David Leyonhjelm on the right to protect ourselves

We have become a nation of defenceless victims.

In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. But we are denied the practical means to exercise that basic right.

Australia’s ban on practical non-lethal means of defence such as pepper sprays, mace and personal tasers sets us apart from most other countries in the world. In NSW even wearing a bulletproof vest is a criminal offence.

Only the police, it seems, have the right to practical self-defence, and even then only when on duty. Supposedly 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.

The elderly, disabled and women are particularly vulnerable. We cannot know what the outcome might have been if Eurydice Dixon or Jill Meagher had been carrying a pepper spray, taser or even a pocketknife on the night they were brutally attacked, raped and murdered.

Based on the experience from overseas, contrary to the assertion that weapons are frequently turned against those who carry them, there is a good chance they would have been able to fight off their attacker. At least they might have been able to temporarily debilitate them long enough to flee. Even if they had failed, fairly obviously their fate wouldn’t have been made any worse.

Australians may never embrace the use of guns for self-defence (although I doubt they would oppose off-duty police being permitted to carry them), but I do not believe they ever agreed to or accepted being rendered virtually defenceless by their government. If asked, I believe most would unequivocally demand the right to practical self-defence, at least using non-lethal means. Yet in the Senate yesterday, this very question was overwhelmingly rejected by the major parties.

A motion by Queensland Senator Anning called for the Government to allow the importation of pepper spray, mace and tasers for individual self-defence. His motion also called for state governments to legalise and actively promote the use of such items by women for their personal protection. The motion was defeated by 46 votes to 5.

This is shameful. When we finish in the Senate late at night, my senate colleagues and I disperse into the cold dark Canberra night via our taxpayer-funded Comcars, with our security-trained drivers. No running the gauntlet of a deserted carpark, car keys at the ready, for any of us.

In a perfect world no human being would assault, rape or murder another human being. We do not live in a perfect world.

It is obscene for law enforcement agencies to tell women to remain vigilant about their personal safety while at the same time preventing them from taking any practical steps to preserve that safety. This amounts to obliging women to modify their behaviour. Unless they are willing to become victims, what other options do they have?

To deny women access to protective measures to ensure their safety because men shouldn’t be violent in the first place (as Greens Senator Rice asserted) is making the perfect the enemy of the good and dangerous in its naivety. We need to accept the reality that there are violent men who need to be stopped and take the appropriate measures, not just wish such men did not exist.

Things should never have reached this stage. Only an authoritarian society would treat its citizens as victims, with the government masquerading as a guardian angel.

David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to David Leyonhjelm on the right to protect ourselves

  1. Old School Conservative

    Agreed. Good work Mr L.

  2. Jimf

    Spot on. Sadly the higher virtues and arrogant disregard of
    our politicians mean that it will never happen. They are moralising, wanna be “betters” who operate according to their dreams of perceived righteousness. As you say David, they’ll never have to be burdened by the actual dangers of those they claim to represent.

  3. OneWorldGovernment

    David L.

    There is only one answer and that is women should be accompanied by a family member

    AND

    wear the proper attire.

  4. Robber Baron

    I’ll vote for this guy at the next election in the Senate.

  5. Jimf

    Ironically, it’s the leftist politicians, and megaphone opinionistas who bemoan the inherent evil of an entire gender who are the same whimperers who demand softer treatment of sociopaths in the justice system. Much better for them to smear all blokes in some sort of smug PhD thesis than admit we have a small but toxic (and beyond help)number of scum that only understand extreme consequence.

  6. struth

    Get the weapons you need.

    Self protection isn’t a right a government can legislate away.

    I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment of this piece by D.L.
    But the government doesn’t have your safety ay heart or even give a shit.
    This is about controlling the slaves.
    You don’t allow your slaves and lower classes the ability to defend themselves.
    They must be made to rely on the government for everything.
    If you let the government tell you that you cannot arm yourself, and you do as you are told, are you actually taking responsibility for your own safety?

    Would Americans give up their guns if the government tried to make them?
    Time and time again you will hear Americans say that they will get their guns when they are prised from their cold dead hands.

    Who gives a shit what they pronounce as law when your life is at stake?
    Arm yourself.
    It’s a human right.

  7. Zatara

    Who gives a shit what they pronounce as law when your life is at stake?

    I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

  8. None

    I can’t recall David moving such a motion since he has been in parliament. No, he was more interested in his pathological hatred for Howard and wanted his automatic guns back. And more interested in legalising hallucinatory drugs which induce murderous psychosis. And every other whacky lefty idea that drops into his bird brain.
    It was a Katter Party member who moved this motion – that’d be Queensland Senator Anning. It was Anning who moved a motion to allow women (why only women?) to defend themselves. And Leyonjhelm just surfing on the back of it toking on his joint, while holding the government to ransom in order to allow other citizens to kill citizens without legal sanction.

    Where is the protection for the old, frail, disabled, ill, or newly born against thieving governments, relatives, aliens and citizens who want to euthanise them?

    Spare us your faux concern, David, you hypocrite.

  9. Shy Ted

    You don’t need pepper sprays, mace or personal tasers. Everything you need is already on the supermarket shelves or in a cupboard at home. Anything sprayed in the eyes works Do an Ebay search for personal protection or just carry your house key and ram it in the attacker’ face.

  10. I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

    If I’m one of those 12 you’ll be fine if you self-represent.

