Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
....and almost everyone (with very few exceptions) is ex-military in
one manner or another.
Human Rights in New Zealand Today: Chapter 7 The right to life, liberty and security of personYou Google it. It does.
The following NZ summary also applies to Canada.
No? I wonder why there are so many warnings on products for imbeciles who might use the products for uses other than they were intended for...either intentionally OR inadvertently.
You are arguing semantics.
We do have such rights and they were tweeked in May of 2002.
http://www.hhrjournal.org/archives-pdf/4065435.pdf.bannered.pdf
No need for me to do anything currently, I am quite happy with my life here in Canada. It's been done, all we have to do is ensure that it is protected and enforced.
WHAT!! They are there to protect and SERVE for which we pay their salaries. Crickey even in Florida, they come if the phone is accidently left off the hook.
I have never had to protect myself from the police. I have had the police help me round up a herd of cows when someone left a gate open ..(suspect hunters) had them check to see if I was okay, after a power failure that set off my house alarm . Dealt with them from time to time at work and never, ever had a problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
In case you haven't noticed, this is not New Zealand.
Your article comes from a Human Rights Commission, commonly the most whacked out idiots of the far-out left.
And even THEY do not insist the right to security of the person includes safety, only that some "emerging" interpretations include safety in the workplace......
Colossal FAIL.
You'll have to try that one on somebody that can't read.....
Thanks for proving my point.
The document calls for a right to safety, which currently DOES NOT EXIST in any nation on earth.
Imagine a Human Rights Commission commenting on human rights. The audacity! Furthermore the phrase on which they commented has the same UN framing as Canada's. The summary I posted reiterates exactly what they I wrote several times over. Please read it. Then a quiet "Geezus I'm sorry" would be appreciated.
I remember, when I started grade one another urchin declared snow was not water. When I put snow in my hand, squeezed it, and showed him water, he ran off in a huff yelling over and over, "Snow isn't water.” By the way, Colpy, where did you go to school?
For normal people quite good thank you. Taking a trip around town is always very interesting. Most of those 50 and older know what and who to avoid. Still there are quite a number about with very short fuses.
Seeing two middle aged men duking it out in a parking lot over who had the right to a parking space or watching two drivers trying to cut one another off while waving their fists out the windows and cursing at each other sure breaks up the monotony as long as one stays a fair distance away.
I'll say "I'm sorry" when I am wrong.
So far, I'm not.
The UN framing, like both the NZ and Canadian framing have NOTHING to do with safety........except in the delusions of idiots.
That is basically agreeing with the article you posted.
What is the right to life, liberty and security of person?
The right to life
Top
The right to life is the supreme right of the human being (UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), 1982). It is basic to all human rights and without it all other rights are without meaning. The term ‘life’ itself has been given a relatively broad interpretation by courts internationally, to include the right to dignity and the right to livelihood (Jayawickrama, 2002). [2]
It is the duty of the State to protect human life against unwarranted actions by public authorities as well as by private persons (United Nations, 1955). The duty of the State to protect the right has been interpreted broadly to include the following duties (UNHRC, 1982): [3]
to prohibit arbitrary killing by agents of the State and to strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of life by state authorities
to conduct some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by agents of the State
to secure the right to life by making effective provisions in criminal law to deter the commission of offences against the person
to establish law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression, investigation and penalisation of breaches of criminal law
in certain well-defined circumstances, a positive duty to take preventative operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual
to take measures to protect the life of a person held in custody[4]
to ensure that a person being extradited or deported is not exposed to a real risk of violation of right to life in the receiving State. [5]
The Vienna Programme of Action for human rights suggests that the State’s duty to protect the right to life includes a duty to protect against environmental threats (such as toxic waste or radioactivity).[6] Some courts have also interpreted it to include a duty to provide medical assistance necessary for preserving human life, [7] while others have acknowledged that rationing of access to life-prolonging resources is integral to, rather than incompatible, with human rights. [8] In New Zealand the Court of Appeal found that a clinical decision not to offer treatment did not constitute deprivation of life.[9]
There have been differing interpretations internationally of whether the right to life applies to the unborn child (Jayawickrama, 2002). The ICCPR declares that ‘every human being’ has the inherent right to life while in respect of other rights the expressions used are ‘everyone’, ‘every person’, every child’ or ‘every citizen’. This use of different terminology has raised the question whether ‘every human being’ has a more expansive meaning than usually attributed to ‘every person’; in particular, whether it also includes an unborn child. At the national level this is determined generally by policy rather than by law and an overwhelming practical consideration in many jurisdictions has been the need to preserve laws that provide for abortion (Jayawickrama, 2002). There have also been differing views internationally on whether the right to life includes the right to die (Jayawickrama, 2002).
