The monopoly on violence
I have written before on the concept of the monopoly on violence as being the fundamental underpinning of government. It doesn't matter what kind -- democracy, dictatorship, all points in between -- a government is a government because it is recognized as the only entity within a defined area that can use violence to defend its position. Moreover , it is accepted by the people that violence is a legitimate means for that entity and only for that entity (acceptance can be compelled by that very violence, of course, in less enlightened forms of government).
Once that monopoly on violence is established, we have government and all that flows from that.
That monopoly is real, and it is exercised regularly. When someone is arrested and tossed in the back of a police car, that's a form of State violence. Only registered agents of the State can do this -- anyone else doing it would be guilty of kidnapping. Indeed, kidnapping is a crime in part because it represents a threat to the government monopoly.
When the monopoly is broken, we have anarchy. In Africa, we have Somalia. In Asia, the border regions of Pakistan. In North America, Caledonia:
Two news cameramen were assaulted by protesters today, prompting Premier Dalton McGuinty to condemn the latest violence at the site of an aboriginal occupation in Caledonia, Ont.
The CH TV camera operators, one of whom needed stitches to close a head wound, said Ontario Provincial Police did nothing despite their pleas for help.
"The police were right behind me and I asked for protection," said Ken MacKay, a CH TV camera operator.
"I said, `I'm being assaulted, I need protection, they're trying to steal my camera' and nothing happened.
For weeks, the anarchists in Caledonia have acted with impunity. They have established roadblocks, interfered with commerce, and threatened and assaulted journalists.
The thing about the monopoly on violence is that you have to use violence to maintain it. Some monopolies form because prohibitive costs prevent other competitors from getting into the business. On the other hand, anyone can be violent. That means that the government can maintain its monopoly only by being more violent, forcing you to make the choice between the cost of defying the government versus the cost of submitting.
Those who choose to defy are criminals, but that label really only means "not government". The government performs acts of violence on the criminals (arrest and incarceration) and so retains its legitimacy.
As long as the government stays on top of the situation (the criminal problem, that is), threats to the monopoly can be controlled for a reasonable cost.
In Caledonia, the monopoly has effectively been broken. The agents of the government stand by and do nothing. The government itself is paralyzed:
In Edmonton where he was meeting with the country's premiers, McGuinty expressed dismay at the attack.
"It was with great disappointment that I learned of the violent incidents in Caledonia," he said in a statement.
"I would like to express sympathy and concern for those injured."
McGuinty also condemned the violence "by an irresponsible few" and called it "a repugnant attempt to derail the important progress we are making."
Condemning the violence is not the answer. A government does not have the luxury of being passive, and certainly not pensive. Violence must be met with State violence, or the credible threat of imminent State violence. The alternative is chaos until a new order is established and a new monopoly formed.
This might sound almost primitive, and in a way it is primitive. But that's because we're talking about the most fundamental concepts that define how societies, all societies, work. The protesters understand that. That is why they are taking these actions. They know that if they establish themselves as the only force for order in the disputed area, they will have won the fight.
The government can only win by showing that the government are the only force for order -- and that means ejecting any competitors. That cannot be done with negotiation, because negotiation is done between governments, and the government cannot afford a rival government to form within its borders.
The real problem facing McGuinty is that he has waited too long. Early in the process, a few arrests might have been enough to re-establish a monopoly on violence for the Crown. As time goes by, the cost goes up. The truly frustrating thing is that a government that was unwilling to put a few protesters under arrest is hardly likely to approve of the sort of assault required now to dislodge the protesters.
What will happen? I'm not sure. One possiblity is that an OPP officer who understands the concepts I've been trying to explain and understands his role as an agent for the State, will take it on himself to do what the Liberal government is unwilling to do, or even threaten to do, and that is meet violence with even more violence.
