2013 December 21 Saturday
Canadian Supreme Court Ruling Extends Right Of Self Defense

Check out this article about a Canadian Supreme Court ruling in favor of the right to do prostitution in ways that reduce physical risk for becoming victims of crimes at the hands of their customers.

On Friday, the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated decision in Bedford. The central issue in that case was whether a number of prostitution-related offences are inconsistent with the Charter. The Court concluded they were. In determining the answer to that question, though, the Court shed light on a deeper one one that goes to the heart of the state-citizen relationship.

The "reasonable circumstances" under which one can defend one's home under Canadian law leave too much discretion in the hands of prosecutors. Does America have a stronger right to self defense? This Canadian commentary suggests the answer is Yes.

I would prefer a more expansive right to self defense which allows us a greater right of free association. The need to exercise one's right of self defense is a necessary consequence of the willingness of a substantial fraction of the population to violate the rights of others. I would especially like to separate myself from direct contact with people who have innate predispositions toward committing acts of violence.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 December 21 12:08 PM 

James Bowery said at December 21, 2013 1:43 PM:

Funny, I was going to leave a comment on the IED article saying that rather than violating everyone's privacy in order to give you forewarning, some might hold the theory that they would be better off if such people were simply excluded from their environment entirely. Of course, this kind of "politics of exclusion" is central to any humane society. The only people using the 14th Amendment to impose unwanted factors on people's environment are inhuman monsters.

Abelard Lindsey said at December 21, 2013 3:56 PM:

The position of the Crown in the linked article has an interesting and very profound corollary. If a government refuses to protect citizens who engage in a particular legal activity, and at the same time, prevents them from taking measures to protect themselves, that government is actually negating the fundamental justification for the very existence of such a government. The fundamental purpose of government is to protect citizens from predation. Any government that refuses to do this negates the reason for its very existence. This is a point the article failed to mention.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright