But only equal to the force being used against them. Shooting someone because they're prohibiting your freedom of expression, for example would be prohibited because you are using excessive force. Force is a legitimate tool to defend one's rights if no other means are possible, and if the force used is proportionate to the force used against you. Many people seem to think that government laws and police are enough to protect their human rights. This is a dangerous fallacy, there are many tyrannical governments in the world who use their laws and their police force to oppress the population. Even in the Democratic Western World, we have many instances of police brutality as well as laws stifling our human rights, Such as defamation laws against free speech. People should not depend on anyone but themselves to defend their rights. And if you take away the means to defend their rights, you also take away their ability to.
But only equal to the force being used against them. Shooting someone because they're prohibiting your freedom of expression, for example would be prohibited because you are using excessive force. Force is a legitimate tool to defend one's rights if no other means are possible, and if the force used is proportionate to the force used against you.
Many people seem to think that government laws and police are enough to protect their human rights. This is a dangerous fallacy, there are many tyrannical governments in the world who use their laws and their police force to oppress the population. Even in the Democratic Western World, we have many instances of police brutality as well as laws stifling our human rights, Such as defamation laws against free speech. People should not depend on anyone but themselves to defend their rights. And if you take away the means to defend their rights, you also take away their ability to.
All people should be able to defend themselves and their inherent human rights. In situations where a physical threat endangers a person's safety, they should have every right to do whatever is necessary to ensure that they can continue surviving and living under the basic rules of our civilized society.
While the best decision may be to defend one's rights peacefully, no one can make this choice if they do not have another option. In order for non-violence to be a meaningful choice, violence must be an option. I wouldn't want people to run out of options, before they run out of rights.
If someone's basic humans rights are under threat by force, then it is perfectly legitimate for that person to defend themselves using force, as well. An example would be a criminal attempting to kidnap, rape, or murder a person. That person most certainly may use force too, in order to defend themselves.
Why should anyone allow a stranger who is intent on at least robbing you or possibly raping your children and killing everyone to walk around in your house and allow that person the ability to do you harm? It's ridiculous. I was robbed already and I confronted the idiot with a gun and he ran out of the house screaming obscenities and that he would be back. So am I supposed to sit here waiting for him to kill me? No way.
I know that using violence can have its drawbacks and I know a lot of people that see that things should be handled in a civilized manner, but there won't always be a chance to be civil. You won't always have a chance to talk it through. There are many of people these days that are violent that won't even participate in a civil discussion. You can't risk the safety of your family or friends trying to talk to a maniac with a weapon that is tearing through your house. I will use physical force when the situation calls for it.
If someone is going to try to enter my home and cause me or my family physical harm, I will use my guns to shoot that person. The Constitution protects Americans within their homes. I will use force to protect me, because I will not allow someone to harm me in my own home, if I can prevent it.
Human rights are absolutely basic and should not ever be violated. If someone attempts to take away a basic human right from an individual, that individual should have the ability to use force to protect that right. It is important that any means necessary are used to protect human rights, even if that means force.
if a grope of people are being denied basic human rights then another force shooed be able to stop them
I think everyone has the right to protect themselves, but only when they are being physically harmed. If I'm standing up for my human rights, and someone else from the opposite view thinks they they are going to use force on me, they are wrong. I have every right to protect myself, but within reason. If someone comes up and hits me in the face, then I cant go shoot them, but I can hit them back. Otherwise, force should not be used.
This is an interesting dispute because you can come at it from many different angles. However, when I read this question, the first thing that I think of is my family and my right to own a gun. If anyone ever broke into my home or tried to harm one of my children, I would not think twice about using necessary force to protect them. A few years ago, a friend of mine from college moved to New York to intern for an interior design position. She was walking home from the design firm late one night and was thrown against a wall during an attempt to steal her purse. Believe it or not, the man who tried to rob HER got a lawyer and tried to sue my friend, claiming that he had not injured her and that she had caused him severe damage to his eyes and lungs because she used self-defense and sprayed him with mace. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Of course, it never went to trial, but this is the perfect example of a situation where a person's rights are at stake and sometimes physical force is necessary to protect him- or herself.
The humanity would not have evolved and advanced if one class, minority or ethnic group did not struggle to fight for their basic human rights. Without that fight, women still would not have a right to vote and segregation between races in the country would still be as it was fifty years ago.
When we speak of human rights, we mean the right to live, work, and worship God without any hostility from society. When these basic human rights are infringed, whether by a group of people or the government, individuals also have the right to protect those ways of life. When someone breaks into your home, you should have the right to protect yourself and your family using whatever means necessary. These rights should never be questioned.
When there is an action, there is equal and opposite reaction. This law is somewhat useful in this case. Violence is needed to stop violence as the government of every country use forces to protect their nation.
Same rule can be applied here.
If someone is trying to harm you. We have the right to fight back. This thing is animal natural. When anybody is trying to harm an animal, the animal will fight back by force of cause. For example, a dog will bark at those who try to harm it. People should be allowed to use force to protect their human right.
The system is usually cheating you and keeping you under its control. Do not follow the capitalists and their lies! Currency is all debt, we are being controlled to live and blind clones who live out everyday exactly the same way. We must fight to have the government show us its secrets!
Take the case of the violence in Kashmir in India. The conflict has escalated to such an extent that a peaceful solution to the ethnic problem of a separate Kashmir is lost forever. The government of India had nearly succeeded in arriving at an amicable solution only to find fresh violence launched by separatists, all in the name of human rights violations.
There are forums to voice protests for human rights violations everywhere. That is where the people affected should go.
If humans do not protect their own rights, nobody else will. The powerful will take advantage over the weak, and many freedoms will disappear. There has to be a limit, however, because too much rebellion would lead to anarchy. For example, there's no justification for shooting people if a particular law you do not approve of is passed.
Peaceful protest is always the best way to go. Stooping to the level of violence creates another violation of human rights. Two wrongs do not make a right, and violence leads to more violence. I believe a person should be able to protect their rights by handling it in a civilized manner without the use of force.
If the right to use force for protecting human rights is given to the people, it would become very difficult to maintain the decorum of the judicial system. This would promote the wrong usage of the power, under the name of human rights protection.
If we start allowing people to use force in certain situations, this could cause more problems, as people may feel the need to use force, even when they should not be allowed to. We have laws in place for a reason, and using force to protect our human rights should not be permitted.
Iran is a hotbed of violence currently in regard to "human rights". The government is clearly violating human rights (killing, imprisoning people) to disallow citizen rights to vote for who they want. It's a real mess.