14 posts / 0 new
Last post
dhogsette
dhogsette's picture
Criminal Law and Civil Law

It is indeed important to discuss self-defense and the law with our students, but sometimes I think enough isn't said about the distinctions in burden of proof and such between criminal cases and civil suits. In most states in the US, the criminal law protects the defender, but in some states you do have to be very careful. However, in most states, the civil courts often favor the criminal who seeks compensation for having been hurt when trying to attack his intended victim. Commonly, criminals will harass their victims from jail with frivolous civil suits. It is their legal right and it costs them nothing. Lawyers only collect if they win. But the victims always lose. Even if they win the civil case, they still lose time, money, and emotional stress defending themselves in civil court. To what extent do you all discuss this with your students? How does the law differ in other countries? 

Best,

David

Tau
Tau's picture

http://www.nfps.info/_blog/NFPS_Blog/post/Civil_Liability_-_Being_Sued/

Blog post by Mark Dawes from the National Federation for Personal Security. He's an authority on law and self defence. His company provides training on physical restraint and related aspects. UK-based.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

dhogsette wrote:
However, in most states, the civil courts often favor the criminal who seeks compensation for having been hurt when trying to attack his intended victim.

Whereas Peter’s post deals with instructors being sued – which can happen and does happen over here – I’m not aware of any case in the UK were someone has been found to have acted in self-defence (i.e. in full accordance with the law) who has later been successfully sued by the perpetrator of the unprovoked violence. Does anyone else?

Over here, I would think that one precludes the other. If you acted legally then you are safe from civil prosecution because your actions were, by definition, necessary and reasonable. In UK law the definition of “reasonable” is very reasonable i.e. if it was instinctive it is deemed reasonable; you are judged on the circumstances as you honestly believed them to be … irrespective of whether you were right or irrespective of whether it was a reasonable belief (i.e. there is no “Reasonable person test” as there is in certain US jurisdictions); the law states it is unreasonable to expect a person to “measure to a nicely” the level of force used, etc.

If you have therefore been found to have acted lawfully, it is difficult to see how a case could be made that you have simultaneously acted in a “necessary and reasonable” way (as defined under law) but are somehow legally negligent in doing so.

If there has been a UK case where this has happened, I’ve not heard of it. I’d be very surprised too.

There may be cases of “professional negligence” in the case of those employed to deal with violence i.e. prison staff, police, door staff, etc. I can see a situation where a person was not correctly retrained and ended up getting injured as a result, etc. There may not be a criminal case to answer, but a person may sue based on a claim of professional negligence if procedures were not followed. But when it comes to civilians fending off criminal violence, I’ve never heard of that happening.

Anyone know differently? What about other parts of the world?

I think this could be a very good topic as we do tend to focus on Criminal Law when discussing self-defence.

All the best,

Iain

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

What is liberating about the American system is states' rights and variety of approaches amongst the different states. And, what is incredibly frustrating and confusing about the American system is...states' rights and variety of approaches amongst the different states...

I first became interested in this distinction between self-defense criminal law and civil law after listening to one of Iain's Q/A podcasts in which he discussed the beauties of English self-defense law that clearly favors the individual who truly acts in self-defense. The phrase "learn about the law so you can forget about it" was brilliant. Once you realize you can act in true self-defense and not worry about legal ramifications, you can then stop worrying about the law, resting in the knowledge that it is truly on the side of the righteous (meaning, the person acting rightly under the law). I reviewed the legal codes for self-protection and use of force in my state (Pennsylvania) and found that it also sided with the person who truly acts in self-defense. Wonderful. I could now forget about it.

Well, until I finished reading Rory Miller's excellent book Facing Violence, which I highly recommend. He made a point to distinguish criminal law from civil law, noting that due to the difference in burden of proof between these two legal processes, one can win a criminal case for self-defense and then lose the civil case if the attacker decides to sue for personal damages, even though he was the criminal and you the victim. Infuriating! Now, I couldn't forget about the law... Thus my original post.

I have begun discussing both the criminal and civil legal issues with my students (once a week, I have a 10-min self-protection lecture and discussion time dealing with focused issues; currently, I'm taking my students through Miller's Facing Violence, and when I finish that, I'm thinking about taking them through Consterdine's Streetwise). However, I started to feel as though I was painting us into a new corner--victim of civil suits--and I don't like being painted into corners and made to feel that I have to be cautious when faced with potential self-protection victimhood because I'm worring about being a victim of the messed up civil system in America.

The light of knowledge usually chases away the darkness of fear. I'm hoping this discussion may help us work through this issue. I've also conducted a bit of online research, and I've discovered that in America there are self-defense immunity laws that protect the defender against criminal and civil liability, but it differs from state to state. A few states protect the defender from any criminal arrest or civil liability. Many states provide some protection against civil liability. And some states do not. Note, too, that the different states have different self-protection and immunity laws pertaining to protection of self, protection of others, and protection of property. Legal considerations for one of these categories are not necessarily the same for the others, and these also differ from state to state. At this point, my advice is to learn the self-defense laws and the immunity laws for your own state or country. Knowledge is power. Here is an interesting resource for self-defense immunity laws of the various states in America: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/self-defense-immunity-laws-which-states-protect-you-best/ 

As it turns out, Pennsylvania does a pretty good job of legally protecting the person who truly acts in self-defense from criminal and civil liability.

Best,

David

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi David,

Thanks for the post. Very interesting and I think you frame the areas of discussion really well. I am really interested to see what people think and have found in other parts of the globe.

Thanks for kicking this one off!

All the best,

Iain

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

I've been thinking about this issue for some time - it crops up from time to time especially when discussing self defense and the law in the US. It's not really a problem in the UK or in Australia but it's still an issue that bugs me.

There are procdures in law to prevent trivial litigation - even in the US. It requires counter suing the representatives of the criminal trying to sue you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Essentially the idea is that any attorny attempting to sue you must perform due diligence to ensure that there is a case to answer and a reasonable likelihood of success, and you can sue the appellant for malicious litigation via a tort action. You are, in theory, protected in law against malicious litigation if you have no case to answer - because you have used self defense yourself legally.