When that happens, when agents of the State feel compelled to act on their own initiative to save the State unwilling to save itself, then the breakdown is complete.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Give me a bloody break, do any of you real canucks think that this chief liar of the Scum Bag Fascist Party of Ontario can control this. This guy and his AG are so stupid their fingers are up their arses and their brains have been in neutral for all their F***inf lives.
Posted by: Pissedoff at June 10, 2006 11:55 AM
Steve, what you are describing is a police state.
In a free society the state does not have a monopoly on violence, it operates only with the cooperation of and by the sufference of its citizens. In a free society it is the individual who is soveriegn, not the state.
The problems in Caledonia exist right now because Ontario is being run as a police state, wherein the Ontario government has arrogated unto itself powers which properly belong to the citizens.
If the people of Caledonia were empowered to exercise their right to defend themselves and their property, these attacks and blocklades would not be occuring. The only reason the Warrior Society can keep these barricades up is because they are being actively protected by armed OPP officers.
McGuinty has not "allowed" the situation to get out of control. McGuinty is actively keeping it going and using about 300 to 500 OPP officers to accomplish that. What his reasons are for doing that I can only guess, but protecting his constituents and their property doesn't figure prominently among them.
So the situation from the perspective of the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens is much worse than people think.
Posted by: The Phantom at June 10, 2006 11:59 AM
Police are there to uphold the law if someone breaks the law or are of suspected of breaking the law police have the legal right to apprehend the perp. or suspect using reasonable force. Meaning they could beat you unconscience or to death if that force is considered reasonable. Reasonable force is decided by courts and police are trained to use reasonable force. What is reasonable at Caledonia ? The politicians are involoved so who knows what could be considered reasonable in a situation like that.
Posted by: Blanks at June 10, 2006 12:00 PM
They are already blaming dogs for this problem not the Indians. WE will make Ontario safer "BAN ALL DOGS".
Lets face it dogs have more brains than the average Ontario liberal voter. That is what frightens this bunch of idiots.
Posted by: Pissedoff at June 10, 2006 12:00 PM
So far we have seen a bridge burn down, power plant attacked and burnt, businesses attacked and destroyed, numerous people have been assaulted, their has been a kidnapping, cars have been destroyed and the residences in Caledonia repeatedly threatened.
Has the RCMP been investigating this terrorist cell that been doing all this?
Posted by: Gary McHale at June 10, 2006 12:58 PM
In a free society the state does not have a monopoly on violence, it operates only with the cooperation of and by the sufference of its citizens. In a free society it is the individual who is soveriegn, not the state.
Cooperation or coercion -- it doesn't matter. Whatever the mechanism, there is only one entity who can do violence. It doesn't matter whether I voted for it, or if that entity simply took control without asking for my permission. The end result is the same -- unless I'm the government, I can't commit violence or risk being branded a criminal.
If someone wrongs me, I can't have him whacked. If I do, I'm guilty of a crime too. That's because we recognize that only the State can commit violence. If anyone else does, for any reason (beyond some very limited range of immediate self-defence), they are a criminal, regardless of the justification.
The monopoly is the cornerstone of ordered society.
A democracy is merely a form of government in which the people choose who will run the monopoly. If a democratically elected leader refuses to give up office, and the army and police back him, he becomes president-for-life. It has happened countless times in Africa and South America, and the resulting governments were no less governments than the democracies that preceded them. They might not have been democratically legitimate, but that doesn't keep them from fulfilling the role of government, whatever the stigma attached to them.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 10, 2006 01:05 PM
...folks what you are witnessing the castration of law and order (OPP) in Canada today.
I can imagine the frustration of the cops just "standing around", per se, instead of doing what they dreamed of, joined, want to live out - to uphold the law and protect the innocent.
It truly is amazing how police don't have the highest suicide rate in being the day to day hassle and disrespect they get.
Oh, not talking about druggies or punk kids, but liberal lawyer and judges...
