[PASSED] Repeal "Right to Self-defence"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Right to Self-defence"
Category: Repeal

---

The World Assembly,

Observing that the GA 448 "Right to Self-defence" is overly broad,

Believing that persons suspected of breaking the law should not be permitted to employ self-defence measures against law enforcement officers acting within the realm of their duties, and

Concerned with such permission causing a rise in violence and a fall in the ability for law enforcement to apprehend criminals, hereby:

Repeals GA 448.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's a short resolution.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Support

[Wallenburg]

Against.

[New Waldensia]

Vehemently against. These insta-repeals from delegates with bruised feelings over losing GA votes are absurd in the extreme.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

A police arrest doesn't qualify as a threat to a person's life in the resolution "Right to self-defense", so this resolution isn't needed. Also, the use of force must be proportional, so it's not like "Right to Self-Defense" will allow people to kill police officers or anything of the like.

[Ru-]

Full support. This highlights just one of many problems with the target and the delegation from Ru hopes to see a swift and successful reppeal effort.

[A Cornstar]

Against

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Full support. This highlights just one of many problems with the target and the delegation from Ru hopes to see a swift and successful reppeal effort.

If there was "many problems" with "Right to Self-Defense", then I would expect this proposal to be a hell of a lot longer, to list them out.

[Maletora]

Against. Instant repeals should be illegal as the resolution has not had time to soak in and the consequences of which are not completely known

Second reason for being against is that the repeal charges are based entirely around a single issue known issue and many other issues but are not listed, which suggests that delegate has an ulterior motive behind the repeal act which is not being listed. Sketchy at best and outright lying through omission at worst.

[Brittany Normandy Aquitaine]

Highly against, to quick of a repeal, plus people need to enforce the right to self defense in the act of robbery or thieving

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

For, with the hope of a better done replacement that addresses the shortcomings identified by the 'honorable' representative of the Empire of the Angles* as well as the vagueness that allows the less-than-honorable representative of a certain state starting with Ar... to interpret their way out of the resolution's mandate entirely.

__

OOC Edit: Since this keeps getting pointed out in TGs to me, let it be known that I am fully aware that my translation of IA's name into English is NOT technically accurate. Call it an idiosyncratic tick on the part of the ambassador as I think it sounds better than something more literal.

[Tenno]

100% Against this repeal, the Resolution "Right to Self-Defense" states :
"3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,

4. Assures member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense, as according to the conditions established in Clause 3, in the court of law of the respective nation,

Now, how in god's name, does that translate into the following?
"Believing that persons suspected of breaking the law should not be permitted to employ self-defense measures against law enforcement officers acting within the realm of their duties".

The resolution in question does, in no way, shape, or form condone, or otherwise permit, the use of the Right to Self Defense, and by extension, the concept of the Right to Life, as a defense for attacking L.E.O.s..... Even if you DONT support the literal resolution that protects the Right of someone to LIVE, which I believe is a small group, this "resolution" to repeal the guarantee that someone can defend themselves from assailants without the worry of prosecution should legitimately appear to have derived from a tantrum as a result of "not-getting-ones-way", as was mentioned by another:

Completely against. These insta-repeals from delegates with bruised feelings over losing GA votes are absurd in the extreme.

Furthermore:

A police arrest doesn't qualify as a threat to a person's life in the resolution "Right to self-defense", so this resolution isn't needed. Also, the use of force must be proportional, so it's not like "Right to Self-Defense" will allow people to kill police officers or anything of the like.

The resolution in question, the "Right to Self-Defense", is not overly broad, IN FACT I believe that it is the WEAKEST resolution I have ever seen in either the Resolution history or when I originally signed up for Nationstates years ago. I have never had a reason to post to the forums until now because of the blatant insult this repeal is and the obvious hidden agenda behind it and the lack of any concrete reason to support the claim that it should be repealed. The "Right to Self Defense" ONLY protects citizens in the case that they defend themselves from assailants before help can arrive. The resolution DOES NOT prohibit nations from banning certain weapons, further, it does not endorse ANY sort of weapon: "5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force, either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection,". IF there is ANY hidden agenda behind the statement of the Resolution being "overly broad" in this repeal, presumably for the purposes of preventing an armed citizenry, #5 OF SAID RESOLUTION PROVES IT. Again, the resolution DOES NOT restrict any nation's ability to classify any weapon as illegal or legal. This document is NOT BROAD, it is WEAK. The only thing that the resolution RESTRICTS nations on, is that the people have the right to protect themselves when it is evident that help will take too long to reach them, and that each member nation of the WA CAN NOT ban common objects and/or cut off their citizen's hands all in the name of combating this resolution. You can ban any combat knife, any firearm, any firecracker that you want and you will still be in compliance with the WA resolution.