It's worth mentioning, protection of life, liberty, and property is generally regarded as a human right, although the human rights council of the UN decalred there is no human right to self defense - but this judgment was in the context of gun control andis controversial and challengable because self-defense underpins a lot of international law.

The point is, you have a human right to life, which if it is threatened, by implication you have a right to assert.

I discovered this article whilst fact checking this comment:

http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/1/

Gee. It's pretty amazing. From page 57.

"Frey specifically cites, and rejects, an article arguing that there is a  human right of self-defense against genocide. Elsewhere, she has, in  accord with the IANSA position, stated that “It is the State that must be  responsible—and accountable—for ensuring public safety, rather than  civilians themselves.” Frey then argues that a state’s failure to restrict self-defense is itself a  human rights violation. According to Frey, a government violates the  human right to life to the extent that a state allows the defensive use of a  firearm “unless the action was necessary to save a life or lives.”Thus,  firearms “may be used defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already threatened or  unjustifiably impinged.”61 Frey also states that law enforcement officials  may only use firearms in similar circumstances. In other words, it is a human rights violation for a state to allow its  citizens or its law enforcement officers to use firearms to protect victims  of rape, robbery, or mayhem. As this paper will detail infra, in Parts IV,  V, and VI, Frey’s hyper-narrow conditions on permissible self-defense— and her denial of the existence of a human right to self-defense—are  inconsistent with a long and well-established tradition of human rights  law."

Clearly the article, and the Frey report which it is discussing is aimed at the issue of fire arms, a related but not equivalent issue. Even then, and despite the Frey report asserting that there was "no human right to self-defense" it still allowed that there would be "in extreme circumstances". What that really means is that a self defense response comes down to proportionality. This is what is meant in UK law by "Reasonable Force".

Shooting someone in the face because they tried to nick your iphone is not "reasonable force".

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

Just to add because I didn't make it clear: any country that has signed up to the UN charter on human rights would necessarily be forced to accept any argument framed around your human right as having precedence over individual state laws. 

In theory.

I would have thought.

....and hence why I brought up the sibject of human rights and self defense which appears to be a lot cloudier than I first thought.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Stevenson wrote:
although the human rights council of the UN declared there is no human right to self defence - but this judgment was in the context of gun control and is controversial and challengeable because self-defense underpins a lot of international law.

That’s simply not true in the way that is being inferred. I suspect this is a deliberate misrepresentation by the person writing the article within the context of the ongoing gun-control debate in the USA.

NOTE: To me, this is a matter for US citizens, and I don’t want to debate the ins and outs of the issue on this forum (it is an international martial arts forum not a US political one).

That said, I do want to challenge the claim made in the quoted article about self-defence and human rights because that applies to all nations who subscribe to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The second amendment to the US constitution gives the right to bear arms:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

However, there is no such equivalent in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, importantly, there is nothing saying you can’t own weapons either! It’s a matter for each nation.

So there is no “Human Right” (as defined The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) to own guns. Gun ownership and self-defence are not the same thing though and are being falsely conflated here.

Where have the UN allegedly said this? Where is the statement from the UN that says people have no right to self-defence? It’s not there because it never happened.

This is what the report being quoted actually says (my highlighting):

“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

The Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.” (Document)

As we can see the document does not say “you have no right to self-defence” but instead states that the ability to defend yourself and not be prosecuted comes from other rights already in place … and that self-defence IS SUPPORTED as a REQUIREMENT by the UN Human Rights Council.

It also states that Human Rights legislation does not guarantee a person access to a gun (nor does it prohibit it); and I think that is what has sparked the false representation of what was said in the article quoted.

Here in the UK I have a right to self-defence, but I don’t have the right to own handguns or assault weapons. As I said, I’m not wanting to have a political discussion around this, and I hope the thread won’t go that way, but the fact remains that ready access to guns (whatever side of the fence you’re on) and the legal ability to act in self-defence are not the same thing.

As we can see the claim, as presented, that “the human rights council of the UN declared there is no human right to self-defence” is totally false!

You can defend yourself and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights supports that, as does the actual report from the UN Human Rights Council; not through explicitly giving you a “right” (legal definition) to self-defence, but instead indirectly through the other rights afforded and requirements that follow from those rights.

There is also NOTHING in the report or The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that attempts to remove the legal ability to act in self-defence and it’s wrong for it to be represented in that way.

Yes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does give a right to life, but that does not infringe on self-defence. The right to life is not an unqualified right. The idea is that nation states who have signed up cannot indiscriminately kill their citizens because that would be a breach of the human rights for the people killed. Think Jews under the Nazis.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written not long after the end of the Second World War in order to help ensure such travesties never happened again, and could be quickly acted upon if they did. That is why the right to life is there. It’s there so outside nations can act to protect the citizens of another nation because such actions are a breach of universal human rights. It’s not saying that no one can be killed under any circumstances (i.e. it’s not an unqualified right). The UN report quoted makes that clear.

Article 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sates:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Remember that the person protecting themselves also has the right to life and “security of person”. Therefore you can legitimately protect yourself from the violence of others – even if that results in death – and in doing so there has been no breach of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There’s nothing controversial in these rights and I think most would agree these are basic rights that all of humanity should be able to enjoy:

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

It’s also worth noting Article 29 (2) sates:

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

So you can’t try to kill others and then claim your legal rights were breached when people protect themselves. As I say, the right to life is not an unqualified right and does not, in any way, prevent a person from defending themselves from the violence of others, even if that violence results in a fatality.

Stevenson wrote:
any country that has signed up to the UN charter on human rights would necessarily be forced to accept any argument framed around your human right as having precedence over individual state laws. ....and hence why I brought up the subject of human rights and self defense which appears to be a lot cloudier than I first thought.