Posted by: tomax7 at June 10, 2006 01:32 PM
Steve, I'm not arguing that the government of a free country does not have the power to use violence to enforce the law. I'm saying they don't properly have a monopoly on it.
Where the state does have a monopoly is the use of violence against state employees. AKA fighting the cops is never self defense. Other than that, the only kind of state which attempts to have a monopoly on all uses of violence is a police state.
Like ours.
Posted by: The Phantom at June 10, 2006 01:45 PM
Steve: why are you only talking about the assault on the camera crew? The full story is worse, the crew were recording an assault on an elderly couple by the terrorists (I refuse to call them natives or protestors). The police weren't intervening. By allowing the media coverage to be attacked, the police allowed evidence of their inaction to be destroyed.
I've written my MP asking for the military to intervene. If we are prepared to send our forces to other countries to uphold democratic rule of law and protect their citizens, we should be prepared to do the same within Canada.
Posted by: Kathryn in Canada at June 10, 2006 01:52 PM
Some background. Clearly I do buy into this theory pretty strongly. Others disagree. I think it explains a lot, and if you look, any state has a monopoly, regardless of how it was granted (or taken).
As for the question of why I focused on the crew, I just needed to focus on something. Everything that has been done in full view of the State without any clear reaction is another breach of the monopoly, and so another step in the deligitimization of the State. Pick whichever offense makes your blood boil most -- in the end, they are all leading to the same conclusion.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 10, 2006 01:55 PM
One more thing -- let's say we forgo the issue of the monopoly. Can the State's legitimacy survive an armed insurrection when the State offers no resistance or response? Clearly the State can overwhelm the insurrectionists, but it does not. More disturbing, the State makes no threat to overwhelm them. Who exactly did you elect to run this place? The elected officials do not seem overly eager to do their job or defend the citizenry from an illegitimate force.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 10, 2006 02:00 PM
Phantom,
Actually you are both correct. The state by definition has the monopoly on violence, i.e. legal violence. But in a free society this is done with the consent of the governed and in a democratic society it is done with due process and ideally objective manner. As well, the constitution is the set of rules that restrict the governement.
A free society does not mean having the right to conduct violence as a citizen. It means that the govenment, on behalf of society or itself or its actors, cannot conduct violence against you without due process in an open and fair manner.
Violence in a free society is also to mean removal of your freedom of movement.
Steve isnt advocating a police state but stating that breaking the monopoly can lead to anarchy.
Of course this doesnt answer the question of is violent resistance to unfair exercise of state coercive power correct. That question comes up in the second year class of political philosophy and I took an economics course instead. ;->
Posted by: Stephen at June 10, 2006 02:04 PM
You make some interesting points Steve. In a dictatorship the use of force is straight forward. Might is right and any reform in the goverment is usually brought about through force.
In a democratic society the application of force comes with inherent responsibilities. Police commissions and the courts serve to balance the use of force. Along with these checks there is of course the political realities for governments who abuse their right to use force. Or in this case who refuse to accept their responsibility to use force.
It is not so much the severity of the force applied but rather the assurity that it will be applied that serves as a deterent to anarchy.
The McGuinty government has abdicated their responsibility to use force in the name of political correctness. Those who refuse to accept their responsibilities no longer deserve the corresponding rights.
Unfortunately the Lefts misguided reluctance to take a stand is an ongoing theme. The left has long been focused on rights and increasingly oblivious to responsibilities. The current situation in Caledonia is only the natural outcome of such a one sided policy.
Syncro
Posted by: Syncrodox at June 10, 2006 02:21 PM
So the Conservative government of Mike Harris handled the Ipperwash situation better? Not likely, so quit blaming the current Liberal Ontario government. The problems all go back to past federal governments and their irresponsible behaviour(BOTH Liberal and Conservative). IF the land along the Grand River was given (taken in the first place really)to the natives as was promised to them, this conversation would not be happening. IF the government had given the land back in Ipperwash (after the war) as they said they would, the situation that developed there would not have happened. As much as Canadians don't like to hear about native land claim issues I only have one thing to say. It ain't over till it's over.
