland's destiny, yet most of them couldn't be trusted with an infant's piggy-bank.

British feminists ... exercise almost complete control of the Labour party

Worse, they are controlled by hardline feminists who, unable to get themselves elected on their own extremist agenda, have subverted the Labour, Nationalist, Liberal Democrat and, to a lesser extent, the Conservative parties at the behest of gender fascism. British feminists are fighting on two fronts -- Scotland, where they have things their own way for most of the time, and England, where they exercise almost complete control of the Labour party. With Labour in government, that means that an unelected band of feminist bigots decides the laws that govern how you and I should live. This is intolerable!

Before they can destroy male political and social power, the feminazis have to demonise men as creatures driven by uncontrollable sexual urges (using techniques deployed by the Nazis to portray Jewry as an animalistic threat to Western civilization). When Blair's feminazi comrades looked at the conviction rates for rape, and discovered that they had fallen from one in three reported rates in 1977 to one in 13 (the current figure) they decided that, regardless of all the evidence pointing the other way, more men should be convicted of rape.

They ignored the fact that the police found no evidence to support the bulk of rape allegations,

They ignored the fact that the police found no evidence to support the bulk of rape allegations, or that an increasing number of innocent men are being convicted. It simply never occurred to Blair, Blunkett and Harman that the steady decline of rape convictions could (one) indicate more civilized behaviour by a comparatively tiny number of men; or (two) that the police and courts were properly wary of feminist-incited claims by women that they had been raped.

In their desperation to "prove" that all men are rapists, gender fascists in the Home Office concocted an infamous document, Protecting The Public (sic), that relieves women of all responsibility in their sexual encounters with men. Henceforth, a woman need only say she was drunk when she and a partner had sex . If she thinks better of it afterwards, she can squeal to the police; the man will be charged with rape and, almost certainly be given a long prison sentence if he is convicted. This is lynch-law -- and its authors will pay dearly for it when the men's movement introduces a new gender code in this country.

What passes for thought in the feminazi mind is illustrated by this assertion of the Home Office civil servant Betty Moxon, in a 2000 review called Setting The Boundaries, on which the new law is based: " A defence of honest belief in free agreement [on sexual intercourse] should not be available where there was self-induced intoxication, recklessness as to consent, or if the accused did not take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ascertain free agreement at the time."

women can claim to have been paralytically drunk and have their partners crucified by the law

So now it's official: women can claim to have been paralytically drunk and have their partners crucified by the law if they change their minds about the sex -- after the completed act. And if they said yes recklessly, it doesn't matter to the law: the man is responsible for the woman's wild abandon. This is codified insanity that sets anti-male discrimination at a disgraceful new level. It is, simply, lynch-law. Those who drafted it have the mentality of American racists in the pre-civil rights era: our Parliamentary draftspersons have become the British equivalent of the Ku-Klux Klan.

I have said quite enough about the enemy's war objectives: it is time to describe our own; what follows is my interpretation and analysis of eighty interviews -- almost twice as many as the 44 carried out by the team that produced the report on Scottish women's violence against "their" men -- which I conducted last summer with Scottish men in revolt against the Scottish matriarchy. I described a few of the interviews in my last diary and I make no apology for returning to the theme.

There were, of course, differences in content and emotional tone throughout the span of the interviews (which I cannot describe as scientific research: I am not a sociologist); but there can be no ambiguity about the central significance of what was imparted: Scottish men will endure no more of feminism and all its vile works and they want to destroy it. 

Their views -- and the intense anger with which they were expressed -- will be reflected in the gender penal code that will be introduced to the United Kingdom as the men's movement gains political power. (Similar projects are underway elsewhere in Europe and in the United States, where commentators describe a "towering" swell in the surge of the anti-feminist tide).

anti-feminist men in Scotland want drastic action against women who make false allegations of rape

First, anti-feminist men in Scotland want drastic action against women who make false allegations of rape -- one of the most serious crimes imaginable to all save those who draft laws on sexual criminality. When I asked how gravely they rated this crime, almost to a man my respondents said that it should be made a capital offence! Women, they said, would think twice before lying about rape if they knew that their lies could mean their execution. Some of the men said that because men accused of rape, guilty or innocent, become public targets of the mob, and because they can never lose the stigma of the charge, false accusers should be executed publicly.

(For what it's worth, I don't think the men's movement should be in the business of reintroducing capital punishment, almost four decades after it was abolished in Britain. But the fact that otherwise decent, reasonable men are prepared to hang rape liars should send a significant signal to our political masters: be prepared to get rid of feminism democratically, or risk a legally-sanctioned bloodbath. My own opinion is that women who lie about rape should be jailed for twenty years without parole --and they should be disenfranchised).

 they had heard of alleged rape victims being coached on what to say to the police by staff in various "rape crisis centres."

Some of the men I interviewed said they had heard of alleged rape victims being coached on what to say to the police by staff in various "rape crisis centres." The volunteer advisers are often professional lawyers, psychologists and sociologists who are able to teach their clients how to lie flawlessly in court. As a result of their expert tuition, some men accused falsely of rape are serving long prison terms. Because of this, said my interviewees, the professional liars in the rape crisis centres should be held equally culpable and should also be charged with offences that carry the death penalty!

I should have said earlier that before I put specific questions on gender crimes to my interviewees, I asked them this: "Do you think feminism is a criminal conspiracy against democracy? If so, do you agree that feminism and all its institutions should be outlawed?" All the men said yes to both questions. Now no-one can extrapolate from eighty interviews a coherent sense of how all, or the majority, of Scottish men view feminism. But only two of the men I interviewed were anti-feminist activists; the others were ordinary, decent working men. They were not particularly interested in politics and tended to vote, if at all, for the Labour party. All that most of the young interviewees wanted for themselves was a decent life with a wife and family -- the kind of life that feminism is pledged to destroy.

All my respondents felt as angry about the domestic violence industry as they did about false rape allegations. Some of them had direct experience of DV -- at the receiving end -- and all saw Women's Aid and all the other feminist groups as parasitic organisations living off the State's endless bounty. The men said that these bodies should receive no more public money until the men's movement is given funding parity: they recognised, of course, that this will not happen under the Blair government or any of its Westminster and Holyrood opponents.

A new and crucially important proposal on post-feminist crime and punishment emerged when the two men's movement activists insisted that public servants who had administered anti-male laws which they knew to be criminal should not escape retribution: they should appear in the same courts as their former political masters (Moxon et al please note). I agree entirely: the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected pleas by Nazis of every rank and function that they were "only obeying orders" when they implemented Hitler's monstrous "final solution to the Jewish problem." Many of Germany's unduly obedient folk shared the fate of their leaders and were executed.