  11. rickw

    In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. But we are denied the practical means to exercise that basic right.

    I don’t think we even have it in legal terms:

    1) See what happens if you display a legally owned firearm in the course of defending oneself, let alone using it.

    2) What you do in the instant to defend yourself will be picked apart in court over days to see if it was “proportionate”.

    DL should start at the root of the issue, self defence is now practically illegal.

  12. stackja

    But the civil liberties of burglars are being ignored.

  13. stackja

    NSW had self defense laws. Been changed as I remember. Probably infringed on anti discrimination law or something.

  14. Tom

    I’ll vote for this guy at the next election in the Senate.

    Same here. LDP will be in my top two in the Senate and top three in the lower house (in Victoriastan).
    Apart from the libertarian autism about open borders, Leyonhjelm is a force for good.

  15. Tel

    Apart from the libertarian autism about open borders, Leyonhjelm is a force for good.

    The LDP do not have an open borders policy. Why is it useful to be repeatedly dishonest when anyone can check the real policy?

    https://www.ldp.org.au/immigration

    In particular:

    Increase barriers to citizenship so Australia can sustain a high level of immigration and relatively free movement of people without the risk that new immigrants will undermine our democracy or social harmony.

    … and …

    Detain unauthorized arrivals for security and health checks, after which they can be temporarily released on payment of bail equivalent to the immigration tariff while their application to stay (as asylum or other) is processed.

    The LDP are interested in people who can come to Australia, be culturally compatible, support themselves and work. They also require removal of government handouts from PR holders, and I fail to see the problem with that.

    If you want to talk about “open borders”, you won’t even hear the Liberal Party leaders discuss the idea that cultural compatibility has any meaning whatsoever.

    So why feel the need for dishonesty? What is achieved by this?

  16. John Constantine

    Compliance and Docility.

    Technically, is it a Thoughtcrime to state on the internet that you have the mentality to do anything other than:

    Flee,

    Cower,

    Beg.

    When your home is invaded?.

    In the peoples soviet socialist republic of Victoria, crime statistics have been adjusted by Big Crony State and Big Crony Media. Apex Predator events are no longer reported, and community deradicalisation and diversion programs and prohibition of profiling against decolonialisation theory indicate that the State sees an acceptable level of collateral damage to proles can be lived with to achieve social engineering.

    Use of weapons against an attacker is now believed by the State to create a genuine political risk of riots and protests in the streets, should an Apex Predator become shot while carrying out a home invasion, the Apex Lives Matter movement will have a foreign funded response ready to roll out, and their abc will support the revolutionary protest movement with a billion dollar taxfunded bully pulpit.

    When firearm registry details can be linked to social media and online forum activity, how long before the State can take your legally owned property for thoughtcrime offences?.

    No event need occur for a successful prosecution, if you make an activist feel confronted online?.

    Excessive force in defence of property now means anything except throwing the carkeys at the home invaders and fleeing to your panic room?.

    No panic room citizen?, then you really can’t come whining to the State when you are crimetaxed for the historical oppressions your demographic is guilty of.

    London is now ‘Stabtopia’, obviously they just haven’t gone hard enough at Proper control of prole movements and thoughtcrimes. When there is no inequality and no racism and no misogyny and no homophobia and no religion and no money and we are all Siblings under Stalin, there can be no crime.

    As their greens weep, why can’t you just see this and do as you are told?.

    Fuck off Comrades.

  17. John Constantine

    What if Tommy Robinson owned an item that could be used for self defence?.

    We all know who will be targeted in the State push against thoughtcrimes and backlashes, it will be those out on the unprotected side of the Bollards of Those that Matter.

    Comrades.

  18. manalive

    Compare and contrast:

    “… putting tasers on the street isn’t going to protect women from men …” (Ms Hanson-Young).
    ‘… putting more police on the streets isn’t going to protect people from Muslims …’ (hypothetical).

    The former statement Mr Leyonhjelm appears to be “loosely interpreting as suggesting all men are rapists …” (Ms Hanson-Young’s spokesman SMH 28 June).
    The latter hypothetical statement appears to me to be suggesting quite specifically that all Muslims are terrorists.

  19. manalive

    Compare and contrast:

    “… putting tasers on the street isn’t going to protect women from men …” (Ms Hanson-Young).
    ‘… putting more police on the streets isn’t going to protect people from M.slims …’ (hypothetical).

    According to Ms Hanson-Young’s spokesman the former statement Mr Leyonhjelm appears to be “loosely interpreting as suggesting all men are rapists …” (SMH 28 June).
    The latter hypothetical statement appears to me to be suggesting quite specifically that all Muslims are terrorists.

  20. manalive

    testing … testing.

  21. manalive

    Compare and contrast:
    “… putting tasers on the street isn’t going to protect women from men …” (Ms Hanson-Young).
    ‘… putting more police on the streets isn’t going to protect people from M….ms …’ (hypothetical).
    According to Ms Hanson-Young’s spokesman the former statement Mr Leyonhjelm appears to be “loosely interpreting as suggesting all men are rapists …” (SMH 28 June).
    The latter hypothetical statement appears to me to be suggesting quite specifically that all M….ms are terrorists.

  22. manalive

    Goodness I’ve been banned.

  23. anonandon

    No skin in the game…..

