Human stupidity brought a positive turn of events to my attention. The government of Ireland is now allowing homeowners to protect themselves with lethal force. In the past, the law required them to retreat in the face of an intruder. Naturally, “civil liberties organizations” are attacking the new law. Apparently, the right to defend yourself, your family and your p0ssessions, is not a “civil liberty” according to them.
As told by Irish Central:
Irish homeowners now have legal right to shoot intruders
New law is attacked by civil liberties organizations as ‘license to kill’
ByIrishCentral.com Staff WriterIrish homeowners can now legally shoot anyone who enters their property – a move that has been slammed by civil liberties campaigners in a row with Justice Minister Alan Shatter.
Legislation has now come into effect that allows homeowners to use “reasonable force” to defend themselves, their families and their property.
The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into “where it should always have been,” say top Irish police.
The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated before the bill became law, that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable.”
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, however, is highly critical of the change in the law but Justice Minister Alax Shatter has denied it is a “license to kill.”
Council director Mark Kelly has labeled the new law “lax” on home defense and is highly critical of the legislation.
Kelly said: “These are lax proposals, which contain insufficiently robust legal safeguards to protect the right to life of householders or intruders.
“The law encourages people to use lethal force to defend their property and is at odds with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges the state to ensure that lethal force can only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances.”
Those who object to the law claim that innocent people will accidentally get shot. This is true, but it illustrates the flaw of so many “civil liberties” proponents: They are so concerned about the right to life that they are willing to sacrifice basic rights in order to protect it. In more sane times, people understood that other priorities sometimes take precedence over an individual life. Among them are justice, pride, spiritual fulfillment, protection of family and nation, and liberty. For many people, these are values that make life worth living.
I applaud the Irish for passing this law and I hope it can withstand the inevitable attacks from the European Union.
It’s good to see the forces of anarcho-tyranny pushed back a bit. But it’s disgusting to see that there are people who would advocate a state of anarcho-tyranny, which I would argue is even lower than a state of pure savagery, to protect the “right to life”. Civilization is a large part of what makes life worth living, and placing good, law-abiding citizens at a legal disadvantage to criminals who violate their homes is the antithesis of a civilized society.
It is worthwhile analyzing why it is that “civil libertarians” don’t like this new provision. It clearly will not actually harm many [civil] people.
My take is that these “civil libertarians” do not like the fact that people have found a simple way to prevent the sort of anarco-tyranny that the “civil libertarians” want to foist on them.
The key, then, is to anticipate the next move, and prevent it.
I believe it’s legal to shoot a tresspasser in Wyoming, but all you can do is turn on the sprinklers in liberal Massachusetts.
Glad to see other countries adopting American ideals.
“I believe it’s legal to shoot a [trespasser] in Wyoming, but all you can do is turn on the sprinklers in liberal Massachusetts.”
That reminded me of this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml
Essentially, a woman in Oklahoma shot a guy that broke into her trailer. Liberals were outraged that charges were not brought up against her.
Also reminded me of a quote from the holding in DC v. Heller: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
“The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”
I wrote a post about this on my blog: http://secularblood.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/secular-blood-on-gun-control/