David Leyonhjelm
David Leyonhjelm was elected to the Senate in 2013 and 2016, resigning in 2019. He is the author of two books and has operated his agribusiness consulting company for over 30 years. He has degrees in veterinary science, law and business.
Self defence has been recognised as a right for thousands of years. In the 13th century BCE, the Hebrews, who fled slavery in Egypt, incorporated it in the Hebrew Bible.
“If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”
It remains in the Talmud, the source of Jewish civil and ceremonial law, and in the Old Testament.
The Romans viewed the right of self-defence as fundamental. Cicero wrote:
There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.
Christianity also recognised the importance of self-defence. At the Last Supper, Jesus asked the apostles:
“When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” the apostles answered.
Jesus continued: “But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Australians may never embrace the use of guns for self-defence, but they also never agreed to being rendered defenceless.
While some biblical scholars claim Jesus was referring to ‘the sword of spirit’, the right and duty to use necessary force against aggressors is also affirmed in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The legitimate defence of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defence can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor … The one is intended, the other is not.’
Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defence of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
None of this is controversial in most countries of the world. Owning and carrying weapons for self-defence, even when guns are not permitted, is seen as normal.
Not in Australia.
Technically, Australians have a legal right of self-defence. If we are attacked and in fear of our lives, or defending someone else whose life is threatened, we will not be found guilty of an offence if we harm or even kill the attacker. But in practical terms we are highly restricted in our ability to exercise that right.
While we may use anything at our immediate disposal to defend ourselves, we are not permitted to carry anything for the specific purpose of self defence. That includes not only potentially lethal options such as guns and knives, but non-lethal means such as pepper sprays, mace and personal tasers. Even bullet-proof vests are prohibited.
In terms of insanity, it gets worse. In Victoria, the government has just introduced a ban on the carrying of machetes. Already “controlled weapons”, meaning they could not be possessed or carried without lawful excuse, they will now be classified as prohibited weapons like grenades and machine guns. The government claims the ban is necessary to address the use of machetes in violent crimes, following a surge in assaults and home invasions by youth gangs. The powers of the police to search for knives and machetes without a warrant is also being expanded.
As is obvious to anyone who follows the news, criminals pay no heed to laws prohibiting the use of guns. They are not likely to take any greater notice of the ban on machetes. Will youth gangs be deterred from carrying machetes? It seems unlikely. The surge in violent crime in Victoria, and to a lesser extent in other states, is mostly due to competition in the illegal tobacco market, a consequence of Australia’s massive tobacco excise.
Owning and carrying weapons for self-defence, even when guns are not permitted, is seen as normal.
What will not change is most Victorians remaining unable to defend themselves. The elderly, disabled and women are particularly vulnerable, but any person who obeys the law is at risk.
Only the police have a practical right to self-defence and even then, only while on duty. The inference is that on-duty police are so well distributed in the community that the rest of us do not need to take personal responsibility for our safety. But as the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away. Or, in the country, hours.
In countries in which practical self-defence is legal, criminals are more hesitant to attack people because they never know how a potential victim might resist. It is not necessary for everyone to carry a weapon; the real possibility that a victim may be carrying a concealed weapon is a powerful deterrent.
Australians may never embrace the use of guns for self-defence, but they also never agreed to being rendered defenceless. It is particularly obscene to tell women to remain vigilant about their personal safety while at the same time prohibiting them from carrying anything that might preserve that safety.
Only an authoritarian society would treat its citizens as victims, with the government masquerading as a guardian angel. Only Australia is that authoritarian.
This article was originally published by Liberty Itch.