  24. Boambee John

    struth at 0138

    Who gives a shit what they pronounce as law when your life is at stake?
    Arm yourself.
    It’s a human right.

    As the Americans say, better to be judged by 12 than carried in a box by six.

  25. Ewan

    Aged couples and aged singles living alone should be afforded a non lethal means of protecting themselves in their own homes or accommodation. I’d like to see a sign ‘Protected by MACE’ (insert ‘Pepper Spray’ if you wish) on their homes. Locks on doors and windows are the first line of defence and MACE is the second line covering the obstacles. Our legislators, with few exceptions, are Koalas.

  26. Tintarella di Luna

    Thank you Rafe for posting this – David Leyonhjelm he is really pushing the envelope isn’t he. As was so elegantly put by Peggy Noonan – There are two classes now – the Protected and the Unprotected

  27. Boambee John

    David L or Dot if you are reading

    What is the wording of the relevant legislation? Does it include any explicit or implicit guarantee that the state, through its police, will provide “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”?

    If it does, then has the state accepted strict liability to provide security to the person and property of all residents? If so, then can each and every victim of any crime sue the state for damages (including police personnel and the relevant ministers)?

    By this, I do not mean make a claim on the various rather pathetic Victims of Crime Compensation funds, but full on court cases, including for punitive damages.

    Faced with the prospect of potentially unlimited damages payouts, would ministers see sense?

  28. harry buttle

    Tell your local member that this issue is a vote changer for you. politicians don’t have principles but they do count votes.

  29. Maybe if people could carry and use something like a safe, yet indelible, dye spray. The assailant simply could not escape identification when the face etc is covered in a very difficult to remove and prominent dye. The chance of being easily identified and caught is likely to be a significant deterrent to many.

  30. EvilElvis

    sustain a high level of immigration and relatively free movement of people

    I think that’s the key part… Quality and volume rarely go together.

  31. Boambee John

    From the Open Thread

    zyconoclast
    #2750526, posted on June 30, 2018 at 1:16 am
    Italian Gun Ownership on the Rise as Populist Salvini Offers Stronger Self-Defence Laws

    Firearms licences in Italy have increased by 13.8 percent in a single year and the populist Interior Minister Matteo Salvini is looking to liberalise home self-defence laws to allow Italians to confront intruders.

  32. nemkat

    Some experts say the incidence of Psychopathy is 2%, some say 5, some go as high as 10%.

    Let’s say it’s 2%. Let’s pretend only adult male psychopaths are dangerous.
    That’s 150,000 dangerous people who may commit a violent crime if given the opportunity.

    That’s how stupid the whole argument is. If some women want to wander around late at night in dark, seemingly deserted places, it’s a free country.
    You can’t legislate for stupidity.

  33. Roger W

    ” making the perfect the enemy of the good and dangerous in its naivety.”
    This essentially sums up the basis of all socialist thought. The intention is all important, don’t worry about the practical realities/consequences. It drives all the thinking and actions of what are loosely called The Left.

  34. Roger

    It was a Katter Party member who moved this motion – that’d be Queensland Senator Anning.

    Props to Senator Anning.

    Women of Australia, note who voted for your right to active self defense: Senators Anning, Bernardi, Leyonhjelm, Burston & Georgiou. And note who didn’t.

  35. Egor

    We have the convict gene.
    The convict in his captured heart believes only his gaolers should have weapons.

  36. mareeS

    I used to work night shift and early morning starts. First thing my husband (ex-army) insisted on was that I always carried my keys in my hand, pointy ends between my fingers, aim for the eyes and keep going. Not illegal. No need for mace spray or tasers.

    Fortunately I never had to use that method of self-defence, but our daughter hat to, a while back. It worked.

  37. nemkat

    Katter and his Senator are just grandstanding for votes and free publicity.
    If you’re insisting women must have the right to go anywhere, anytime, without any consideration for personal safety, then you’ve got to support the Death Penalty for Rape.
    It won’t stop all rapes, but it will make plenty think twice, and it will remove dangerous people from the gene pool.

  38. tgs

    No need for mace spray or tasers.

    The idea that the average woman (or man quite frankly) can fend off all threats to her safety with a key between the fingers is a bit ridiculous, tbh. Pretty sure literally any weapon whatsoever, improvised or otherwise, is going to put your key at quite the disadvantage.

    Not calling you average either, just extrapolating your argument.

  39. duncanm

    Maybe if people could carry and use something like a safe, yet indelible, dye spray

    then you’d be done under the graffiti laws for carrying a ‘graffiti implement’.

    Think I’m joking?

    .. and woe betide any minor who has a spray pain can in their possession.

  40. duncanm

    spray pain strangely works in this context..

  41. Woolfe

    I gave my daughter some pepper spray which she carries with her.

  42. Megan

    I have a small spray bottle with undiluted bleach in my car and I carry one in my pocket if I feel I need it. Not sure how well it would work and I really hope I never have to find out. But I’ve never been the type to give in without a fight and no ruling by my Senate Overlords is going to change that.

  43. then you’d be done under the graffiti laws for carrying a ‘graffiti implement’.

    I’m not talking about a full-sized spray paint can, but something small and inadequate for such activities, perhaps operated in such a way that it can only provide a few short bursts, nothing sufficient to do any form of tagging.

  44. Percy Popinjay

    then you’ve got to support the Death Penalty for Rape

    Yeah, no.