Regards
Posted by: at June 10, 2006 03:08 PM
Actually, the state does NOT have a monopoly on violence. Circumscribed, violence is devolved to citizens as well. A review of the Criminal Code will reveal this. The state does have a monopoly on violence against itself - zero tolerance of it, in fact, and it governs us in fear of it.
Posted by: Skip at June 10, 2006 04:45 PM
. pl. de·moc·ra·cies 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Under no stretch of the imagination do we live in a democracy. The Ontario Liberals, and the Federal Liberals have created this state of confusion by micromanaging our lives while abdicating their responsibility to protect our democratic rights. Martin went so far as to state that WE WILL NOT HAVE RULE BY MAJORITY! By forbidding the OPP to intervene in Caledonia to protect the citizens who were being beaten(including American tourists who were forcibly removed from their vehicle and said vehicle being stolen and used for joy riding), we are indeed under rule by the criminal element, not a democracy at all. The Injustice System has furthered the demise of democracy--now we only use the word, but the meaning is dead--and we are responsible for allowing our leaders to abdicate our rights to peace, order, and good government of the people, by the people, for the people, and we have abdicated our rights to demand this for 'security'. We have been muzzled by the screaming of 'hate crime' and 'racist' to the point that we are mute. Through political correctness we are neutered. I wonder what the majority of Natives, those that are not at the blockade, really think? Or is what we are seeing more the minority calling the shots?
Posted by: George at June 10, 2006 04:46 PM
Breaking,
from Canada Press.
Ontario police seek arrest warrants after violence at native blockade.
Warrants for the arrests of seven people are being sought after several tense clashes at a long-runnng native blockade in southern Ontario.
The charges include attempted murder, robbery, intimidation and causing bodily harm.
More at the Canada Press site.
Posted by: Rich at June 10, 2006 05:07 PM
Steve Janke is right. Even in a democracy the state must have a monopoly on violence - but in a democracy the scope and legitimacy of the monopoly comes from the people.
A man may use violence to defend himself, but cannot act as a vigilante. Through our elected governments we allow the state to limit our right to use violence because they are supposed to have people who do it for us - the police. The question is what happens when that system breaks down like in Caledonia. The police are not protecting the townspeople and not enforcing the rule of law - they are breaking their end of the bargain.
What sort of example is the McGuinty government setting, and what are the consequences of the government so blatantly disrespecting the rule of law?
For McGuinty it is all politics, but for the people of Caledonia it is their lives. I believe it is time for the Federal government to activate the War Measures Act and send in the army to enforce the rule of law. Those responsible (the Indians squatting on private property) should be charged and if found guilty, jailed for a long time.
Posted by: Andrew Smith at June 10, 2006 05:27 PM
Most of the time, governments run by inertia, they almost run by themselves. However, there are certain crux points when governmental action pauses and awaits direction from its leadership. Sadly for Ontario, McGuinty's leadership has been very poor on this file. As Steve mentioned, the longer this situation goes, the more forceful the action needed to restore order. A quick arrest or two, the very first day, may have cooled things off long enough to get this thing into a court for a decision. Now, whatever happens, there are going to be protests (probably violent), scores of arrests, and expensive trials, you'll probably have to compensate land owners and villagers and to top it off probably have to offer danegeld to the natives to obey the law. Ontarians watching this surely cannot give the McGuinty government a pass after this thing has festered for over 3 months, can they?
Posted by: cynical joe at June 10, 2006 05:49 PM
It's time for the citizens of Caledonia to take matters into their own hands.
First: the Mayor should gather any police in the area who will support there action. If there aren't any, deputized citizens will do.
Second: Contact all justices of the peace in the area and demand they stand ready to file charges.
Third: rent some large trucks or trailers (for temporarily housing those arrested).
