Is Self-Defense a Human Right? The UN Doesn't think so.......

[Andy Moynihan]

Tried this last year, and it deserves a do over both given current political changes and that the undesirable in question now no longer posts here and will not be here to derail the discussion:



The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf


Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.


Seeing this quote has for obvious reasons left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

Discuss.

 

[arnisador]

Sounds like a lawyer making an academic distinction to me...if you have the right to life, then self-defense is a means of enforcing that right, not the right in itself. I'm guessing they want to boil down the number of (axiomatic) rights as far as possible and get as many others as corollaries as they can.

So...not worried yet.

 

[Nolerama]

Sounds like a lawyer making an academic distinction to me...if you have the right to life, then self-defense is a means of enforcing that right, not the right in itself. I'm guessing they want to boil down the number of (axiomatic) rights as far as possible and get as many others as corollaries as they can.

So...not worried yet.

Yeah. What he said.

What exactly is bugging you about it?

 

[jarrod]

only the UN & other governments have the right to decide to kill people. i mean, what are we, barbarians?

jf

 

[KenpoTex]

If someone attacks you, they have relinquished their rights and are no longer deserving of any consideration. Anything that you must do to protect yourself or another innocent person is not "violating the rights of the attacker." It is keeping him/her/them from violating yours.

 

[Thesemindz]

Sounds like a lawyer making an academic distinction to me...if you have the right to life, then self-defense is a means of enforcing that right, not the right in itself. I'm guessing they want to boil down the number of (axiomatic) rights as far as possible and get as many others as corollaries as they can.

So...not worried yet.

You may not be worried, but I'm terrified. If self defense is not a right, then we can be denied it's practice under the law. It's not much of a leap from you don't have the right to defend yourself, to only we have the right to defend you, to we reserve the right to refuse service.

But in reality, that's already the case. The government claims proprietary ownership of you, your labors and their fruits, and all your possesions. You exist as a means to their ends, and you only get a say in the matter so far as you agree with their position.

You don't need to defend yourself, they'll take care of that. You don't need to prepare for your retirement, they'll take care of that. You don't need to provide for your own medical care, they'll take care of that. You don't need to think for yourself, they'll take care of that.

This is a game you can't win by playing.


-Rob

 

[Andy Moynihan]

If someone attacks you, they have relinquished their rights and are no longer deserving of any consideration. Anything that you must do to protect yourself or another innocent person is not "violating the rights of the attacker." It is keeping him/her/them from violating yours.

Exactly.

What is "bugging me" about it is that it flies directly in the face of my belief system regarding self defense.

The quote directly states "Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others" and "Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation."

This is just the UN trying to rules-lawyer their way into justifying their desire to have the monopol on use-of-force. Self defense is a natural human right and as such CANNOT be "granted" or "proscribed" by ANY manmade law.

We will leave aside the fact I consider the right to bear arms an inseperable *part* of the right to self defense and simply go into the four points about the right to self defense in general.

It's very easy to understand my beliefs about this issue once I have explained them to you:

The first point of my central belief system is centered on the premise that every human being has rights. You may, if you wish, say that they come from a god, or from nature, or from written law, as suits your preference, but the underlying premise is that they are THERE, irrespective of their form.

The second point is that whatever the number of rights one possesses, they all stem from the right to EXIST, and to try to preserve that existence. This is simple brain-dead logic; one can neither possess nor exercise ANY rights if one does not exist.
Now , the last time I tried explaining this to someone who was less interested in hearing my view as in ridiculing it, this is the point at which I had this incredibly intelligent person interrupt me with"Yeah, well y'know what? Y'know what?....."
He waited for me to say "what". I thought that was cute....ly retarded.
"Yeah, y'know what? But you just said everybody had the right to exist, so if you shoot 'em that's hypocrisy, so you're just as bad, yeah, so there".
So I will answer that here as well:
No.
It is not "Just as bad, yeah, so there."
Self-defense is NOT the moral equivalent of homicide.
The person defending themselves from death or grievous bodily harm has not made the same decision as the person who has already demonstrated the ability, opportunity and intent to kill him/her.
The concept that both these people should be held to the same standard should be self-evident in its sheer ludicrousness.
How does my belief system tie into this? It ties into this because when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

The third point is that therefore, in order to attempt to preserve one's existence, one must know of, and have available, and have ready, the means to resist attempts to jeopardize one's existence. Learning how to use one's body will only take one so far, and address the threat only to a certain point on the threat range.. Learning weapons driven only by leverage and muscle power will broaden one's area of defense as well, but the fact remains that in the modern era the main and most effective such weapon is the firearm, whether one likes it or not.