While the WA is nothing more than a philosophical fiction, if you vote to repeal the "Right to Self-Defense", you would be stripping the rights of (granted, imaginary) people to defend themselves. Would you be willing to tell a child that he can not fight back against a bully? Would you be willing to arrest a child because he spun the wheel of his/her abductor's vehicle, getting them into a wreck and killing said abductor? Would you be willing to execute a woman for defending herself, and killing, a would-be rapist? Would you be willing to execute a man with a 20mm Anti-Aircraft cannon simply because he broke the nose of an armed robber, or for defending his family against foreign military forces OR armed aggressors? We are talking about one of the most fundamental and basic rights here, and we are talking about taking that right away.

If you do not like this resolution, the solution is very simple, leave the WA. No one would bat an eye if you did. The instant repeal of ANY resolution is completely UNWARRANTED. If I have to start quoting Thomas Paine's (A pacifist Quaker) "Common Sense", I will, and specifically the section from #XII, page 55 of https://books.google.com/books?id=DTsPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. This section of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" is JUST AS VALID for defending this Resolution, which PROTECTS the right to life of a threatened individual, just as it is for defending the right to bear arms on an oppressor. Thomas Paine, in fact, compares the British "Ministry" to that of a group of highwaymen, robbers, or brigands. There are, of course, better philosophical texts specifically focused on the right to life, but "Common Sense" will have to suffice as finding the specific texts would take more time than I care to expend, additionally, if you have any "Common Sense", you would see that the Resolution in question does not warrant any repeal as it is not overly broad and that it does not restrict any nation from controlling what it's citizenry can be armed with, and that the reactionary request for a Repeal, is just that - reactionary, and further- regressive and obstructive.

Against. Instant repeals should be illegal as the resolution has not had time to soak in and the consequences of which are not completely known

Second reason for being against is that the repeal charges are based entirely around a single issue known issue and many other issues but are not listed, which suggests that delegate has an ulterior motive behind the repeal act which is not being listed. Sketchy at best and outright lying through omission at worst.

Yes, it should be illegal to repeal any resolution this fast. It is likely that the delegate does indeed have an ulterior motive. In fact, someone should go and write up a resolution for that. I would absolutely vote to keep people from repealing a Resolution only, what, a day after it was voted in?

[Wallenburg]

ANGRY BOLD TEXT IN ALL CAPS

[Neo-Routhengard]

"The Neo-Routhengardian delegation strongly urges the World Assembly to vote against this proposal, as the measure which was to be repealed by the proposal duly addressed the concerns that was stipulated by the latter, and the measure was restrictive on this and other regards while being flexible for use within any government that wishes to adopt the measure into their own countries like in Neo-Routhengard, where crimes against property had decreased by twenty percent after the measure was integrated in our laws, some cases of which are attributed to illegal seizures by the local police. The Neo-Routhengardian delegation will give its due regards to the framers of said measure, as well as condemning those who framed this proposal, which is nothing but a measure to salvage their tattered pride and sense of authority from failing to defeat this proposal, all for their tainted notions to enforce their ideas within the World Assembly, even when it meant to tear through the homes of their dissidents. I, Michel Nicole Demetrius of Neo-Routhengard, will strive to lobby against this proposal and the tainted ideology which the framers of this proposal espouse."

[Helpfull people]

(Image)
Repeal "Right to Self-defence"
Category: Repeal

---

The World Assembly,

Observing that the GA 448 "Right to Self-defence" is overly broad,

Believing that persons suspected of breaking the law should not be permitted to employ self-defence measures against law enforcement officers acting within the realm of their duties, and

Concerned with such permission causing a rise in violence and a fall in the ability for law enforcement to apprehend criminals, hereby:

Repeals GA 448.

This is a liberal or a commie being hurt emotionally because they can't admit they had fun at the shooting range. The right to self defense is a God given right and I will not allow some liberal or commie take that right away
And it will not pass at all because the reasoning for the appeal is rhetorical because the right to self defense gives law biding citizens to defend themselves from crooks and etc so I am fully against this appeal legit legitimately this is one of the most rhetorical appeal I have ever seen in all my years of playing nation states

[Wallenburg]

Also, you misspelled the title. Solid work, IA.

[Furry Things]

Now, how in god's name, does that translate into the following?
"Believing that persons suspected of breaking the law should not be permitted to employ self-defense measures against law enforcement officers acting within the realm of their duties".

