September 17, 2006

Self-defense = violation of human rights, according to U.N.

I had read some spooky stories about how inflicting harm on an attacker (in the UK) can lead to charges ... against the attackee. Here's some confirmation of this inane idea (emphasis mine):

Finally, the woman's use of gun violence against the man was also a human rights violation. This gun violence was also accountable as a human rights violation by the State of Florida. According to the Frey Standards adopted by the UN Human Rights Council, self-defense is not a human right. Rather, "When small arms and light weapons are used for self-defence, for instance, unless the action was necessary to save a life or lives and the use of force with small arms is proportionate to the threat of force, self-defence will not alleviate responsibility for violating another’s right to life." (Para. 26). Moreover, "Because of the lethal nature of these weapons and the jus cogens human rights obligations imposed upon all States and individuals to respect the right to life, small arms and light weapons may be used defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already threatened or unjustifiably impinged." Under international law, a jus cogens standard supersedes any contrary rule. The constitutions of the United States and of Florida, as well as numerous human rights treaties ratified by the United States, recognize the government's obligation not to take life unjustifiably. As the Frey Report details, a government's failure to enact sufficiently stringent gun control laws (discussed in item 2, above) and to enact sufficiently stringent restrictions on self-defense constitute a governmental failure to exercise due diligence, and consequently a violation of the right to life.

How 'bout that? Think this is far-fetched? The US Supreme Court has already begun to utilize international law in interpreting our own Constitution, and has recently substituted its own opinion of [the international] Geneva Convention over that of the explicit wording of the treaty. Now, we see that the UN Human Rights Council thinks very little of [legal] gun ownership ... and the right of self-defense, especially when lethal force is used.

Just imagine how ludicrous this can be: It's 3am, and you hear someone breaking into your house. There's no yelling of "Police!!" or anything. You grab your gun, and yell "Who's there? What do you want?" You hear things breaking all over and you slowly go downstairs to approach the intruder. You see a man in a mask wielding a baseball bat. He turns towards you and lunges. You fire your gun, killing him. According to the UN Human Rights Council, you just committed a "human rights violation" because you did not use "proportionate" force against the intruder. (He "only" had a baseball bat, while you had a gun.)

Yet another reason to laugh hysterically at the United Nations, especially at its "Human Rights" Council which presently includes those paragons of human rights Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Nigeria and Pakistan.

Posted by Hube at September 17, 2006 07:55 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

It would seem to me that if any right can be considered an absolute right, it should be the right to self-defense.

Just one more way the UN turns logic on its head.

Posted by: Paul Smith at September 17, 2006 04:33 PM

Fuzzy-minded leftists strike again!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 17, 2006 06:49 PM

the UN will keep you safe like they did in
Rawanda, Darfur, Gaza...

Posted by: steamboat willy at September 18, 2006 12:39 PM

...a governmental failure to exercise due diligence, and consequently a violation of the right to life.

Then define all criminals as overgrown fetuses and it will be be the governments responsiblity to help you kill them at your choice, if anything.

Posted by: mynym at September 18, 2006 10:40 PM

The NRA has been making great strides in Brazil vis a vis the gun ownership issue. They were considering an outright ban on gun ownership but when the NRA launched a campaign that highlighted the loss of rights that easily follow gun bans, the referendum failed with 70% opposing the ban.

Likewise, how do you explain to women that they may not shoot someone trying to rape them? What are they to do?

Finally, the USSC has found that there is no requirement for law enforcement to help you when you call 911. You are on your own.

Posted by: Duffy at September 19, 2006 11:29 AM

Generally speaking, any attack by a man on a woman is disproportionate force. How is using a gun in response a crime? How is she supposed to use "proportionate" force in response?

Posted by: Anna Venger at September 20, 2006 01:40 AM