Fourth: send out the call for volunteers, (I'll go, any other takers?), we should easily be able to round up a couple a thousand deputies and together we will march down to the barricades.
Fifth: Arrest, dis-arm, and de-uniform any and all Opp officers who resist, those that want to join the operation will be allowed (this will be their last and only chance at salvaging their career) the charges will be...derelection of duty and obstructing justice...
Sixth: Arrest all native protesters and dis-mantle the barricades..
Thats how it is done Caledonians, you have the right, any citizen can make a citizens arrest,
you need only witness a crime, looking at that native barricade is being witness to a crime.
Posted by: William at June 10, 2006 06:26 PM
One of the best threads that I've seen here for quite a while. Some really interesting points about our democracy. WE WILL NOT HAVE RULE BY MAJORITY! Shook me to my very core when that pile of Liberal crap said that.
As far as the state having a monopoly on violence..near as I can figure, it's got to be that way, for almost all situations, or it breaks down into what we have here.
Remember one of the natives talking about the fact that they were peaceful, that there had been no guns shown? Do you by any chance also remember where the guns into Canada for the gang bangers in Toronto came through, at least one of the major players..... Caledonia!!!
M'thinks that this will get really spectacular before it's over and my money is on JTF-2 being involved. McGuinty may be gutless but PMSH isn't and this is becoming a matter of National signifigance, seeing as how US Citizens and lawmen were assaulted. Not a good thing this. Amazing to think that if you defended yourself from a car jacking by use of the Mozambique Double Tap on the perpetrators, that you'd be in the wrong.
Strange brew
Pat
Posted by: Pat at June 10, 2006 06:56 PM
A possible scenario is that the warrants are issued but police are instructed to not arrest the wrongdoers. In other words, the Dalton Gang gets to say 'look we have really done something' while nothing really changes in Caledonia and the standoff continues while more 'supporters' come into the area to bolster the ranks of the hardliners on the native lines.
The Police line might be 'we will deal with the warrants later'
The premiere is playing chess ...terribly though.
By his actions he is guaranteeing a future violent end to this scenario; one far more violent than would have occurred if the blockade was dealt with immediately.
He is unfit for office in my opinion.
Posted by: Rich at June 10, 2006 07:32 PM
Um, for those of us south of the border who weren't always paying attention: under what circumstances did Paul Martin say "WE WILL NOT HAVE RULE BY MAJORITY!"? I find that to be a pretty remarkable thing for a politician to say.
Thanks,
Allen McPheeters
Posted by: An American Reader at June 11, 2006 03:19 AM
Paul Martin's exact statement--" I will not let the majority dictate to the minority"--this statement was made when Martin was legislating SSM
Posted by: George at June 11, 2006 07:18 AM
How some dare someone question Majoritarianism, the eminent moral standard of our time? Hm, could be it be that people that certain inalienable that can't be voted away by a majority?
Posted by: Greater Toronto Area Conservative at June 11, 2006 07:42 AM
that people have certain inalienable rights that can't be voted away by a majority?
Posted by: Greater Toronto Area Conservative at June 11, 2006 07:43 AM
Majoritarianism is one of the things that is fought against in a proper democracy, not that I am defending xPMPM. In the case of minority rights the majority doesnt rule.
My quarrel with xPMPM is that SSM issue was being wrapped into a minotity rights issue for political reasons. The second half of minority rights or any rights is that due process is followed, as painful and ugly as that is. Although it went to the Supreme Court the craven Liberals didnt reference all of it, the way they should have to resolve the issue.
What I mean is te SC reference essentially asked only "would extending the definition of marriage to include SSM be consititutional"...well duh! I would have been shocked if the SC didnt say effectively, if thats how you want to extend rights then fine with me. The SC will never deny the explicit extension of "rights". Doubt they ever should, it really isnt their job.
