That’s not a knife: Australian self-defence hypocrisy

Two recent events have cast yet another light on Australia’s criminal empowering self-defence laws.

Last Thursday, a Brisbane café owner took matters into his own hands when confronted with a knife wielding armed robber. In true Moe Syzslak fashion, the gentleman decided to one up his attacker: he brandished two knives and chased the armed robber out of his business. Thankfully, the business owner has not been charged.

Channel 7 did their best with the subtle social engineering, making sure they had a screen grab with the business owner saying “I don’t worry, it’s Australia” – the subliminal message obviously being “you don’t need to defend yourselves.”

Meanwhile in Sydney, a gentleman decided to deal with a home invader by shooting him in the backside with a recurve bow directed arrow. Although it’s debatable if the home owner acted at the appropriate time (he’s being charged), the facts will come out in the wash and the mere fact that he was willing to defend his property shows that this gentleman was prepared to do the right thing and protect himself from the criminal element.

The most interesting parts were the social media comments sections – overwhelming support for self-defence and empowering members of the public to defend themselves with appropriate force. But mention this to the average Australian with the suggestion of using firearms instead and the usual emotive, socially engineered diatribes about America, Port Arthur or a combination of the above ensues.

Herein the lies the inherent hypocrisy: it’s ok to use knives or a steel broadhead to protect yourself and property with, but if that same steel is in the form of a firearm, Ragnarok will commence.

It wasn’t so much the comments from the public that were interesting, as perhaps the most interesting comment came from NSW Police Inspector Dean Johnstone:

Abhorrent. The same NSW Police that brought us Hornsby and claim they are undermanned are now overtly telling people to ‘shelter in place’ as the preferred alternative. Well no, that’s not how it works. If someone makes a conscious decision to invade someone else’s home – their rights are forfeited instantly.

Police are our servants, not our masters. And when they are not there to protect the public from aforementioned threats to the innocent, the innocent have every right to do what is necessary to protect themselves, rather than become a statistic.

The first responder to a violent crime is always the victim – not the Police. The public, and the Police need to remember that.

Otherwise, we continue the tradition of Australia: where criminals are victims and victims are criminals.