It’s actually quite straight forward because Human Rights don’t contradict the laws of individual nations relating to self-defence; in fact they support them. Indeed this was tested at the High Court in the UK last week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35325168

“Lawyers for Peter Collins argued that the law on self-defence in householder cases was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Two High Court judges rejected the challenge …”

The right to self-defence is well established and explicitly supported by the European Convention on Human Rights. This demonstrates that there is no contradiction between The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

When talking about the European Convention on Human Rights, then it is Article 2 that asserts the right to life in that case. This is what it says:

“1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

So here we see that the document explicitly lists “in defence of any person from unlawful violence” as an exemption. So again there is no contraction or conflict between the need to legitimately protect ourselves and human rights.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not explicitly afford the “right” to self-defence it supports it though other rights and the UN Human Rights Council supports laws in nations states allowing people to protect themselves. The European Convention on Human Rights does, however, explicitly give the right to self-defence (or more accurately it protects you from claims of having breached the human rights of another). As does UK law.

There is no contradiction or conflict between any of these documents / laws and it’s a gross misrepresentation to infer that, “the UN declared there is no human right to self-defence” simply because their report does not state there should be a universal right to bear arms across all nations … and remember, there is NOTHING in human rights law that states the law abiding citizens of any given nation should not have access to guns if that is what the nation decides for itself.

Stevenson wrote:
and despite the Frey report asserting that there was "no human right to self-defense"

The report does not actually say that in the way the article infers. The Frey report is primarily about the use of small arms in human rights breaches (rapes, murders, abductions, etc.) on an international scale and what can be done to combat guns being supplied to oppressive regimes.

The report also makes the legal point that while we have the legal right (from our nation’s laws) to protect ourselves, and that this legal right is supported indirectly through the wider Human Rights legislation, there is nowhere in modern Human Rights law that explicitly asserts self-defence is a human right. The author of the article has incorrectly took this to mean that the report is saying we have no moral or legal right to self-defence. The report is simply saying that there is nothing in modern human rights law that defines self-defence specifically as a "human right" (as a legal term) in the same way that the right to life, freedom from slavery, a right to a fair and public hearing, presumption of innocence, etc. are firmly and explicitly established as human rights in law.

It’s a legal point that is being made, and it is entirely accurate! If you read the actual context in which this legal point is made, the report is clear that being able to defend ourselves is good law and supported by wider human rights legislation. The author of the article makes an argument against a point that was never actually made!

The bottom line is that report is not trying to take away the legal ability to pretect ourselves. Additionally, while of the view that laws are required to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm others, the report does support the legitmate use of guns to protect people.

"Small arms have many lawful uses, including their use by law enforcement for peace and self-defence. In the right hands and in certain circumstances, the possession and use of small arms can be legitimate and appropriate."

It’s also VERY important to remember that the report is just a report. It is not a new law or ratified UN mandate. It does not change anything even if it did say what is being claimed.

Because the report does not assert that access to guns should be universal across all nations - in the form of an inherent human right - the writer has misrepresented this as the report stating that the UN does not support civilians legitimately and legally protecting themselves. That’s totally inaccurate.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Stevenson wrote:
What that really means is that a self defense response comes down to proportionality. This is what is meant in UK law by "Reasonable Force".

That’s not strictly right because the UK law is more nuanced than that. “Reasonable force” is defined by Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76

To my mind this a is a great piece of law that realistically defines reasonable force, not as being necessarily proportional, but what a person “honestly and instinctively” believed was necessary –even if the belief was mistaken or unreasonable (providing the person was sober) – and whilst accepting that, “a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action.”

I’d therefore caution against paraphrasing because the actual legal test is defined by Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It is possible for force to be legally defined as reasonable even though people looking at the case with 20-20 hindsight may think it disproportionate

To give an example, it would be probably be seen my most to be disproportional to kill someone who simply wanted your wallet and had no intention of actually harming you (but just used a threat of violence to get compliance). However, if that death had happened because the person who was being mugged believed that the person mugging them was going to harm them irrespective of their compliance, and they threw a punch to facilitate escape, but as it turns out that single punch caused severe injury and a fatal landing then the force used would still be reasonable (under UK law) because the person was acting honestly and instinctively for what they believed to be true and the law acknowledges it is unreasonable to expect people to “judge to a nicety” the level of force used.

If we tell people that they need to be objectively proportional we are not telling them the facts and that could instil hesitation and an unfounded fear of legal consequences in the face of danger. Better to tell them the facts of the law so they know that so long as they act honestly and instinctively for the situation as they believe it to be (even it if turns out they were wrong) then the law will back them.

All the best,

Iain

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

For what it's worth, here is a link to the final report from Professor Barbara Frey to the UN Sub-Commission on the Protection of Human Rights: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45c30b560.html 

Several people and organizations in the US and elsewhere are concerned over Prof.Frey's explicit statement that self-defense itself is not a "human right." She recognizes it as an important legal principle that should be invoked in criminal cases in which someone had to use force, even unto death, to protect oneself. But, she does not classify self-defense as an inalienable right (See pp 8-9, for example.) Indeed, these statements are clearly controversial, especially when she is quite clear that nations cannot view self-defense as a "human right" and thus those who wish to use a firearm or "light weapon" (knife? club? improvised weapon?... I'm not sure what she classifies as "light weapon") in self-defense and to support that action as a basic human right should not be allowed to do so. That is, she concludes that individuals cannot use the notion of self-defense as a human right to justify the use of small firearms to protect oneself. Also, she claims that states cannot use the notion of self-defense as human right as an excuse not to strictly regulate or even forbid private ownership and use of firearms. It seems her ultimate agenda is the control, regulation, and even outright denial of private gun ownership, and thus she makes this distinction of self-defense as a legal principle and not a human right to help justify her agenda and thus argue to the UN that it should be part of their agenda as well. (Note, she even claims that gun control laws that aren't strict enough are actually violations of human rights.)