  45. EvilElvis

    No, no, no.

    Didn’t you people get the memo? Lisa Wilkinson insists that women don’t need self defence or situational awarenes, it’s us blokes that need to reign in our disgusting, misogynistic, [email protected] behaviours!

    Now think of who you vote for and if they take advice from people like Lisa and Co. Self defence isn’t an issue, men are…

  46. struth

    Australians.
    Arguing how best to paint the rapist who is just about to slit your throat.

    Guns are a deterrent.
    You’ll never know how many rapes and murders they have stopped due to the would be perp thinking twice about it.

    You’ll only hear statistics once the gun is fired.
    But you’ll also never get the statistics of who got the bullet, the attacker or the defender.

  47. struth

    Australians.
    Arguing how best to paint the ra pist who is just about to slit your throat.

    Guns are a deterrent.
    You’ll never know how many ra pes and murders they have stopped due to the would be perp thinking twice about it.

    You’ll only hear statistics once the gun is fired.
    But you’ll also never get the statistics of who got the bullet, the attacker or the defender.

  48. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    But as the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away. Or, in the country, hours.

    I rang my local police station to report trespassers “When we had the farm.” The nearest, manned police station was two hundred kilometers away.

    Mr Lee and Mr Enfield were very comforting friends to have present.

  49. flyingduk

    Well said sir!

    I’m heading out for a pistol shoot myself this morning: I take self reliance seriously.

  50. struth

    We have the convict gene.
    The convict in his captured heart believes only his gaolers should have weapons.

    And also should decide how we dress (hi vis prison uniform)
    What privileges we can receive.
    What tools we can work with (no two strokes)
    How we are accommodated and where.
    What sex gets to work where.
    etc.

  51. md

    There is a corollary to this: even if we did have the means to defend ourselves, the state would hunt us down and prosecute us if we were to defend ourselves.
    To make matters worse, it seems that in socialist Australia violence by certain cohorts is ignored by the state, thanks to the ‘new racism’ practised by the state.
    And, finally, we in Australia have been cowed. We know we have no rights, no power and no-one to protect our interests. That’s why we just lie down and take whatever government does to us. They know they can get away with anything they like, and so do we.

  52. Harlequin Decline

    The Senator is absolutely correct. At the very minimum you should have the right to defend yourself and your property with any and all means.

    As it stands the law protects the perpetrator, not the victim.

  53. struth

    And, finally, we in Australia have been cowed. We know we have no rights, no power and no-one to protect our interests. That’s why we just lie down and take whatever government does to us. They know they can get away with anything they like, and so do we.

    History shows us totalitarians very first move is to de-arm the proles.
    Hitler did it, even using safety of children as the excuse.
    They all did.

    We let them do it.
    The convict gene, as stated above is strong here.

  54. Egor

    “if we did have the means to defend ourselves, the state would hunt us down and prosecute us if we were to defend ourselves.”

    Cheer up. The self defence law in NSW is quite robust, not Texas perfect but it could be a lot worse. I believe you can trust a jury to put themselves in your situation and nullify any police prosecutor histrionics based on the policeman’s bizarre resentment that self defence is a reflection of their incompetence.

  55. BorisG

    Agree with the senator and also with Tel. You may not like LDP policy but saying it is open borders is a wild distortion.

  56. Pedro the Ignorant

    Most Australians are very obedient people.

    “no guns for you” proclaims .gov.

    “Yassuh, Massa”.

    I think .gov would be horrified to know how many people treat this directive with the contempt it deserves.

  57. nemkat

    In te news, lately, a family of Sri Lankans ordered by a Court to be deported, still have another avenue of appeal up their sleeves.
    Their argument is ”Fear of persecution”, yet they’ve been back to S.L. many times.
    If the LDP wants to be taken seriously, here’s an idea:

    Immigration should have as many checks and balances as Deportation.
    At the moment, some tribal Afghan can waltz in here, go straight into a Government subsidised job, house, and lifestyle, then when he is caught committing Crimes here [which aren’t Crimes back home], it takes 20 years to successfully deport him.

  58. Dr Fred Lenin

    I never agree much with anything Lowe stein says ,he’s a priveleged rich white aparatchik of the elitist clique leftist s , career politicians are not to be believed its all about their miserable little careers , inadequates pretending they are smart , politics should not be a career , that attracts the incompetents that cannot get acareer anywhere else .

  59. Dr Fred Lenin

    For once I agree with nemkat, deportation should be automatic when a crime is committed ,along with all immediate family ,wives children ,parents, brothers an sisters and families and anyone they sponsored to come here. Also like President Trump ,no interference in the process by lawyers ,whether taxpayer paid or pro bono ,the lawtrade is kept right out of it , I know this will cause anguish in the lawtrade being deprived of all that taxpayer money and all ,but suck it up comrades .

  60. None

    Marie s yes jogging with keys in your hand is an old one but it doesn’t defend you against a knife as I can well attest.

  61. None

    Yes ldp tweaking their policies to pretend they’re more mainstream than what they are – namely a bunch of anarchists – is not fooling anyone. There is a very good reason not to vote ldp they seem to attract these mentally unstable or socially isolated groupies who behave like members of a personality cult. Never a good sign.

  62. Chris

    For once I agree with

    Waste of energy, xe will say something quite otherwise under a different name a second later.