Which brings us to the fourth point, and that is that therefore, those who support gun control, or who otherwise attempt in ANY way to "proscribe,", the natural right of *ANY* form of self defense, are attempting to impose their will on those of us who do not, in a way that would strip me of the primary modern means of preserving my existence, and therefore, whether they realize it or not, are, for all practical intents and purposes, trying to kill me. They cannot see this, blinded as they are by their over-intellectualism and self importance, but it remains the truth.

The quote from that UN document is......Insane. Period. Full stop, end of story. The UN was founded after 2 countries tried to take over 6 continents. The whole POINT was "Never Again"....and now THIS?. Insane.

 

[Empty Hands]

Self-defense isn't a right now in the US. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to the relevant criminal charges. In other words, you are admitting the crime, but claiming it is justified due to self-defense considerations.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Self-defense isn't a right now in the US. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to the relevant criminal charges. In other words, you are admitting the crime, but claiming it is justified due to self-defense considerations.

I'm aware of the legal situation regarding it in the US. But at least it's the US' OWN DECISION what it does about it.

If you can't see the difference between ours and this document, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[7starmarc]

I agree that this is probably more legal talk than an actual attempt to remove self defense as a legal consideration in applicable cases. It is, nonetheless, worrisome to see someone feel that these distinctions are necessary. Also, many of these kinds of statements tend to fall under the dubious categories of "most likely to lead to unintended consequences" or "most likely to have a veiled agenda".

On the other hand, if, under this statement, self defense acts remain permissable under these definitions, as an acceptable to means to preserve one's "right to life" (even at the expense of someone else's right to life (i.e the assailant)). What other acts may be acceptable in order to preserve one's right to life, even at the expense of someone else's rights?

 

[KenpoTex]

The real agenda here is removal of small-arms from civilian hands and a situation in which the government has total control...all the other crap is just a means to that end.

 

[elder999]

Self-defense isn't a right now in the US. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to the relevant criminal charges. In other words, you are admitting the crime, but claiming it is justified due to self-defense considerations.

I beg to differ. Self-defense is the primary civil-right. I said as much in this post, nearly three years ago:

Second amendment opponents and apologists, and citizens of certain European countries, offer grim statistics, and lay them at the foot of the Second Amendment. I, too, can offer those same statistics as gruesome proof of the failure of reliance on laws that do nothing more than restrict the rights of law-abiding people, and do nothing to disarm criminals or thwart criminal attack.

The tragedy of crime is not only the greatest threat to our life and property; it is one of the greatest threats to our civil liberties. Restrictions against Second Amendment rights won’t restore morality, and ineffective schemes will only serve to enhance hopelessness-as we are seeing in England.

If we respect the lessons taught by the tiny tyrannies of our country-and they’re not so tiny, are they?-we will find ourselves shoulder to shoulder with our Founding Fathers. In the Second Amendment they lit a fire of freedom, and we can read by the light of that fire two lessons our Founding Fathers intended-power does not belong exclusively in the hands of the state, and self defense is the primary civil right.

 

[Deaf Smith]

You only have rights if you can enforce those rights. It don't matter if some piece of paper says you have a 'right'. The right is there as long as you can do something to keep that right.

This is what so many miss. The 2nd Amendment protects all the other 'rights' in the Bill of Rights. Loose the 2nd, and the rest will be easy to take away.

The Government does not protect them. More likely in time they will be the ones to take them away. Just as they have already with so called 'hate' crimes and 'hate speech' and campain finance reform with limited some speech. The next little increatment will be the 'fairness doctrine' for radio.

But to keep those gains, they will have to gut the 2nd. No weapons, no way to say 'stop or else'.

Deaf

 

[Guardian]

The right to Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence. Our founders were very smart, that document which we cherish just didn't mean from the British Crown, it was meant for future generations also.

The right to Life - That's my justification for self-defense right there.

The U.N. is a an organization that this Republic doesn't need or want. They are corrupt in so many ways and forms it's pathetic. We need to stay clear of them or all our rights we enjoy today will vanish tomorrow, including our Martial Arts.

There throw in the Martial Arts words and I've kept it to the intent of this forum to an extent.

Off my soap box now.