As Iain rightly notes, the UN charter on human rights clearly seems to imply self-defense as a human right, but it doesn't explictly state that self-defense is a "human right." Rather, it is a legal concept necessarily provided by other rights. But it is not a right unto itself. Frey and others are seizing on this distinction between self-defense as a rule or legal principle vs. self-defense as an inalienable human right. Thus many in the US (and other places, I would imagine) are quite concerned if the UN adopts Frey's recommendations and if the US signs on to any UN treaty or agreement that would thus directly infringe upon their Constitutional right (not a mere legal principle but a human right under the Constitution) to protect themselves with a firearm.

Indeed, the firearms possession is a US concern, and I'm not here to debate that. However, Prof. Frey's conclusion that self-defense is merely a legal concept and not a human right may have significant ramifications.

Best,

David

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi David,

Thanks for the post. I can’t help but feel that those who are expressing great concern over this report are doing so through the “spectacles” of the US gun control debate. As an outsider to that debate, I don’t see the concerns raised as being reflective of what the report actually said. As I said in the last post the report is making a legal point:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The report also makes the legal point that while we have the legal right (from our nation’s laws) to protect ourselves, and that this legal right is supported indirectly through the wider Human Rights legislation, there is nowhere in modern Human Rights law that explicitly asserts self-defence is a human right. The author of the article has incorrectly took this to mean that the report is saying we have no moral or legal right to self-defence. The report is simply saying that there is nothing in modern human rights law that defines self-defence specifically as a "human right" (as a legal term) in the same way that the right to life, freedom from slavery, a right to a fair and public hearing, presumption of innocence, etc. are firmly and explicitly established as human rights in law.

To use an example, there is nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that specifically states access to food is a human right (as the term is defined under law). So we could just as well say that there is no human right to eat … and we’d be right in a legal sense, but we would also understand that other human rights (the right to life) demand that we have access to food. It would be wrong to say that because some is not specifically listed as a “human right” that the UN feels that it is not something we should have.

In the paper Frey is clear that we should be able to protect ourselves and that laws permitting that are seen as a requirement by the organisation she represents. So it’s not right to say that the legal point she makes – that self-defence is not a human right (in a legal sense) – is an assertion we should not be permitted to protect ourselves. That’s a very strong misreading. This is what was actually written:

“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 …

“…The Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context

It’s clearly a legal point that is being made and support is clearly shown for the ability to act in self-defence. Those who think the report is attempting to take away the right to act in self-defence are not reading it correctly and I suspect they are missing the nuance of the legal point being made and taking “human right”, not as a legal term, but as a moral one.

dhogsette wrote:
However, Prof. Frey's conclusion that self-defense is merely a legal concept and not a human right may have significant ramifications

As I say, there is no “human right” (in the legal sense it is used in the report) to food, water or even air specifically listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … but saying that does not mean that the UN feel those things should be taken away from everyone!

The ability to act in self-defence is well established and this report acknowledges that and is not attempting to have it removed … again I would point to the words, “The Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context”. It’s impossible to read that as recommending the removal of the legal ability to protect ourselves because it says the exact opposite.

When we come to guns specifically – which is what the report is really about – it would seem to be the following that has worried people:

“Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.”

It’s not saying people can’t have guns, but it is saying there is no requirement for all UN member states to allow people access to weapons. People need to remember this is an international report (my highlight above) and hence it is not focussed solely on the USA. The right to bear arms is established in the USA by the second amendment to the US constitution, so by its own laws there is obligation on the US government to permit access to weapons.

If people were to read the report solely from the US perspective – i.e. overlook the word “international” in that particular bit of the report –  then I can understand why it may make some people a little jumpy: “What do you mean there is no obligation on the state to allow us access to guns … that’s not what our constitution says!”

However, it needs to be remembered that other countries – also covered by the UN report – have differing laws and cultures and that the report is not saying “citizens can’t have guns” but instead it is saying that, from a human right perspective, there is no obligation on ALL UN member states to provide their citizens with access to guns.

US citizens have access because that is enshrined in their constitution, not because it is a human right that would apply to all nations.

While I’m going to keep my own view on the issue to myself, I can say with confidence that the vast minority of UK citizens (who are also members of the UN) have a very different view on private gun ownership than would be generally found in the USA. The majority of UK citizens like the fact that – although we have controlled access to things like shotguns, rifles, etc. for sport and hunting – we don’t have access to handguns, assault weapons, etc. If the UN had concluded that access to guns was a “human right” then the UK would be in breach of human rights law by not giving it citizens access to guns, even though they have democratically decided they don’t want it.

Gun crime is very low here because guns are very rare. People therefore generally don’t feel the need to have a gun to protect themselves because of that fact. The view is taken that restricted access to guns makes the country safer and you would struggle to find a significant number of people demanding access to guns here. I’m not saying that is the way to go for all countries and there is no doubt you can have ready access to guns and low gun crime (as in Finland for example). However, UK laws are working for the UK as the very low rate of gun crime shows.

The point to all this is that if the UN did state there was a mandate for all nations to allow access to guns, under human rights legislation, then nations who thought differently (if they signed up to that Human Right legislation) would have to adopt policies that are not democratically supported and could be counterproductive for that particular nation.

Those who would campaign for the UN to give assess guns, as a universal international legal human right, must realise that for many nations that would be totalitarian and highly undemocratic.

Therefore, as someone who believes in freedom and the right for people to govern themselves, I feel the report is right to say that there is no “affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.” Firstly, it is a matter of fact (no such international law exists). Secondly, that’s how it should be if we accept each nation’s sovereignty on this issue.

When the author of the original article is arguing that access to guns is a “human right” (i.e. applies to all people irrespective of the nation of which they are part) he may not realise that by viewing the issue from a “pro-gun US perspective” – and failing to appreciate that there are over 190 other nations under the UN; with a wide range of views on the issue – that they are actually arguing for the totalitarian international enforcement of their own view point on many millions of people who have democratically decided otherwise.