The reference, to be complete, should have asked if restriciting the definition would have been consitutional...then it would have been a complete and proper reference. The SC, left itself a clear out and admonished the legislature appropriately. It said, we look to the legislature for direction in these matters and the FAILURE TO SPEAK was seen as an indication that countered previous declarations against. A bit of manouvering on the SC's part for sure but I think an important priciniple was stated. That the legislature cannot just punt to the SC, and say "I dunno".
All actions or inactions by the legislature count. On that point you cannot accuse the SC of usurping the legislature, unless the legislature, like the last one, is to "yella" to face the political consequences of making a statement one way or another.
So back to the point. No rights are subject to majoritarianism, thats why they are rights...now we can discuss whether the ward marriage is a right or not, whether owenership of guns is a right or not, whether defence of ones property and person with violence is a right or not....but once defined as such it cannot be removed by simple majorities, if ever.
A functioning state does ultimately have the monopoly on violence, it is just a question how the monopoly is regulated by the ultimate source of power, the governed.
McGuinty better than harris....look going in a "cracking native skull", if that was the point, is not the right answer but then neither is leaving them to their own devices because you are scared of some PR. The unintended consequence of each is a radicalization of the Natives (harris) and the local non native (McGuinty). The reason why is becasue in BOTH cases the LAW is perceived as not being applied in a fair and even handed manner and due process is not be followed. The offence of those democratic principles is what is reall causing the problem.
The State needs to act to
1) Defend the applciation of THE LAW
2) Defend citizens
3) Defend the itself
I am not saying go in guns blazing but the these minor acts of hooliganism and anarchy "outside the line" are the broken windows that will take us collectively to a worse place.
The cops need clear rules, clear leadership and clear oversight. So that when they do act they act with the authority and respect of all involved.
There are important priciples at stake. The courts can decide the land claims issue.
Posted by: Stephen at June 11, 2006 10:41 AM
that people have certain inalienable rights that can't be voted away by a majority?
People do have certain inalienable rights, but the acknowledgement of that fact is not sufficient protection against any government's legislative process. A government -- even a democratic one -- has the ability to take away a person's rights through a variety of different means.
We see a very limited example of this when someone is arrested for a crime -- his or her right to free association is suddenly limited, as is the right to move about freely.
Of course, all this leaves aside the debate of whether marriage constitutes an inalienable right...or even a right at all.
Posted by: ken at June 11, 2006 10:50 AM
Ken,
That is actually the point, people have rights but only the state may suspend them and only after due process, fair trial, etc etc.
Only the state is given coercive power and that power is regulated through the courts and through the democratic process. The state's power practically emenates from a gun or a night stick but that power is legitimzed but process and source, the governed.
Afghanistan is a good example of where the state does not have a monopoly, you have warlords who say that they are actually the state in their area. They may be, thats why there is armed conflict.
In caledonia, in the medium to long run, i.e. strategically, you cannot have a successful challenge to state power, you end up with warlords. In the short run, you can choose to refuse to enforce something if it serves the larger purpose, i.e. no need to be automotons and storm the barricade if you can negotiate it.
However, at some point a line is crossed state power comes into question. Once again unintended consequences are vigilantes on either side.
The state needs to make clear that this dispute will follow the a non violent and fair process. Some of that may mean arrests and jail time for those who want to do this themselves.
I suspect the Ontario government is realizing it is approaching or potentially has crossed the line, with the OPP leaking these things, news crews being robbed and the non native population beginning to agitate.
The government would be wise to defuse this qucikly now because I do not believe the current equillibrium will last.
Posted by: Stephen at June 11, 2006 01:02 PM
In BC, people were peacefully protesting the building of the highway through a sensitive area. The Court intervened and the protestors(white) were removed by the police! What is the difference in the Caledonia situation? The colour of the protestor's skin!
