| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| UN report proclaims self-defense is not a right |
| 2006-08-31 |
Posted 30 August 2006 06:40 PM on armsandthelaw A report (pdf format) submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, whatever that is, to the UN Human Rights Councils's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, whatever that is. Re-reading it, I think the point is that the Special Rapper wants to class self-defense as something less than a "right" (i.e., as a manner of criminal defense) because if it were recognized as a "right" it would be something governments would be bound to guarantee -- and that leads right to Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynold's argument that a right to arms should be guaranteed as an international right. How could governments "guarantee" such a right (in the sense of doing something more than saying "you can plead this as a defense if prosecuted" -- as might be expected the UN document treats "rights" as something more than "the government must leave you alone" -- while outlawing the items a person needs to exercise that right? This leads to the anomaly that the report claims that the right to life is a "right," but the right to keep from having your life taken is not. I suppose it equates to -- you have a "right," however unenforcable, to be protected by government, but not to defend yourself if it fails to do so. As might be expected from the source, the concept of "right" is rather ineptly socialist: rights are what you may ask the government to do for you. (And of course strongly of the legal positivist school: rights are not something that pre-exist government, and any official declaration of them, derived from a deity, morality, or man's nature. Rather, in this view they are created by the document, or government, that acts to write them down. Created, as opposed to guaranteed). |
| Posted by:Unaigum Ularong9442 |
| #6 The only thing it's good for is obstructing victory. Got to disagree with you on this point, TU. 1. Endless laughter at all of their bone-headed shenanigans. 2. Sure-fire moral compass check. What would Kofi Annan do? Do the exact opposite. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2006-08-31 23:00 |
| #5 As I remember my pre WWII history, submarine warfare was considered immoral, merchant shipping would never be attacked, cities would never be bombed and a bunch of other stuff I forget. But when the shooting started, these perceptions all went away almost instantly. Whatever it took to win was done. Ruthlessly. Hopefully, this useless, ineffectual organization of know nothing international bureacrats and hacks goes the same way. The only thing it's good for is obstructing victory. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-08-31 21:10 |
| #4 #3 gorb - I think you're banging the wrong person's head.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-08-31 20:51 |
| #3 Find sharp corner. Bang head repeatedly until the pain of this proclamation diminishes. Sure it's a right, but you don't have to if you don't want to. And we all know how well the UN will protect your interests. For an example, just look at, uh, err, the goats in . . . no, the children in . . . no, Israel's conflict with . . . . Forget it. Stooooopid! Stooooopid! Where do they find these guys? What horrible twist of fate gave them brains that see logic in this? Are we talking about the same thing here? This is why people banded together into tribes, states, and countries, fer Gawd's sake! It's all based on the law of the jungle no matter how you cut it. Gah! Where's my filing cabinet? |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-08-31 20:46 |
| #2 No need for people to defend themselves. Governments (and the UN) will defend people - the same way they defended the Armenians, the Jews, the Cambodians, and the Tutsis. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-08-31 18:57 |
| #1 Good to know the UN is looking out for all of us! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-08-31 18:40 |