Remember that the report is not saying that there should be “an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to DENY a defendant access to a gun” either. It's just saying there isn't such an intenational obligation.

So by saying there is no affirmative international legal obligation to permit access to guns, they are saying the matter will be left to individual nation states to decide on the issue for themselves … and based on the fact that the people of different nations have differing cultures and hence differing views on whether access to guns would be a help or a hindrance I think that’s a solid position to take.

We need to remember that established human rights are things that almost all people and nations agree on and sign up to i.e. the right to life, democratic representation, the right to a fair trial, etc. Gun ownership is about as far from being internationally and universally agreed upon as you can get. It is therefore not appropriate for it to be defined as a universal human right that would apply to all nations because that would be highly undemocratic.

I get that gun ownership is an emotional issue in the USA and I see enough US news to see how hotly debated it is from both sides of the argument. As a UK citizen, I take the view that it has nothing to do with me and that the US citizens are more than capable of sorting out what is right for them and their culture.

However, it is not right to assert that the UN has said there is no intrenational “right” to self-defence to make a point within the US domestic debate (as the author of the original article did). It is wrong to try to falsely tell people of other member nations that the UN wants to take away everyone’s ability to defend themselves … when what was actually said was that there was no international obligation on all UN member states to give their citizens access to guns. And when you consider that differing nations have differing cultures and views on gun ownership that is fair enough as the alternative – which seemed to be argued for in the original article – is to seek the enforcement of the author’s view point on all people of all UN nations irrespective of what they democratically decide from themselves through asserting that there is a legal requirement on all nations to provide access to guns.

In summary, the report supports the right of people to be able to defend themselves and specifically states that self-defence laws are a “requirement” and that that requirement flows from the human right to life (so that should be panic over for that part of things); but the ability to act in self-defence is not specifically cited as human right in a legal sense. The report is also not seeking to take away all access to guns in nations that have decided that is how they will do things. It is simply saying nations don't have to provide access to guns against the democratic consensus of that nation because there is no intrenational obligation on them to so.

It’s also worth remembering it is a report and that no nation needs to sign any future treaty that may be based on that report if they chose not to. If the USA felt it was incompatible with its own domestic policies, then they simply won’t sign (as has been the case with previous treaties). As it is, there is undue worry about a report that has not said what it has been stated to have said.

The European Convention on Human Rights does explicitly say that the right to life does not impinge on the ability for people to act in self-defence against unlawful violence. So the 28 nations that make up the European Union would not sign up to anything that contradicted that.

So even though the report does not say what it has been reported to say, even if it did, and even if that was eventually put forward as a treaty, member nations simply would not sign up to it if they felt it was incompatible their national values. I therefore can't see the need to panic over this whichever way we look at it.

All the best,

Iain

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

From my limited understanding of political theory as it relates to "rights," there is a significant difference between a "right" and a "legally permissible action." At least from an American perspective--and maybe this is the same elsewhere--a "right" is granted to all people by necessity or by virtue of a person being a human being. As such, the right is not granted by the state but, rather, an intrinsic aspect of the human being. From this understanding, rights, then, are not granted by the state but, rather, protected by the state. Thus, any laws related to "rights" are created so as to limit the state's ability to infringe upon those rights. In the US, that is the function of the Constitution and the Amendments, to establish the inalienable rights of the citizens and to restrict the state's ability to infringe upon those rights. Conversely, if a "right" were granted by the state, then it is no longer inalienable (i.e., no longer contingent and necessary due to the person being a human being), and the state could then limit the degree to which that right can be exercised, and it can limit the means by which that right is exercised.

To take the food example: since the right to life is intrinsic to being a human being, the state cannot restrict a person's access to food (the means by which life is sustained) without violating that person's human right. However, if the right to life is merely a construct of the state--a legal concept--granted to the individual by the state, then the state could restrict a person's access to food, for example by deciding what foods can and cannot be consumed, how much can be consumed at any given time, the manner in which it can be prepared, the manner in which it can be consumed, and so on. Or, to make the analogy more directly: the right to life is accepted as a basic human right. But, what would happen if the assumed "right to food" attached to the right to life was declared not to be a basic human right but, rather, a legal construct, then the state could, conceivably, make certain determinations, restrictions, and so on regarding food, because it is a legal construct created and granted by the state, not an inalienable right. That's my understanding of the larger concern: the right to life is inalienable, but what happens (or could happen) if, as does Prof. Frey, self-defense is determined not to be an inalienable human right but merely a legally determined behavior granted by the state? To what extent could it be limited or even abrogated by certain states without such limitation being considered a violation of human rights? At the moment, that is purely an academic question, but many fear that such action could conceivably take place if we shift self-defense from a human right to a mere legal construct. One consequence, advocated by Prof. Frey, is not so much the abrogation of self-defense itself but, rather, the strict limitation, regulation, and reduction of certain forms of self-defense, namely the use of small arms and "light weapons" (again, I'm not sure what she means by that category). And for many in America, that is a huge concern. Prof. Frey is not stating that the level of access to guns by private citizens should be determined by each state. Rather, by explicitly stating self-defense is not a human right but a legal privilege granted by the state, she then outlines specific obligations of the state to put various forms of limits on that access. According to Frey, if a state decides not to put strict limits on access and abide by her recommendations of licensing, restrictions, and so on, said state would be violating human rights by not providing what is in her view sufficient restrictions against private ownership of guns. It's more than just trying to establish that there is no international obligation for states to allow private ownership. I agree--that should be left to individual states and their democratic process. But, she is stating that there is an international obligation for states to limit and control access as per her strict recommendations. In my view, that is imposing her narrow view (and that of the committee and those who agree with her) upon all states. That is undemocratic. So, just as the UN should not obligate states to allow gun ownership for self-defense, the UN should also not obligate states to curb, control, or limit gun ownership as per its narrow determination. The presence, nature, and degree of such control should be left up to the individual states. But, that is not what she advocates. She specifies what she considers "due diligence" of the state to control guns, and if a state is not meeting her notion of due diligence, then that state is violating human rights. This is problematic. I agree that the right of self-defense should not obligate all states to allow access to guns. That is up to the state to decide. But, similarly, a state that does allow access to guns should be equally free to determine for itself how that access is to be managed. Prof. Frey advocates the former but denies the latter.  

