UN Human Rights Council Denies Existence of Right of Self Defence

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Dave Kopel has a law review article that will be published in the BYU Law Review discussing the Human Right of Self Defence as well as documenting the efforts by the UN to deny that this right even exists. Definitely informative reading on a number of levels...

For example, did you realize that the Human Rights Council had argued that their is no human right to self defence or a right for individuals to use lethal force to prevent genocide?

Did you realize that a stated goal of IANSA was that civilians should not possess firearms capable of killing at a distance of 100m (i.e. a .22LR is too powerful for civilians to own)?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf

It is really worth your time to read this when you get a chance. Not only will you find out how relatively minor appointments can have a big impact later down the line (the UN reports in question are from a Clinton-era appointee); but you'll have a better understanding of what the antis plan and where they are fudging on the facts.

 

[ArmedBear]

The purpose of the UN is to be a trade union for government officials. People have no UN representation; only governments do, and if a "government" really consists of some dictator like Kim Jong Il, well, that's fine with the UN, too.

Any advocacy for "human rights" is merely a smokescreen for the real purpose of pursuing greater power for UN members -- governments, not their citizens.

 

[novaDAK]

If the UN is fighting to preserve human lives, then screw what they say. I'm going to use the most effective method of self preservation in an attack.

 

[ArmedBear]

The UN is fighting to save human lives. The lives of kleptocrats and authoritarian dictators.

 

[El Tejon]

Trade union for governments!!!

Brilliant.

 

[alsaqr]

"The UN is fighting to save human lives. The lives of kleptocrats and authoritarian dictators."

+1

 

[redneckrepairs]

old news lol . We should support the un to the point they lend credibility for our national aims , and no further . When they quit we should quit funding them .

 

[Regolith]

If you read the UN's report, you'll notice that while they deny the existence of the right to self defense, they don't say that self defense should be banned. Rather they classify it as an "exemption to criminal prosecution." This is an important distinction, as it allows them to say that you shouldn't be prosecuted for defending yourself, but also allows them to effectively revoke your ability to do so by restricting access to small arms. Since its not a "right" per say, they do not have to allow you have the effective means to protect yourself.

And to demonstrate this, if you read even further into the document you notice that the UN recommends that states implement restrictions and licensing requirements for the purchase of small arms, and that the state should use police to replace the "private violence" of self defense.

The UN has no interest in protecting the rights of individuals, but rather in strengthening its own power as well as the power of its individual nation states.

 

[armoredman]

 

[lance22]

Yup ... Old News but Relevant News

In the view of groups like the UN, Amnesty International and groups like them, 'self defense' only 'perpetuates the cycle of violence'.

Remember - the UN says that governments are the only legitmate possessors of firearms ... and guess who perpetrates genocides?

The only recourse that the UN or Amnesty International give you - if your village is attacked - is to go to a refugee camp (if the government will allow it - catch 22).

 

[Zundfolge]

UN Human Rights Council is an oxymoron.

 

[armoredman]

Quick efforts, hope they're OK.




And another version,

 

[Tyris]

Anyone have a link to a United Nations emblazoned floor mat for sale?
I want something meaningful to wipe my boots on.

-T

 

[Titan6]

I bet Bart was hoping for THR type commentary and discussion.

Really what they are saying is that people have no right to exist unmolested.

I saw this a while back and it brought several questions to mind:

- If people have no right to exist than why have a UN at all? It really isn't needed to protect people or stop killings.

- Why have a UN Army of over 40,000 soldiers? They have guns. But they don't need them to stop killings or genocide as that would be wrong?

- What power does the UN seek and how does it hope to obtain it without guns?


The sad thing here is that by living in the most free nation on Earth, you have the most to lose when the police state comes.

 

[ArmedBear]

If people have no right to exist than why have a UN at all? It really isn't needed to protect people or stop killings.

No, it exists to protect governments, not their citizens.

The real question is, "Why PRETEND there's any other purpose for the UN? Why does the American left support the UN, given its real function?"

 

[armoredman]

BTW, American flag pictured is only half flag, no real flag went on the deck making this picture.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

The American left has two reasons for supporting the UN.

Some of them are misinformed, and believe that the UN can be a clearing house for international agreements to help avoid wars (a noble, if naive belief)

The rest are power grabbing, evil people.

Most of the left fits into category one. But the few in category two are far scarier to me.