Present Location
21-02-2005, 21:14
Probably a lot of the people who voted yes on this issue read it and thought, "self defense, i like that, sounds good to me, ill vote yes." An understandable reaction, and i respect that the burden is on me to argue against a resolution that at first look merely supports something most people are in favor of.
I made a post earlier that was maybe a bit wordy and convoluted but I was at the time still thinking through my immediate knee jerk reaction to this resolution. My objection to the self defense resolution can be summed up as follows:
It would very likely have very little or no positive effect: Any legitimate nation has a legal system that is capable of recognizing self defense and making considerations for it when recognized. This resolution adds nothing new. I agree with its defenders in that they state it is no big deal, it will probably have no real immediate impact at all since everybody knows what self defense is and can recognize it. But...
It could have any number of negative effects: Most of these would be long-term and diffuse. Firstly there is the impact on member states native legal systems which assuming they already understand what self defense is and respect it when it is reasonable and responsible it would if it had any effect at all only serve to tilt things in favor of IRresponsible UNreasonable instances of self defense. This seems incontestable to me. If you believe that your nation has a legal system that already works and already recognizes self-defense, vote NO. If you believe your judges and jurors (if you have them) can already without the U.N.'s "help" make the fine distinction between self defense and excessive violent reprisal or preemption, then vote NO. This resolution adds nothing new and if it does could only confuse matters and tilt the legal systems of sovereign nations (and more importantly the international legal system re: the actions of those nations) in favor of acts of self-defense that would have previously been found excessive.
A more abstract consequence of this resolution would be to further dillute the concept of human rights (this is where I think truly principled conservatives would agree with me). The dialogue surrounding human rights is needlessly hazy. I think we all know what our rights are and it is truly shameful to try to increase the validity of some personal agenda by raising it to the level of a fundamental right. If self defense is a right it is so only when it conforms with truly fundamental rights like free speech, property, trial, etc. whether an individual act of self-defense is justifiable and in no way infringes on any one else's human rights as of now is rightly left up to each nation's legal system to decide. If you respect the ability of your own nation's legal system to make these decisions, vote NO. If you believe we should keep our fundamental rights truly fundamental and allow them to suffer no further dillution, vote NO.
I made a post earlier that was maybe a bit wordy and convoluted but I was at the time still thinking through my immediate knee jerk reaction to this resolution. My objection to the self defense resolution can be summed up as follows:
It would very likely have very little or no positive effect: Any legitimate nation has a legal system that is capable of recognizing self defense and making considerations for it when recognized. This resolution adds nothing new. I agree with its defenders in that they state it is no big deal, it will probably have no real immediate impact at all since everybody knows what self defense is and can recognize it. But...
It could have any number of negative effects: Most of these would be long-term and diffuse. Firstly there is the impact on member states native legal systems which assuming they already understand what self defense is and respect it when it is reasonable and responsible it would if it had any effect at all only serve to tilt things in favor of IRresponsible UNreasonable instances of self defense. This seems incontestable to me. If you believe that your nation has a legal system that already works and already recognizes self-defense, vote NO. If you believe your judges and jurors (if you have them) can already without the U.N.'s "help" make the fine distinction between self defense and excessive violent reprisal or preemption, then vote NO. This resolution adds nothing new and if it does could only confuse matters and tilt the legal systems of sovereign nations (and more importantly the international legal system re: the actions of those nations) in favor of acts of self-defense that would have previously been found excessive.
A more abstract consequence of this resolution would be to further dillute the concept of human rights (this is where I think truly principled conservatives would agree with me). The dialogue surrounding human rights is needlessly hazy. I think we all know what our rights are and it is truly shameful to try to increase the validity of some personal agenda by raising it to the level of a fundamental right. If self defense is a right it is so only when it conforms with truly fundamental rights like free speech, property, trial, etc. whether an individual act of self-defense is justifiable and in no way infringes on any one else's human rights as of now is rightly left up to each nation's legal system to decide. If you respect the ability of your own nation's legal system to make these decisions, vote NO. If you believe we should keep our fundamental rights truly fundamental and allow them to suffer no further dillution, vote NO.