My sense is, at least in America, the big debate centers around self-defense being a "right" that is inherent to the very nature of being a human, versus it being merely a legal concept granted by the state. As a basic human right--indeed tied to and growing out of the fundamental and prerequisite right to life--then the state is obligated to protect that human right and not limit the way in which that right is exercised (beyond guaranteeing that any one person's exercise of that right does not infringe upon the legitimate rights of another person--thus the legal descriptions that explain the proper exercise of that right in relation to other human beings). However, if self-defense is simply a legal construct, then the state could legitimately limit the exercise thereof, determining how, when, why, to what degree, which people have it and which do not, and in what manner (use of weapons, no use of weapons, use of only certain weapons, etc).

That the report explicitly states self-defense is not a human right would allow for states to restrict the exercise thereof instead of the state being limited from interfering with a person's right to exercise self-defense. I think that is the crux of the issue, at least for many Americans. Interestingly, the debate isn't really settled even in America--many view self-defense as an inalienable right that should not be infringed upon by the state, yet our Constitution makes no such claim. Instead, self-defense is presumed/assumed to be a right attached to the right to life, yet various states do limit the ways and means of exercising that right to varying degrees. I think many in the US fear that if the notion from the UN report (that self-defense is not a basic human right and thus can be regulated, limited, and restricted by the state) is adopted in America, then that principle would be codified in law, and future administrations could then limit the means of self-defense, not just defense against a thug or criminal but also against a state turned tyrannical, however likely or not that may be.

Of course, the other issue that is way too complicated to explore here, is that many in America are (rightly) concerned with adoptations of various UN resolutions and treaties that could then lead to new laws and limitations enacted by unelected officials outside the US legislative process that restrict various rights guaranteed by the Constitution or US legal precedent. Such situations lead to "Constitutional crisis" which can be very difficult to resolve... For the US, it's not always so simple as the gov't recognizing that certain UN treaties violate core Constitutional norms and so the gov't will not radify it. One party generally sees the Constitution as a guide limiting gov't action, and the other generally views the Constitution as an outmoded barrier to progress and change. If the latter party were to dominate the executive and legislative branches of gov't, then they could (and would, in some cases) radify a UN treaty that contradicted the Constitution or other legislation, thus ushering in a Constitutional crisis.

Anyway, it may just be legal nitpicking, but the distinction between inalienable rights that the state protects and does not limit, and legally permissive behaviors granted by and thus determined and limited by the state is significant, at least from the American perspective. I think in this case, it's not that determining that self-defense is not a human right will lead to denying anyone the right to self-defense; rather, the issue is if we decide self-defense is not a right but a legal construct, then the state has the legal right (and for some, the obligation) to limit the means of self-defense. For many Americans, that could constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment. But it could also, potentially, lead to justifying the notion that there can be no legitimate self-defense against a tyranical state, or a state official acting abusively. That concept is even more frightening for many Americans.

In the end, I think we ultimately agree on some fundamentals: the report is not denying anyone self-defense, and it is noting that the right to self-defense should not obligate all states to allow access to guns. That should be left up to the state. However, Prof. Frey does go much further than that, and she suggests that because self-defense is not an inherent human right, all states are obligated to curtail, limit, regulate, and reduce the need for private citizens to own and use guns for self-defense. In my view, that recommended obligation violates the sovereignty of those states that do allow their citizens to own and use guns for self-defense. Just as obligatory gun ownership should not be forced upon all countries in the name of self-defense, obligatory gun regulations determined by the UN should not be forced upon nations that do allow their citizens to own and use guns for self-defense. Such regulation should be left up to the state, but Prof Frey is not content with that, as she wants to establish international standards for "due diligence" and then impose them upon all states.

Now, off to teach some pad drills to beginners. BTW, I'm looking forward to meeting Iain and other like minded folks in Dallas next week!!

Best,

David

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

Wow! Fantasitc series of posts guys. Very very interesting.

Basically, from my point of view, I agree fully with Iain that the right to self-defense stems from or is implied by the right to life and personal security. I also agree that the original article I linked and the Frey report are discussing self-defense in relation to gun use. I fully agree with David's interpretation of the dangers the Frey report represent to the right to self-defense.

The section Iain quoted:

 

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 …

The Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.”

....does read to me to be removing the concept of self-defense from being stemming from a right to being a construct of state law. I think David has characterised the concerns well.

In my opinion, the report conflates gun ownership, or the right to own guns with "self defense". Because of the confused position, the danger is that a state could interpret their being no right to self defense and that it is in the purview of criminal law only.

I brought all of this up because my understanding, which is the same as Iain's, is that the UN charter on human rights, and in particular article 3, implies a right to self defense, and therefore a state which places limitations on a citizen's right to exercise that right may contravene that right, which takes precedence over state laws. I am aware of the various different interpretations of self-defense law but in my opinion, understanding self-defense in terms of your human right is the right way to frame your thinking on self defense.

The thing is, I don't see why that should necessarily imply that that allows access to a gun. It should only imply that should a gun be to hand it was necessary for self-defense in those particular circumstances, then a citizen acting to protect their life shouldn't be prosecuted for using it. I'm afraid my reading of the Frey report does suggest that it could be interpreted that the right to self defense is not stemming from your right to life, even if it was never intended to impinge on anything you might do to protect oneself - the use of your fists, a chair, a blunt object, a knife etc. This is merely my own view, but carrying a weapon in the first place implies premeditation, and from the point of view of society, we can't say anything about someones motives if they are carrying something that could be used as a weapon, whether they are intended to be used for defense or offense. There is no proof of the right being exercised until the circumstances arise where defense is required.