The right to liberty
Top
The right to liberty protects the physical liberty of the person through a cluster of interrelated rights. These include:
the right not to be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law
the right not to be arbitrarily arrested, detained or exiled
the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, including of the person
the rights (following arrest and/or detention) to information and to access to legal advice
the right to be brought promptly before a judge
the right to not be detained when awaiting trail as a general rule
the right to test the lawfulness of the arrest and detention
the right to be treated with humanity and respect
the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
These rights are provided for in international law (UDHR Articles 3 and 9, ICCPR Article 9, Convention Against Torture) and domestic legislation (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BoRA) ss. 21, 22 and 23).
The right to liberty may be invoked in respect of all deprivations of liberty, whether arising in relation to the application of criminal law, by reason of mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, or immigration control. While some particular elements of the rights are applicable only to persons against whom criminal charges have been brought, the rest, and in particular the important guarantee contained in ICCPR Article 9(4) to have a court control the legality of the detention, applies to all persons deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention (UNHRC, 1982).
The rights specifically relating to people who have been detained will be examined in Chapter 11: The rights of people who are detained.
The right to security of the person
Top
The right to security is closely associated with the right to liberty. However, it is also relevant in a variety of other contexts in which the State is required to keep its citizens safe, ranging from the threat of terrorism to domestic violence.
The right to security includes:
national security – how the State protects the physical integrity of its citizens from external threats, such as invasion, terrorism, and biosecurity risks to human health
individual security:
- public: how the State protects the physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by official authorities
- private: how the State protects the physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by other citizens.
The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma. However, emerging standards are beginning to include providing for: the necessities of life (such as sustenance or healthcare); the right to social security; and protection of health and safety, particularly in employment (Jayawickrama, 2002). These issues are addressed in other chapters and so are not included here.
Security of the person also raises issues about state or private surveillance of citizens. Concerns about non-state surveillance (including at work, at home, in the street, and by private firms) and state surveillance were discussed in some detail at a recent Privacy Forum (e.g. Hager, 2003; Wolfe 2003). The Privacy Commissioner specifically deals with impingements on a citizen’s privacy. These issues will not be discussed in more detail here.
The right to refuse medical treatment is part of the right to security (BoRA, s. 11). Some jurisdictions, when considering the right to refuse medical treatment, have placed a particular importance on the concept of informed consent.[10] It might be inferred from this that protection of integrity of the person extends beyond physical to other elements.
While the right to ‘freedom from fear’[11] set out in the UDHR is often raised in relation to security of the person, it is not guaranteed as a right in any internationally recognised document. It is an aspiration that can be achieved only through the realisation of other rights.
Qed!
The right to life
Top
The right to life is the supreme right of the human being (UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), 1982). It is basic to all human rights and without it all other rights are without meaning. The term ‘life’ itself has been given a relatively broad interpretation by courts internationally, to include the right to dignity and the right to livelihood (Jayawickrama, 2002). [2]
It is the duty of the State to protect human life against unwarranted actions by public authorities as well as by private persons (United Nations, 1955). The duty of the State to protect the right has been interpreted broadly to include the following duties (UNHRC, 1982): [3]
to prohibit arbitrary killing by agents of the State and to strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of life by state authorities
to conduct some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by agents of the State
to secure the right to life by making effective provisions in criminal law to deter the commission of offences against the person
to establish law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression, investigation and penalisation of breaches of criminal law
in certain well-defined circumstances, a positive duty to take preventative operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual
to take measures to protect the life of a person held in custody[4]
to ensure that a person being extradited or deported is not exposed to a real risk of violation of right to life in the receiving State. [5]
The Vienna Programme of Action for human rights suggests that the State’s duty to protect the right to life includes a duty to protect against environmental threats (such as toxic waste or radioactivity).[6] Some courts have also interpreted it to include a duty to provide medical assistance necessary for preserving human life, [7] while others have acknowledged that rationing of access to life-prolonging resources is integral to, rather than incompatible, with human rights. [8] In New Zealand the Court of Appeal found that a clinical decision not to offer treatment did not constitute deprivation of life.[9]
There have been differing interpretations internationally of whether the right to life applies to the unborn child (Jayawickrama, 2002). The ICCPR declares that ‘every human being’ has the inherent right to life while in respect of other rights the expressions used are ‘everyone’, ‘every person’, every child’ or ‘every citizen’. This use of different terminology has raised the question whether ‘every human being’ has a more expansive meaning than usually attributed to ‘every person’; in particular, whether it also includes an unborn child. At the national level this is determined generally by policy rather than by law and an overwhelming practical consideration in many jurisdictions has been the need to preserve laws that provide for abortion (Jayawickrama, 2002). There have also been differing views internationally on whether the right to life includes the right to die (Jayawickrama, 2002).