  63. Howard Hill

    Time to start leaking the names and addresses of those that vote in this fashion. This country is out of control.

  64. Chris

    Yes ldp tweaking their policies to pretend they’re more mainstream than what they are – namely a bunch of anarchists – is not fooling anyone. There is a very good reason not to vote ldp they seem to attract these mentally unstable or socially isolated groupies who behave like members of a personality cult. Never a good sign.

    Harsh.
    While DL remains a party of one, he does awesome work due to 100% support from his party room.

  65. nemkat

    There is a very good reason not to vote ldp they seem to attract these mentally unstable or socially isolated groupies who behave like members of a personality cult. Never a good sign.

    Doesn’t sound like much of a reason not to vote LDP to me.
    The ALP or Liberal Party or National Party [Barnaby Joyce] aren’t personality cults?

    A better reason is that the LDP is an Open Borders Party, which means it is also a Low Wage Party.
    Not much different to the Libs, the Nats, or the ALP.

  66. jupes

    Increase barriers to citizenship so Australia can sustain a high level of immigration and relatively free movement of people without the risk that new immigrants will undermine our democracy or social harmony.

    Yes, but the devil is in the detail or lack of it.

    As far as I can work out (mainly from the Dotty’s rantings) the increased barriers only involve paying money. If they can pay, they can come. That means if ten million Muslims get given the required amount of money, they can all come on down and start building their mosques.

    The LDP does not recognise Islam as a threat. That is the problem.

    Detain unauthorized arrivals for security and health checks, after which they can be temporarily released on payment of bail equivalent to the immigration tariff while their application to stay (as asylum or other) is processed.

    Again, just a payment is required. The boats would re-start on day one if Australia was ever stupid enough to elect the LDP.

  67. Chris

    While DL remains a party of one, he does awesome work due to 100% support from his party room.

    Actually I was very pleasantly surprised that he didn’t get knifed in his partyroom like all other party leaders seem to be. I thought he would hold himself hostage with a grenade, refuse to cave to himself, and that would be that.

  68. jupes

    It was a Katter Party member who moved this motion – that’d be Queensland Senator Anning.

    I like the cut of Fraser Anning’s jib. Except why the fuck has he aligned himself with that boof-headed clown from North Queensland?

  69. John Constantine

    The boats will not restart, it will be all airlift from here on in.

    Their turnbullites have imported more revolutionary decolonialisation consumption machines to underpin their capital city property Ponzi than redfilth Gillard ever did, they are just enabling the migration agent organised cartels to fly clients in instead of boating them in.

    Up,Up and Away, Comrades.

  70. nemkat

    He made a fool of himself with his comment to Hanson -Young, though.
    Even in the context of events, scoring a point off the likes of SH-Y when she hadn’t attacked him, looks and sounds mean spirited.
    Woulda done himself a favor if he’d immediately apologised, he’ll be hoping female NSW voters will have forgotten by 2022.
    Otoh, it all sounded a bit contrived, maybe he’s done a preference deal with the Open Borders, Low Wage Greens?

  71. nemkat

    Except why the fuck has he aligned himself with that boof-headed clown from North Queensland?
    He’s a 3 year Senator, and KAP will be Above The Line next time.
    Plus Katter has name recognition that’s worth maybe 3% Primary, or he could spend a fortune registering a new Party for an election that’s 12 months away, at most.

  72. Egor

    “The LDP does not recognise Islam as a threat.”

    Indeed. All Australian Libert factions have in common as a prime directive the free flow of all sorts of corrupt capital via open borders and sponsored Islamic immigration
    That’s all that matters to them. They regard things like national culture, successful historic values, coherent community and the desire to preserve these as guiding cultural values…….as very quaint.
    Fuck ’em.
    The Australian electorate agrees, what is it they get, < 2% of any vote in any State? Libert politics in Australia ranks with the MacGillicuddy(?) Serious Party in NZ.

  73. nemkat

    LDP drew #1 on the NSW ballot paper in 2013 and #5 in 2016. That’s out of 120 candidates both times
    What are the odds?
    Not saying the AEC is corrupt, of course.

  74. Linden

    That’s an old adage of the SAS, that just anything can be used a weapon. Some of those toxic fly bug sprays would be just as good if not worse lol

  75. struth

    Even in the context of events, scoring a point off the likes of SH-Y when she hadn’t attacked him, looks and sounds mean spirited.

    No dickhead.
    She called all men rapists.
    That’s an attack if ever there was one.
    Especially if you’re a man.

    That’ll go over your head, I’m sure.

  76. tgs

    Agree with the good senator but the obvious logical conclusion is the 2A.

    Understand why he didn’t go there for local political reasons though.

    Os thanks sinc.

  77. struth

    Even in the context of events, scoring a point off the likes of SH-Y when she hadn’t attacked him, looks and sounds mean spirited.

    No dickhead.
    She called all men ra pists.
    That’s an attack if ever there was one.
    Especially if your a man.

    That’ll go over your head, I’m sure

  78. tgs

    Also proud to have voted LDP last elecrion

  79. tgs

    Also proud to have voted LDP last election and likely will again.