 

[Guardian]

You only have rights if you can enforce those rights. It don't matter if some piece of paper says you have a 'right'. The right is there as long as you can do something to keep that right.

This is what so many miss. The 2nd Amendment protects all the other 'rights' in the Bill of Rights. Loose the 2nd, and the rest will be easy to take away.

The Government does not protect them. More likely in time they will be the ones to take them away. Just as they have already with so called 'hate' crimes and 'hate speech' and campain finance reform with limited some speech. The next little increatment will be the 'fairness doctrine' for radio.

But to keep those gains, they will have to gut the 2nd. No weapons, no way to say 'stop or else'.

Deaf

Amen to that Deaf!

 

[Empty Hands]

I beg to differ. Self-defense is the primary civil-right. I said as much in this post, nearly three years ago:

I can see the argument that self-defense should be a primary right. Unfortunately, I don't think the state of our jurisprudence supports such a contention right now. We actually have a very limited set of jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment, and to my knowledge, none of that addresses the relationship of the 2nd to self-defense. Meanwhile, a claim of self-defense is right now a claim of mitigation to another crime. That doesn't strike me as enshrining self-defense as a primary right.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. I'm open to correction from those more knowledgeable.

 

[Carol]

I can see the argument that self-defense should be a primary right. Unfortunately, I don't think the state of our jurisprudence supports such a contention right now. We actually have a very limited set of jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment, and to my knowledge, none of that addresses the relationship of the 2nd to self-defense. Meanwhile, a claim of self-defense is right now a claim of mitigation to another crime. That doesn't strike me as enshrining self-defense as a primary right.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. I'm open to correction from those more knowledgeable.

I'm not a lawyer either (insert grain of salt).

My impression is whether self-defense is perceived as a right, and whether it is an affirmative defense depends largely on the context and the circumstances.

Unfortunately at the moment I can't put my hands on news stories to illustrate the point...but if memory serves me correctly, there are times (in the US) when a citizen causes injury, or even death, to a perpetrator...and the local constabulary chooses not to charge that citizen with a crime.

In cases like that, "self defense" is technically not an affirmative defense - it only becomes an affirmative defense when one is formally indicted on criminal charges.

Now...in a situation where (say) a citizen shoots a home invader, and that citizen goes to trial claiming self-defense...that is the affirmative defense, that is where the citizen is admitting to doing the act in hopes of presenting enough reasonable doubt to prevent them from being convicted of the crime.

 

[searcher]

If someone attacks you, they have relinquished their rights and are no longer deserving of any consideration. Anything that you must do to protect yourself or another innocent person is not "violating the rights of the attacker." It is keeping him/her/them from violating yours.

+1000000000. Forfiture of life is a very real reality for BGs when they attack a person who will not be a victim.


As far as the UN goes, they should have their little building removed from US soil and we should discontinue our participation. They are nothing good for the US.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Tried this last year, and it deserves a do over both given current political changes and that the undesirable in question now no longer posts here and will not be here to derail the discussion:



The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf


Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.


Seeing this quote has for obvious reasons left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

Discuss.

You have to understand that a significant voting block of the UN General assembly is made up of despotic states that view their citizens as mere cogs in a machine.

The UN is a power hungry bureaucracy that seeks to subvert state sovereignty where it can.....and DOES NOT have as it's foundation the fundamental notion that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS!

What we get, instead, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, on the surface, appears to be the same thing, but when you delve deeper you find it's merely a bureaucratic tool.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I can see the argument that self-defense should be a primary right. Unfortunately, I don't think the state of our jurisprudence supports such a contention right now. We actually have a very limited set of jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment, and to my knowledge, none of that addresses the relationship of the 2nd to self-defense. Meanwhile, a claim of self-defense is right now a claim of mitigation to another crime. That doesn't strike me as enshrining self-defense as a primary right.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. I'm open to correction from those more knowledgeable.

True as legalistic bureaucracies go.....this nation, however, has a legal tradition of the acceptance of the right to self-defense being inalienable.

In fact, the use of force to ensure security and liberty is a fundamental part of our founding.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly, in the Declaration of Independence, we outline the right of a people to use force to ensure their rights and liberties, even against the GOVERNMENT!

This is something the UN would NEVER allow in their 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', being built on a European Socialist collectivist model, rather than on the individualist American model.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a poorly disguised sham compared to our US Constitution.......much of the UDHR is about 'Economic Security' and was written from a socialist collectivist perspective, such as

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

......oooookaaaayyyyy