The resolution in question does, in no way, shape, or form condone, or otherwise permit, the use of the Right to Self Defense, and by extension, the concept of the Right to Life, as a defense for attacking L.E.O.s..... Even if you DONT support the literal resolution that protects the Right of someone to LIVE, which I believe is a small group, this "resolution" to repeal the guarantee that someone can defend themselves from assailants without the worry of prosecution should legitimately appear to have derived from a tantrum as a result of "not-getting-ones-way", as was mentioned by another:

The issue comes in when, if someone is escaping from police and feel the police are an immediate threat to their safety, like being shot, which can happen when running from the police, then the criminal fleeing the police in this case would be able to shoot the cop in self-defense since there's no exception for that in the wording of GA# 448.

GA# 448 definitely has some pretty open wording, and this repeal would allow GA# 448 to be replaced by a better written resolution in the future. As long as GA# 448 is in place, there's no way to fix the issues.

ANGRY BOLD TEXT IN ALL CAPS

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, you misspelled the title. Solid work, IA.

The word "defense" is spelt incorrectly in the title of the original resolution. I but simply corrected it for the author.

[Caracasus]

The General Assembly resolutions are laws that supercede member state's laws.

With the law this resolution targets for repeal on the books, member nations cannot prosecute a suspect who opens fire on a police officer and kills them if the officer was pointing a gun at them because they would be acting in self defense.

[Wallenburg]

Also, you misspelled the title. Solid work, IA.

The word "defense" is spelt incorrectly in the title of the original resolution. I but simply corrected it for the author.

Ignoring your obsession with the British spelling, that's not how titles work.

[Imperium Anglorum]

adopt the measure into their own countries like in Neo-Routhengard, where crimes against property had decreased by twenty percent after the measure was integrated in our laws,

(Obiter dictum. Use some paragraph breaks.) But more broadly, in the nation of Imperium Anglorum, criminals started shooting police officers and now 20 per cent of them are dead. We can't go on having criminals shoot our police officers like this without consequences.

With the law this resolution targets for repeal on the books, member nations cannot prosecute a suspect who opens fire on a police officer and kills them if the officer was pointing a gun at them because they would be acting in self defense.

I'm reminded that Cicero writes in Pro Milone, 'if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honourable. For laws are silent when arms are raised, and do not expect themselves to be waited for, when he who waits will have to suffer an undeserved penalty before he can exact a merited punishment'.

What it doesn't say is 'Stab the executioner, for laws are silent when arms are raised'.

Ignoring your obsession with the British spelling, that's not how titles work.

Spelling.

[Caracasus]

adopt the measure into their own countries like in Neo-Routhengard, where crimes against property had decreased by twenty percent after the measure was integrated in our laws,

(Obiter dictum. Use some paragraph breaks.) But more broadly, in the nation of Imperium Anglorum, criminals started shooting police officers and now 20 per cent of them are dead. We can't go on having criminals shoot our police officers like this without consequences.

With the law this resolution targets for repeal on the books, member nations cannot prosecute a suspect who opens fire on a police officer and kills them if the officer was pointing a gun at them because they would be acting in self defense.

I'm reminded that Cicero writes in Pro Milone, 'if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honourable. For laws are silent when arms are raised, and do not expect themselves to be waited for, when he who waits will have to suffer an undeserved penalty before he can exact a merited punishment'.

What it doesn't say is 'Stab the executioner, for laws are silent when arms are raised'.

Ignoring your obsession with the British spelling, that's not how titles work.

Spelling.

Hey, I am with you on this one. It doesn't matter how egalitarian and peaceful your society or nation is, I can't see how you'd not have something that is for want of a better word a police force charged with protecting people from those who break the laws, however legitimate or illegitimate those laws are.

There shouldn't be a loophole providing a get out of jail free card (quite literally in this case) for someone involved in an armed conflict with police officers attempting to bring them to whatever passes for justice.

[Invertere Utopia]

"It is an ideal of mine, one that I hope we all share, that the ability of any individual to make good and sound judgment is not unique. It is, of course, an ideal. In the face of danger, science tells us that we lose our most sacred power of judgment to the overwhelming forces of fear and selfish, unbridled, personal survival. Just because we can all make good decisions, doesn't mean we do all of the time. In the heat of the moment, only the moment exists, but we know and we live for those precious scarce additional moments we have before being lost to history. Our only chances of escaping the mutiny of our minds by fear are enabled by preparation. Preparing to hurt others is not the kind of preparation that protects oneself from being hijacked by fear; preparing to hurt others is the trademark of fear. We cannot remain willfully united if we build fear into our laws, because fear upends the will.