  80. Linden

    must be about 25-30yrs back, case In Brisbane where an elderly pensioner shot dead a burglar in his home with a high powered rifle .270 calibre from memory, he was charged with either murder of manslaughter, went to trial and the case was dismissed by the jury, verdict ‘not guilty’. Listening to radio interview from some jerk lawyer from the government what ever saying ‘oh we can’t have juries giving decisions like this; he should of been found guilty’. What our marvelous jurdiciary thinks about things and what the general public thinks are quite two different things, as this court case proved.

  81. Linden

    Little piece in the Herald Sun about that exchange, I thought his response ole bawling eyes SHY was a classic!

  82. nemkat

    Linden
    #2750941
    must be about 25-30yrs back, case In Brisbane where an elderly pensioner shot dead a burglar in his home with a high powered rifle .270 calibre from memory, he was charged with either murder of manslaughter, went to trial and the case was dismissed by the jury, verdict ‘not guilty’.

    Your memory may be better than mine on some details, but my memory is that it happened down Redcliffe way, the victim was a harmless local junkie who wasn’t a physical threat, and the shooter was a retired Sicilian migrant with little English.
    The fatal incident happened in the bloke’s carport, and my memory is that there were no Police Charges.

  83. nemkat

    She called all men [banned word]
    That’s an attack if ever there was one.
    Especially if your a man.

    That’ll go over your head, I’m sur</em

    Old mate:
    Sarah Hanson-Young is a ratbag, and a lightweight. If the Senator can't resist scoring a cheap point off a ratbag, then maybe he's a ratbag too?

  84. struth

    Old mate:
    Sarah Hanson-Young is a ratbag, and a lightweight. If the Senator can’t resist scoring a cheap point off a ratbag, then maybe he’s a ratbag too?

    She’s a fucking senator in parliament, fungus features.
    If there is anyone that needs to be pulled up for calling all men ra pists, it is a senator in the Australian parliament.

    Would you just like everyone in parliament to disregard what everyone else says who they disagree with, as lightweights and shut up, or just the right wingers?

    Really…what a stupid statement you just made.
    You really are not up to this.

  85. nemkat

    Old mate:
    If you’re calling DL a Right Winger, I must disagree.
    No true Right Winger would be comfortable with rampant migration, Free Trade, or the Law of the Jungle on wages.
    DL is on board with all this stuff, he’s leading the way.
    So, no, he ain’t a Right Winger.

  86. struth

    No, I’m calling you a left winger.
    DL is an old hippy from the east coast who has read a good book on his been bag about freedom and limited government while toking with dot.
    He went into the parliament and they laughed at his theories and now he has the shits with them.
    He is what you call a useful idiot.
    An attack dog when there is no other.
    But he must be kept on a leash, as should all anarchists.

  87. Tim Neilson

    Saw something from the USA in the last day or so. (American Thinker I recall.)

    A Republican decided to troll the Texas Democrats convention by gate crashing and offering free yard signs saying “This house is proudly a gun free zone”. But the virtue signallers didn’t get the trolling, instead they gladly took them. Some Darwin awards coming up, one suspects.

  88. Linden

    yep fair enough, I never lived there, was at the time circa in Brissy remember the controversy about etc, on the radio you version may be in fact the correct one.

  89. nemkat

    struth
    #2750978
    No, I’m calling you a left winger.

    You are?
    That’s interesting, because earlier today you were claiming that Race is irrelevant to Immigration, and anyone who said otherwise was a White Supremacist. Roger took fright when you said that.

    You also tried to argue that Culture was unconnected to Race.

    These are eggheaded intellectual arguments, not based in reality.
    Or to put it gently, extremely Left Wing.

  90. Eyrie

    “Your memory may be better than mine on some details, but my memory is that it happened down Redcliffe way, the victim was a harmless local junkie who wasn’t a physical threat, and the shooter was a retired Sicilian migrant with little English.
    The fatal incident happened in the bloke’s carport, and my memory is that there were no Police Charges.”
    This was early 90’s maybe 93-94.
    The gun was shotgun. The pensioner heard a noise in his carport. Found miscreant trying to break into his car. Miscreant told him to go inside if he knew what was good for him. Pensioner did so, came back with shotgun and told miscreant to leave if he knew what was good for him. Miscreant advanced on pensioner saying “you won’t use that”. Oops. Unfortunately miscreant wasn’t dead and later complained he didn’t deserve to be shot. (Darwin ward contender). Charges were laid. Went to Court. Miscreant claimed was sheltering in carport from rain. BoM showed no rain in Brissy that night anywhere. Jury took 20 minutes to decide not guilty. Judge commended them on obviously sensible verdict. Government made ex gratia payment to pensioner to cover legal costs.
    Not long after that a bunch of hoons in a car were at a 7-11 when another bunch of hoons gave them some lip before driving off. So one of the would be rocket scientists in the first bunch said he knew where one of the other hoons lived and they went there. Broke in by breaking glass beside front door and said hoon walked down passageway to bedroon carrying lump of 2 x 4. Was going to teach hoon #1 a lesson. Wrong house. Gun owner who heard break in saw hoon approaching with lump of wood and shot him dead with rifle. No charges as Police decided it was legit self defence.
    This was in a Queensland that is no more after 30 years of socialist corruption.

  91. cohenite

    NSW has very strong self defence laws; see SS 418 – 422 CA 1900. You can kill in self defence of yourself and other people but not property. The onus of proof is on the wallopers.

