2026-07-05
"Violence is never the answer".
Why then might the State reserve to itself the use of violent coercion to control its own citizens?
Nobody wants a violent society - we are strongest when we work together to common ends, and weakest when we insist on fighting over those matters that divide us. We should accept our differences in good spirit, agree to differ, and work together for our common benefit. Is this not the primary lesson of "diversity"?
Yet if we are offered violence, we are entitled under Common Law (which in my understanding is superior to Statute Law) to defend ourselves.
One must here qualify that right by accepting that those who would make an arrest (Constabulary or Citizens) are entitled to expect that suspects will cooperate, and if necessary and appropriate may be arrested by use of reasonable force when uncooperative.
Therefore the right to self-defence against violence is a valid right unless one is resisting arrest and/or being subjected to unnecessary or unreasonable force.
I am not a lawyer so don't take the foregoing as legal advice.
However, whilst getting the right adjudication in Court can be a difficult matter as Martin Geddes has pointed up, the lawful principles are abundantly clear - we are entitled to our self-defence, and (other than resisting arrest) we are entitled to go about our lawful business in peace.
Nevertheless, today's State has ways of attacking us which seem impervious to the established norms that permit us to effectively defend ourselves.
What to do?
See next article for one idea.