The "right to self-defence", or so it has been called, is an idea that promotes the division of ourselves from each other in our minds. Let there be no doubt that humanity is the crown jewel of organized violence on the face of the earth. The same abilities that enable us to cooperate for an immense collective benefit also give us the option of doing harm to our fellow people. Acknowledging our power to harm is not dissonant with firmly seating our focus on our power to empathize and sympathize with one another instead; in fact, it is paramount to positive outcomes for the collective that we ignore nothing in our attempts to cultivate the most useful understanding of existence that we can. We must choose not to let the idea of being harmed enable a net loss of what little wealth we have been able to shelter from the sands of time.

Education, or the general process of sharing knowledge and wisdom, is our sole armament and bulwark against those mistakes that would be yet another stain in the past. When enshrining the just path in our rules, no expense of time nor resources must be spared if it means to knowingly distance us from the closest approximation to the truth that we can get. This, again, acknowledges the room for error without making to err the chosen path of engagement. We must always be willing to be wrong; that doesn't make being wrong okay.

So it begins that we should approach the idea of self-defence by examining an act of violence between human beings. How might an altercation begin? What might one hope to gain from hurting another? What options might exist to a person under attack, other than hurting the attacker? The cause of violence between humans is crystal clear: it is disagreement. Material wealth and mortal safety are up for grabs. The options to hide or to flee are, unfortunately, less available and/or less effective for the express purpose of individual preservation. In no short amount of time we have already identified several factors pertaining to violence that allow us to approach the idea of a solution to it* without rote endorsing potentially grave misdeeds by freeing the guilty from would-be persecution. With these ideas in our minds, it would be rash and unconscionable to keep the current legislation in place.

*For those of you that are following along but don't fully understand:

• There is no violence without disagreement. If you could reduce or eliminate disagreement, then legislation for "self-defence" would be less important or completely unnecessary (in the case of no violence happening anymore).
• There is no violence without motivation. If people feel safe and secure, they have nothing to gain from violence. Increasing safety and security reduces or eliminates violence, and any reduction or elimination of violence makes "self-defence" legislation less or not important.
• If hiding and fleeing were just as easy (or easier) than fighting back, then violence in the name of "self-defence" would legitimately be the worst option (carrying the most risk). Imagine a functional panic room or emergency escape pod.

The acts of violence that substantiate a desire for the "right to self-defence" do not exist in a vacuum nor do they materialize out of the aether. Violence doesn't "happen"; it is made; it is chosen. The arguments for the legislation as well as against its repeal are based on unexplored ideas of the mentally ill and any supposed evil, criminal, irredeemable wrongdoers. The very legislation recently written into our shared World Assembly doctrine qualifies "someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship" as being specially privileged to carry out the protection of another human being. In what dire circumstances concerning the safety of another person does one's level of familiarity with that person effect whether or not assistance should be given? Could there ever be a time when one should step in to protect another, but not unless there is some special relationship between them?

The existing legislation paints the world to be full enough of dangerous people to merit the right to cleanse oneself of them without repercussion. In the name of Invertere Utopia, I, Axios Aurelius, support the repeal of General Assembly Resolution #448. I hope that the overwhelming majority of member nations see fit to do the same, be it because they initially opposed the legislation, or that they have quickly come to realize either or both the folly of such a rule and the lack of applicable meaning contained within it, or even that the supporters of such a measure (and against the repeal) happen not to vote before the deadline.

Any victory in defeating GAR #448 and the sentiments it proliferates in all societies is a victory for every human alive and every human yet to join us."

—Axios Aurelius, during a special press release held in response to the passing of General Assembly Resolution #448 and subsequent proposition to repeal it

~~~

TIME AND READER-FRIENDLY SUMMARY

THE LEGISLATION THAT PASSED WAS WRITTEN POORLY
RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE ?= RIGHT TO HURT OR KILL
JUDGMENT IS IMPAIRED DURING DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
SELF-DEFENCE REQUIRES PERFECT JUDGMENT
SELF-DEFENCE ONLY EXISTS AGAINST VIOLENCE
VIOLENCE DOESN'T SIMPLY HAPPEN
VIOLENCE HAS IDENTIFIABLE CAUSES
CAUSES OF VIOLENCE CAN BE ADDRESSED INSTEAD
FAMILY IS IRRELEVANT TO SELF-DEFENCE
GOOD LAW IS NOT BASED ON FEAR
ALL LAW SHOULD ONLY EXIST IN ITS BEST AVAILABLE FORM

AN EDUCATED PEOPLE DO NOT FEAR ONE ANOTHER

[New Bremerton]

Against.