The right to liberty
Top
The right to liberty protects the physical liberty of the person through a cluster of interrelated rights. These include:
the right not to be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law
the right not to be arbitrarily arrested, detained or exiled
the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, including of the person
the rights (following arrest and/or detention) to information and to access to legal advice
the right to be brought promptly before a judge
the right to not be detained when awaiting trail as a general rule
the right to test the lawfulness of the arrest and detention
the right to be treated with humanity and respect
the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
These rights are provided for in international law (UDHR Articles 3 and 9, ICCPR Article 9, Convention Against Torture) and domestic legislation (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BoRA) ss. 21, 22 and 23).
The right to liberty may be invoked in respect of all deprivations of liberty, whether arising in relation to the application of criminal law, by reason of mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, or immigration control. While some particular elements of the rights are applicable only to persons against whom criminal charges have been brought, the rest, and in particular the important guarantee contained in ICCPR Article 9(4) to have a court control the legality of the detention, applies to all persons deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention (UNHRC, 1982).
The rights specifically relating to people who have been detained will be examined in Chapter 11: The rights of people who are detained.
The right to security of the person
Top
The right to security is closely associated with the right to liberty. However, it is also relevant in a variety of other contexts in which the State is required to keep its citizens safe, ranging from the threat of terrorism to domestic violence.
The right to security includes:
national security – how the State protects the physical integrity of its citizens from external threats, such as invasion, terrorism, and biosecurity risks to human health
individual security:
- public: how the State protects the physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by official authorities
- private: how the State protects the physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by other citizens.
The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma. However, emerging standards are beginning to include providing for: the necessities of life (such as sustenance or healthcare); the right to social security; and protection of health and safety, particularly in employment (Jayawickrama, 2002). These issues are addressed in other chapters and so are not included here.
Security of the person also raises issues about state or private surveillance of citizens. Concerns about non-state surveillance (including at work, at home, in the street, and by private firms) and state surveillance were discussed in some detail at a recent Privacy Forum (e.g. Hager, 2003; Wolfe 2003). The Privacy Commissioner specifically deals with impingements on a citizen’s privacy. These issues will not be discussed in more detail here.
The right to refuse medical treatment is part of the right to security (BoRA, s. 11). Some jurisdictions, when considering the right to refuse medical treatment, have placed a particular importance on the concept of informed consent.[10] It might be inferred from this that protection of integrity of the person extends beyond physical to other elements.
While the right to ‘freedom from fear’[11] set out in the UDHR is often raised in relation to security of the person, it is not guaranteed as a right in any internationally recognised document. It is an aspiration that can be achieved only through the realisation of other rights.
Qed!
does it say 'anywhere' 'The Right to safety from Each Other'.
How could any government give us that right, they can't follow thru, it is impossible, they can
only answer to alrams 'after'the fact, when someone has hurt someone else.
Everything I have read is a right for a normal citizen from many things that might be done to
a person by 'government'.
How could any government give us that right, they can't follow thru, it is impossible, they can
only answer to alrams 'after'the fact, when someone has hurt someone else.
Everything I have read is a right for a normal citizen from many things that might be done to
a person by 'government'.
The only place safety is mentioned....and only in places of employment, and only as an emerging issue........
Exactly as I said.
No RIGHT TO SAFETY
You are quibbling over semantics. The government cannot ensure a freedom, say "speech" but will elevated that goal as a "right"
If it does it's a sham! To start with we'd have to walk around wearing masks, you wouldn't be shaking hands or hugging people!
"What is the right to life, liberty and security of person?
The right to life"
What it is, is bullsh*t! It's impossible to have a right to something that can't be delivered or realized. What good is a "right to life" to a person with A.L.S.? At what age would this right expire?
Now there is a full retreat!
There is no right to safety, there never has been a right to safety, the very idea of a right to safety is idiotic.
End of story.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Seems to me that if one had the right to life, safety or security provided by the government, then all the victims of crime anywhere should be able to sue the government, for loss of property or injury due to criminal events, that the police are unable to stop because they can't possibly be everywhere.......
Good luck with your court claim if you so believe....:roll:
Good luck with your court claim if you so believe....:roll:
even if there was a 'right to safety', you would be light years away from banning all firearms because such a ban is merely a 'remedy' to a perceived rights violation.
banning all firearm is only 1 of thousands of remedies. hiring a professional body guard is another.
banning all firearm is only 1 of thousands of remedies. hiring a professional body guard is another.