Furthermore, you can argue that you are in violation of your own human rights by taking yourself knowingly into an environment where you put yourself in harms way, regardless of whether you have weapons for "self-protection" on you or not.

I agree with David - the implications of the Frey report (and I haven't fully read it yet - only partially) are that it COULD be interpretted to be that self defense is a matter for criminal (ie state) law, thus leading to confusion for citizens where they legitimately  need to defend themselves against an aggressor.

That’s not strictly right because the UK law is more nuanced than that. “Reasonable force” is defined by Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008:

Thanks for the clarification - I have read that page many times and on your recommendation!

I think I was being glib in my original comment, but I would think "reasonable" covers proportionality as well. Well, I don't have to think - it does. My point regarding proportionality is that "shooting someone in the face for stealing an iPhone" is disproportionate and unreasonable. Punching someone is not a disproportionate response, and should the consequence be that they fall and die, then that is tragic but has no bearing on whether the response was proportionate or not. It's the difference between proportionality of response and consequence. All of which is covered by the common idea of what is a "reasonable" thing to do given the circumstances as would be determined by a jury should there be any doubt that would lead to an attempted prosecution.

But I will be sure to be careful in clarifying my meaning on this in future - because I agree doubt could be dangerous.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

dhogsette wrote:
Conversely, if a "right" were granted by the state, then it is no longer inalienable (i.e., no longer contingent and necessary due to the person being a human being), and the state could then limit the degree to which that right can be exercised, and it can limit the means by which that right is exercised.

States can choose how they exercise inalienable human rights already though. For example Article 21 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sates “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” … and that’s true in the USA, the UK, Germany, Canada, and so on. However, all those nations have differing system of government and different methods of selecting that government. In the UK we have a unitary democracy governed within the framework of a constitutional monarchy, and the USA has a federal government. We also have very different methods of voting, different governmental structure and different methods of political representation. So nation states can already determine the means by which human rights are exercised. It happens all the time.

Back to self-defence specifically, I would point to what Frey said (accurately in my opinion) in that there is nothing that currently defines self-defence as a human right in a legal sense … but the right to life is a human right and we have a right to protect the right to life. So governments can’t take away the right to self-defence because that would be a violation of the right to life (which is why she states that nations are required to give people the legal right to self-defence). So the existing human rights protect and require us to be able to act in self-defence; even though there is nothing that specifically lists “self-defence” as a human right.

So the fact she states that self-defence is not a human right is actuate. However that does not mean governments can take away the legal right to act in self-defence because it is covered by the right to life. As I say it’s a nuanced legal point, but I think she is explicitly clear on this. Therefore the panic that unless we make it a specific human right (i.e. add it to the existing Human Rights Decorrelations) governments can take it away is unnecessary worry-mongering. That’s not how it works.

Self-defence was never a human right (again, in a legal sense) before Frey’s report. The report is not proposing taking anything away in that regard. She’s simply stating the way things already are and have been for decades: We can act in self-defence because the right to life guarantees that.

dhogsette wrote:
the right to life is accepted as a basic human right. But, what would happen if the assumed "right to food" attached to the right to life was declared not to be a basic human right but, rather, a legal construct, then the state could, conceivably, make certain determinations, restrictions, and so on regarding food, because it is a legal construct created and granted by the state, not an inalienable right.

And they do. The right to life means I must have access to food, but there are foods I can eat here that are illegal in other places. For example, my favourite food of Marmite is illegal in Denmark because of high concertation of vitamins. In the US they don’t permit people to be able to eat the traditional Scottish dish of Haggis (because haggis has sheep lungs in it). The USA does not permit people to slaughter horses for food, but that’s perfectly OK in Germany or France. The states make decisions on food all the time (just as the do with the nature of government as discussed earlier).  

So we have a human right to life that, by necessity, demands access to food … but you can see the problems if access to every single food stuff had to be listed and access to it defined as a “human right” because different countries have differing views on what foods are available, how they want them prepared, what hygiene laws we want in place, etc. Just as with other human rights, the nation state ultimately decide how that right will be enacted.

It’s the same with self-defence. We have a right to life and from that our ability to act in self-defence is guaranteed. However, it does not go into specifics because that is a matter for individual nations (as with the nature of government, food, etc.).

I’d also draw attention to the fact that when you say, “But, what would happen if the assumed "right to food" attached to the right to life was declared not to be a basic human right” that that is already the case. The right to food is not designated as a human right as things stand, but it naturally flows from the right to life.

Also, no one has declared “self-defence is not a human right” they have simply pointed out the state of affairs for the last eighty years or so of human rights declarations, treaties and legislation. Self-defence has not being “declared” as not being a human right, it never was one. But that’s never been an issue, as we know, because the right to life requires that we can act in self-defence.

It is impossible to remove the ability to act in self-defence because the human rights of “security of person” and “right to life” unequivocally guarantee it.

dhogsette wrote:
That's my understanding of the larger concern: the right to life is inalienable, but what happens (or could happen) if, as does Prof. Frey, self-defense is determined not to be an inalienable human right but merely a legally determined behavior granted by the state?

Again, that the current state of play now and as it always has been. Human rights are defined (legally) by the existing decelerations and treaties and “self-defence” is not listed among them. It’s been that way all the time … but as we know we can all act in self-defence because that has to flow on from the right to life and the right to security of person.

Frey is clear that the human right to life “requires” nation states to give the legal right to act in self-defence. So we are golden. Things were fine before and they will continue as before i.e. we all have the legal right to protect ourselves and that is a “requirement” (the word used in the report) on nation state because of human right to life.

dhogsette wrote:
To what extent could it be limited or even abrogated by certain states without such limitation being considered a violation of human rights? At the moment, that is purely an academic question, but many fear that such action could conceivably take place if we shift self-defense from a human right to a mere legal construct.