The terrorists are wearing masks while committing these crimes--not minor crimes as stated above--crimes of intimidation, threats of burning houses, search and seizure of private property, assault, blaring of music at all hours of the night and shining spotlights into people's homes, barricading and destroying public property, attempted murder of a policeman, burning of tires, use of stolen property to destroy public property, that being the bulldozers used from the construction site they are inhabiting, and endangering life by throwing things into oncoming traffic from an overpass, etc.
Odd that those protesting against majority rule do not see it necessary to protect the citizens of Caledonia.
There is no justification for allowing this to continue. The state is to provide security--even if it means removing the rights of a minority(leaving aside the fact that that minority is committing crimes daily). A Court injunctin has been issued and ignored. So I guess, in our so-called 'democracy', it is only those that are not white that have to abide by our laws?
The Ontario government is between a rock and a hard place. They are arguing at Ipperwash that Harris was wrong to bring the standoff to and end. Now the people of Caledonia are held hostage to a group of terrorists that have read the mindset of an incompetent government correctly. They are frozen in their tracks and impotent. And, as usual, it will be the taxpayer that is held hostage in the end. If this is what we get from democracy, then who wants it?
Posted by: George at June 11, 2006 03:59 PM
I have to disagree with you on the generic definition of order as being when a government has established a monopoly on the use of force/violence to defend its position.
In Free nations which have constitutions and rule of law springing from the British code, a Citizen/individual has the right to bear arms and use them ( i.e. to use force and justified violence) to protect:
A) his life
B) his property
C) his individual and collective sovereignty from tyranny
This can be found in Blackstone's Commentaries and defined by him as a 5th auxillery right of British citizenship used to protect the 3 primary rights of the individual.
In the US the 2nd amendment and the various militia acts and the posse comitatus acts break the government's monopoly on armed force
In many former British colonies and commonwealth democracies a citizen has the right to self defense and the responsibility of citizen's arrest powers and is given the right to use whatever force is neccessary to acomplish this including armed force.This is in the code law of Canada and it is related to us as a Charter right through section 26 of the charter.
The thing that may confuse you about the Canadian federal government's crusade to deny the ancient right of a comminwealth subject to bear arms for personal defense is that they have politically stigmatized this right and denied its code law existance for so long that it has become almost illusory.
However, the fact remains that any malicious Federal prosecution has failed which has attempted to indict a Canadian citizen who clearly used their right to justified force/violence to defended themseves with a weapon ( firearms included)
or another citizen (in the absense of police intervention) from potential fatal harm
In Canada (Theoretically) the government does not have a monopoly on the use of force/violence, although the statist regimes of the past 15 years would like you to believe they do....nor should any government in a free nation which is not a police state dystopia claim a monopoly on the use of force/violence/arms.
Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at June 15, 2006 08:03 AM
wlyonmackenzie makes a good point about a citizen's historic right to use violence for self-defence; however, I'd suggest that the right to self-defence (likewise the rights of militias in the US) is not an abrogation of the monopoly on violence (as implied by "I disagree..."), but rather a delegation. That is, historically, Common Law-influenced governments have delegated their monopoly on violence to the individual for a clearly-delineated and limited purpose. The government's monopoly still applies in principle, because the individuals to whom the power is delegated are authorized by the state, and do not have the right to exercise violence in any but the state-sanctioned manner. The individual (or militia) is permitted to carry out functions of the state (they are, de facto, deputized) in a case where the state's regular agents are unable to act in timely fashion, and where timely action is required to defend a compelling state interest - and only in such a case.
So, by disallowing citizens to defend themselves, the government has not claimed a monopoly it does not possess by right; rather, it has compromised its mandate to defend its citizens by denying itself a necessary means to that end - much as it has done by disallowing action on the part of its regular agents, the police, in Caledonia and elsewhere. WHY the government would effectively cut off its own hand and render itself incapable of performing its most basic purposes, is a question for another thread...
Posted by: kj at June 16, 2006 03:06 PM
 
|
|
