NEWTON'S OPTIC:AS DIRECTOR of the Independent Campaign for Civil Liberties (ICCL) I find myself firmly opposed to revising the law on self-defence.
The ICCL, which under no circumstances should be confused with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), is of the considered view that proposed new legislation on “legitimate defence” will place householders at an increased risk of violence. This view was considered during the time it took to answer the first reporter who asked me about it.
I must admit I am a little surprised by my own hostility to the proposals. I suppose you could portray them as enhancing the civil liberty to protect yourself, your family and home.
There is the issue of the right to life but rights are a whole different field and I would never dream of trespassing on another campaign’s field. Besides, imagine a man in my position not knowing the difference between a civil liberty and a right. I would look like a complete amateur. So why does the idea of “legitimate defence” make me uneasy?
Perhaps it comes down to the gruesome practicalities of actually “having a go”. How is a householder supposed to attack an intruder when so few have a licensed firearm, and when those that do must keep it locked away?
Firearms restrictions leave the householder with no choice but to defend themselves with any implement to hand, such as a power drill, a meat-cleaver or a giant novelty corkscrew. Clearly, the best way to avoid this is for everyone to have the right to own a gun, allowing intruders to be humanely shot from a safe distance. In many countries this right is considered a civil liberty, even by those who know the difference, yet for some reason I can’t consider it at all.
Perhaps if householders were allowed to own tasers the competing rights to life and self-defence would not have to be traded off against each other. Yet for some reason I can’t consider that either.
We have been accused of focusing only on State violence, so it is strange that I should feel so instinctively opposed to individual self-defence. Americans believe that the right to self-defence includes the right to defend yourself against the state, thereby guaranteeing your civil liberties. But that sounds a bit right wing. Anyway, I think we can all agree that America has nothing to teach the world about balancing rights and liberties in a free society.
So if my objection is not based on any of the above, I must just be outraged at the idea of vulnerable people driven to crime by social exclusion suffering further harm in the defence of bourgeois property. But I can’t really say that, can I?