It already isn’t a human right. Never was. Frey is not suggesting shifting self-defence from a human right because it never has been a human right (in the legal sense in which Frey is talking). But we have nothing to worry about because the other human rights guarantee it … just as they always have. So the answer to the question would be, “Things would be exactly as they are now because self-defence is not a human right, in a legal sense, and never has been”

As mentioned in my previous post, there is no human right to water (in a legal sense) but no government can deny it’s people water without breaching the human rights that are in place. It’s the exact same thing with self-defence.

I’m going to be as good as my word and bow out of the points you raise on the US guns issue. However, I will say that because Frey is reporting the situation as it is (i.e. self -defence is not and never has been a human right) and therefore she is not declaring anything or proposing anything new on that front, then the question of whether self-defence is defined as human right or not has no bearing on the discussion. Nothing has changed, nothing is being “downgraded” – although it would seem some think that is what Frey is saying – so people don’t need to concern themselves with that part of things.

Also, as we agree, access to guns is a matter for individual nations. So in that case it would be wrong (in our eyes) for the UN to attach gun ownership to human rights because that would seek to deny nations that have democratically decided against private gun ownership the legitimacy to do so.

dhogsette wrote:
However, if self-defense is simply a legal construct, then the state could legitimately limit the exercise thereof, determining how, when, why, to what degree, which people have it and which do not, and in what manner (use of weapons, no use of weapons, use of only certain weapons, etc).

As with the other examples of actual human rights, nation states are still free to choose how they enact those rights. So irrespective of whether self-defence is guaranteed by the right to life (as now), or if at some future date it was enacted as a human right in and of itself, the state would still be free to do all the things you have listed … just as they do now. So in the regards it a moot point.

What is instead being argued for is the right to have access to weapons for the purposes of self-defence; not just self-defence. And because the UN is an intentional body, and because human rights are meant to apply to all people of all nations, then I hope you would agree that making access to weapons a human right would be very undemocratic for nations that have decided they don’t access to weapons or don’t feel that need. Surely it has to be the way it is now?

Of course, it is possible for individual nations to state that, for them, access to firearms is a guaranteed right (as the USA have done in the second amendment to their constitution). But it’s not fair to demand that all nations accept the values of any given one, irrespective of the democratic will of that nation.

The USA – and nations who adopt a similar position – have granted themselves the right to bear arms and, to me, suggesting that needs to be extended to all other nations, irrespective of whether they want it or not, irrespective of whether it fits with the culture, and irrespective of the damage it could do, in the form of a universal human right is hardly in keeping with democratic values or “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” (Article 21).

As I have said, I personally think that the US gun issue is a matter for the people of the US and it has nothing to do with me (I do confess to enjoying doing a little shooting when I get to visit the USA though!) but I think it needs to be acknowledged by those on the pro-side of the debate, if they truly believe in democracy and freedom, they it is not in keeping with those values to seek to have gun ownership defined as international human right because that has influence outside of their borders. As you say here:

dhogsette wrote:
obligatory gun ownership should not be forced upon all countries in the name of self-defense,

So we would agree it’s not appropriate for the UN to state that access to weapons is a human right. If it was, then it would not be compatible with the above.  

dhogsette wrote:
Such regulation should be left up to the state

I totally agree. But bringing in international human rights legislation in the form of a guaranteed right to weapons is incompatible with the idea that this is a matter for individual nations.

dhogsette wrote:
but Prof Frey is not content with that, as she wants to establish international standards for "due diligence" and then impose them upon all states.

She does state that, but she does not state what form that will take. She also makes reference to the need for international cooperation on the illegal supply of guns to oppressive regimes, but again does not say what form that should take. So it is possible that what ends up being proposed could be either totally acceptable or totally unacceptable. I do understand why that would make those on the pro-gun side of the debate jumpy though, especially when it is theoretically possible that any proposed restrictions could contradict with domestic policy.

It’s worth pointing out that UN can’t “impose” anything though. So if any nation felt those recommendations were incompatible with their national position they simply would not sign up. This happens all the time with various nations either not signing at all, or making clear that they do not accept certain parts of it. As I say though, I’m not without sympathy for how that side of things may set the alarm bells righting for some.

I still feel it is very wrong to try to misrepresent what was actually said in the report to make a domestic political point. The UN is not, as was suggested, trying say that people have no right to defend themselves. It was simply a report that said, quite accurately, that “self-defence” is not defined as a legal right and it never has been. It is therefore also wrong to suggest the UN is seeking to change anything. The report was also clear that we do have the ability to act in self-defence and that that is an inevitable consequence of the “right to life” and as such there is a “requirement” on states to ensure people can act in self-defnce (i.e. what was actually said is 180 degrees away from what was suggested had been said).

When it comes to access guns – which is not the same as self-defence –  the report does say that there is no international requirement on the state to provide people with ready access to guns in the form of “human right”. And if we don’t want gun ownership to be forced on all nations against the democratic will of their people then it has to stay that way.

Those who are pro-gun are best served by making their argument on the facts of the issue and not inferring that “The United Nations Human Rights Council has declared that there is no human right to self-defence”; as David B Kopel did.

There was no “deceleration”, simply an explanation of the legal position there has always been. Additionally, by not pointing out the report also said that self-defence was said to be “a means of protecting the right to life” and that “The Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context” (so already covered by other human rights which in turn put a requirement on states to ensure people can act in self-defence) they are deliberately misrepresenting what was said.

This does not help them make their case because when people fact check – and granted people rarely do – they can see the argument was based on falsehoods and that will be counterproductive to their cause. Better make their argument legitimately based on actually facts.

AND ONE IMPORTANT FINAL POINT: Frey’s paper is almost 10 years old (July 2006) and we all still have the ability to act in self-defence, and nations that want them still have their guns. Self-defence was not a human right a decade ago – because it never has been – and it’s still not, and yet all is well … so I guess we can relax ;-)

dhogsette wrote:
I'm looking forward to meeting Iain and other like minded folks in Dallas next week!!

Woohoo! Really looking forward to seeing you in person David! Thanks once again for the great contribution to the forum!

All the best,

Iain