It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN - There Is No Right to Self Defence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
U.N. Denies Self-Defense is a Human Right!
Well, there's a surprise! Everybody should read this paper:

Eighth one down :

ap.ohchr.org...




HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Fifty-eighth session
Item 6 of the provisional agenda
SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons

Final report submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur,
in accordance with Sub-Commission resolution 2002/25**

[...]

A. Self-defence as an exemption to criminal responsibility, not a human right
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.

21. No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles. While the right to life is recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty, the principle of self-defence is expressly recognized in only one, the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 2.15 Self-defence, however, is not recognized as a right in the European Convention on Human Rights. According to one commentator, “The function of this provision is simply to remove from the scope of application of article 2 (1) killings necessary to defend against unlawful violence. It does not provide a right that must be secured by the State”.16


This should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about the wonderful "One World" that's coming up! Remember, don't pester the men with machetes when they come for you! And please, step quietly and orderly onto the railroad cars for the trip north; you'll just love the scenery!


[edit on 3-9-2006 by Retseh]

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Retseh]

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 4-9-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Sorry, but I didnt interpret that passage that way at all. It's not saying you have no right to self defence, it's saying self defence is not part of human rights.

It even recognizes the exemption from legal prosecution for those who do exercise their legal right to self defence.

So the UN does not enshrine self defence as a human right, big deal? You have a right to remain silent, or to not provide evidence that encriminates yourself but they are not human rights either. Does that make it one huge UN conspiracy? No. It's the difference between a human right and a legal right.

If self defence was classed as a human right, the legal barrier for prosecuting a mad man who goes around killing people "in self defence", would be a lot larger than it currently is. That is because the issue of extenuating circumstance would not apply. Whereas extenuating circumstances do apply for legal rights and priviledges. Think about it, what other human right is subject to exterior facts and circumstance?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
So the UN does not enshrine self defence as a human right, big deal? You have a right to remain silent, or to not provide evidence that encriminates yourself but they are not human rights either. Does that make it one huge UN conspiracy? No. It's the difference between a human right and a legal right.


The UN is telling you, Mr. Joe Public that while it grudgingly admits that you can have legal recourse with self defence, it does not recognize that you have a Human Right to self defence.

This is symptomatic of the UNs weak at the knees liberal stance on violence of any kind, and part of their larger conspiracy to disarm law abiding citizens of the means of self protection, towhit, firearms.

Let me ask you this, do you agree with them ? Because if you do, further discussion is pointless, since by definition you place a higher value on someone elses life (the person attacking you no less) than you do on your own.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I appreciate where you are coming from, I know the UN is a conduit for eventual World Government headed by the global banking elite.

I just do not share you interpretation of this specific document. If I have a legal right to self defence I am therefore entitled to defend my own life, the life of my loved ones, and my property. What this specific UN document states, however, is that self defence is not a human right, but a legal right.

The difference is clear cut between a human right, and a legal right. Human rights can never be abridged, they are universaly recognized by all those who adopted the UN charter.

Hypothetically, where would that leave a prosecutor who's trying a convicted sex-offender who shot and killed an entire neighbourhood because he claims they were out to lynch him after his release and relocation? Since the neighbourhood had formed a lynch mob with vigalante agenda, his claim of self defence is valid. If self defence is a human right, hence unassailable and universal, it would be impossible to convict this man of any crime.

If self defence was a legal right, and not a human right, the prosecutor could argue all sorts of different reasons why his actions were wrong. Including relevant caveats to the legal right such as last resort, burden of proof etc.

Human rights are obvious and clear cut. There are no caveats to the right to life, or the right to education, or the right to a fair trial. How could the right to self defence be a human right if it carried along with a single caveat, let alone those legislated to prevent the above hypothetical?

Again, I appreciate your angle here. The agenda for World Government, including the disarming of the populace is an avowed goal for the global banking elite. However, it is my belief that the entire UN staff is not privvy to this cause. Therefore not all UN documents point in that direction. This example is one of those instances where the definition and point is justified and noble.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The document pretty clearly says that a person doesn't have a universal human right to self-defense, but rather that self-defense excuses a person from criminal sanctions.

THe long and the short of it is, everyone is permited to defend themselves. This is an academic-legalistic debate over whether an individual has an inalienable/natural/human right to take another person's life, or whether its a legal necessesity.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join