    However you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun (See the case of David Dunstan who eventually did get his guns back). Police have no duty of care to protect individual citizens even if those citizens have taken out AVOs. So you have a situation where police can choose not to protect you, where often police are too far away, where you have the right to self-defend but not the means.

    I blame howard for this bullshit.

  92. .

    If it does, then has the state accepted strict liability to provide security to the person and property of all residents? If so, then can each and every victim of any crime sue the state for damages (including police personnel and the relevant ministers)?

    No.

    See:

    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

    This has been incorporated into our common law (must have been a persuasive judgment, post-1986).

    The police have no particular duty of care. That’s the L-A-W law!

    I disagree with cohenite. The self-defence laws are watered down and the police, DPP and judges consider them an inconvenience. They are very watered down from the common law position: you could legitimately kill in defence of life, liberty or property.

  93. .

    To clarify: there has been a development in the (UK) law (from 2014) since I was taught:

    https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/missing-point

    As a result of last month’s judgment any victim of “particularly severe violent acts” will now be able to sue the police if the police investigation is not pursued “in a timely and efficient manner”.

    I can’t guarantee this has been legislated away after all the CLA for each state repealed the repeal of the highway rule in Brodie v Singleton Shire Council.

  94. .

    So you have a situation where police can choose not to protect you, where often police are too far away, where you have the right to self-defend but not the means.

    It’s the Wiggum Rule:

    “Powerless to protect, not to punish you”.

  95. Boambee John

    Dot at 1545 and 1551

    Thanks.

    Re 1551

    As a result of last month’s judgment any victim of “particularly severe violent acts” will now be able to sue the police if the police investigation is not pursued “in a timely and efficient manner”.

    Essentially, the police have no obligation to protect a member of the public, but are required to investigate “particularly severe violent acts” in a “timely and efficient manner”. Comforting, NOT!

    Why do we pay for these less than useful dicks and dicklesses?

  96. Boambee John

    And only the victim, not the family of a deceased victim, can sue?

  97. .

    That depends on local tort law. NSW, for example, has the CTRA (Compensation to Relatives Act 1897).

  98. cohenite

    I disagree with cohenite. The self-defence laws are watered down and the police, DPP and judges consider them an inconvenience. They are very watered down from the common law position: you could legitimately kill in defence of life, liberty or property.

    These are John Tingle’s laws. I don’t think they’ve been tested. Of course the process would be the punishment but I fail to see how you could not regard these as providing strong rights:

    418 Self-defence–when available

    (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

    (2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
    (a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

    (b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or

    (c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or

    (d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
    and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

    And remembering that the police must prove you did not have a reasonable belief:

    419 Self-defence–onus of proof

    In any criminal proceedings in which the application of this Division is raised, the prosecution has the onus of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the conduct in self-defence.

  99. Egor

    ” you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun.”
    Nonsense. If you own a registered firearm legally for whatever genuine reason you can use that firearm for self defence if the circumstance of self defence arises. You will of course have to retrieve that firearm from approved storage at the time. Storing your legally owned firearm under the bed for self defence purposes won’t cut it.

  100. .

    I’m not picking a bone with John Tingle. He did great work stopping the lunar left of the Greens and ALP along with the Laura Norder pavlovian dogs from the ALP and LNP from abolishing self-defence as we know it.

    Take for example the Victorian case of Ivan Joe D’Angelo.

    The judge made a remark that he a) should have called the cops and b) thought it was relevant that D’Angelo smoked a lot of pot and otherwise was a heavy drinker. I do not believe the law says that either of these is actually relevant.

    Look at section 420 and 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 ( NSW) though; it basically says the castle doctrine amounts to murder (trespass is excluded) and the defence for property under ss 418 and 419 goes away, you can still get 25 years for manslaughter.

    That’s my beef.

  101. .

    You will of course have to retrieve that firearm from approved storage at the time.

    Indeed, you are either being ironic & facetious or a holophobe who does not genuinely support the right to self-defence and thus self-ownership.

  102. Egor

    ” you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun.”
    Nonsense.

  103. cohenite

    ” you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun.”
    Nonsense.

    I agree it’s nonsense, in fact it’s diabolical but you can’t and I gave you the case of David Dunstan.

    It would make an interesting case though. You use your weapon to self-defend. The police argue the presence of the gun disavows any reasonable belief and apply S 421.

    I agree the lack of a castle doctrine is a major problem but I wonder if cases like Plenty v Dillon (1991) would apply.

  104. Egor

    ” The police argue the presence of the gun disavows any reasonable belief and apply S 421.”

    Depends on how the firearm got ” presence”.
    Under the bed won’t do.
    Your statement that ” you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun.” remains nonsense.

  105. stackja

    Civil libertarians insisted criminals had more rights than ordinary citizens.

  106. cohenite

    Your statement that ” you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun.” remains nonsense.

    Says you.

  107. Egor

    You goose.
    You know that’s legal nonsense.
    You exaggerated to make a point, perhaps about the inability of Australians to carry?

  108. Boambee John

    Your statement that ” you cannot use a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun.” remains nonsense.

    Perhaps that should be that “you cannot obtain a licence to own a gun to self-defend because that is not a genuine reason for having a gun”? If you are licensed to possess a gun for a legitimate (non-self defence) reason, and can get it from the approved storage, what then?

    Bit like having golf clubs to play golf, and using one in self defence.

  109. Egor

    Exactly Boa, but there are no probs using either the clubs or the guns for SD.

    ” If you are licensed to possess a gun for a legitimate (non-self defence) reason, and can get it from the approved storage, what then?” What then? Shoot him.

  110. cohenite

    You goose.

    Says you. For the benefit of less obtuse readers. David Dunstan is a farmer who last year apprehended a drug addled burglar on his farm. Dunstan had a licence for vermin control, a legitimate reason for being granted a rifle licence in NSW. When the burglar broke in Dunstan phoned police and then unlocked a rifle and detained the burglar with an unloaded rifle until the cops arrived, much later.

    Dunstan had his weapons removed and his licence revoked as did his wife who had a separate licence. Dunstan was charged with unlawful use of a weapon. It took the intervention of the SFF and strong legal representation before the charges were dropped. Last I read Dunstan was dealing with the recalcitrant gun registry.

    Assertions don’t win arguments here you pain in the arse. Present evidence that you can use a gun for self defence or fuck off.

  111. nemkat

    . When the burglar broke in Dunstan phoned police and then unlocked a rifle and detained the burglar with an unloaded rifle until the cops arrived, much later.

    That’s not it.
    The bloke was armed with a tree branch and a knife. He knocked on the back door at 3am, Dunstan opened it, then closed it and held it fast.
    He told his wife to get a .22 out of his gun safe. It was unloaded, presumably because ammo cant be kept in a gun safe.
    That was the problem. No one else is to have access to your gun safe in N.S.W..
    Even Mrs. Dunstan, who is also a registered gun owner, and has her own gun safe.
    Why Mrs Dunstan didn’t get her weapon out of her gun safe hasn’t been explained, but possibly the issue is that if Mrs. Dunstan had given her weapon to Mr. Dunstan, they’d still be in trouble.
    It’s just madness.

  112. cohenite

    He told his wife to get a .22 out of his gun safe. It was unloaded, presumably because ammo cant be kept in a gun safe.
    That was the problem. No one else is to have access to your gun safe in N.S.W..

    Unless they have an equivalent licence which she had. Anyway technicalities abound. The crucial thing is he used the gun for a purpose not covered by the licence.

  113. nemkat

    Unless they have an equivalent licence which she had.

    No. No one else can have access to the permit holder’s gun safe, equivalent licence or not.
    That’s the reason she lost her guns and licence as well.

  114. Egor

    The goosiness continues.
    No, self defence is not negated as a legal defence because there is no SD “genuine reason” for firearm ownership.
    The Court in your example demonstrates you are wrong. The Court rejected the police case, agreed with his self defence claim and returned his firearms.
    Police policy to harass firearm owners and bring hysterical charges that are continually rejected by the Courts is another matter.

  115. .

    No. No one else can have access to the permit holder’s gun safe, equivalent licence or not.
    That’s the reason she lost her guns and licence as well.

    Anyone who thinks this is a good law is an idiot. Legal positivism does not support evil laws. I’m not a positivist but it makes some good criticisms. If the police cannot use discretion, they should expect none in disciplinary hearings and only prosecute “slam dunk” cases. That is if we want to believe in the rule of law still.

  116. .

    No, self defence is not negated as a legal defence because there is no SD “genuine reason” for firearm ownership.

    Except that you’re wrong, the Courts have consistently held an anti-self-defense, holophobic attitude. cohenite has listed a few cases that you keep on ignoring (I posted an infamous one where Lex Lasry QC VSCJ was the presiding judge).

    The point of course, is that the law (legislation and common law) is crap.

    The old (but post-1996) NSW permit forms actually explicitly said that “SELF-DEFENCE IS NOT A VALID REASON”.

    Of course, in a civilised nation, the police do not have regulatory or legislative powers – but they do in Australia.

  117. Egor

    You keep confusing self defence as “not a genuine reason” to own a firearm with the ability to use a firearm you legally own for a “genuine reason” in self defence.

  118. .

    No Egor, you are wrong, please stop prevaricating like a troll.

    If you use your firearms for a purpose not listed, they will be taken away from you.

    The Court will also hold the legality or “morality” of antecedent actions prior to this as evidence for or against the use of “reasonable force”.

    We’ve given multiple examples, you just keep on ignoring these.

  119. Habib

    Defence members are prime targets and are disarmed on base, and off.

  120. Egor

    Are you a bit slow?
    In the Dunstan case the Court rejected the police assertion that self defence wasn’t available because it wasn’t a genuine reason to own a firearm.

  121. Habib

    Maybe if people could carry and use something like a safe, yet indelible, dye spray. The assailant simply could not escape identification when the face etc is covered in a very difficult to remove and prominent dye. The chance of being easily identified and caught is likely to be a significant deterrent to many.

    Having their head and upper body mass perforated with three well-placed 9mm holes makes identification of miscreants very easy, and even the obese, vertically-challenged uniformed social workers masquerading as law enforcement officials could probably apprehend them with only a minor struggle. Dragonsbreath 410s in a Taurus Judge would facilitate apprehension at night, providing illumination to assist said social workers in locating ner-do-wells and footpads.

  122. Egor
    #2752139, posted on July 2, 2018 at 11:23 am
    Are you a bit slow?
    In the Dunstan case the Court rejected the police assertion that self defence wasn’t available because it wasn’t a genuine reason to own a firearm.

    One case of many – and learn this well: for the innocent (at least), the process is the punishment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.