Why is it that the Victorian Parliament managed to unite in rapid time over a useless machete ban, but failed to support clarity regarding the basic right for Victorians to protect themselves and their homes from criminals?
Decades of failed government policy has flooded Melbourne with the youngest and most violent criminal class in its history.
People are not only over-taxed, they are genuinely frightened.
And while the Lord Mayor of Melbourne dallies around like a French aristocrat planning a six-season calendar while draped in the robes and chains of colonial glory, an impenetrable Red Wall of Labor, the Greens, and the Animal Justice Party have voted down David Limbrick’s motion.
They are happy for the victims of crime to risk becoming criminals for the simple act of defending themselves.
The Libertarian’s request was straightforward. Mr Limbrick asked the House to note that there had been a steady increase in aggravated burglary, that Victorians were seeking clarity in self-defence, and that the law had not been reviewed since 2012 (long before the crime wave began).
He then called on the Attorney-General to:
(a) request that the Victorian Law Reform Commission review the operation and sustainability of self-defence laws in Victoria, in particular the application of self-defence laws to protect people in their own homes, including those under the Crime Act 1958, the Jury Directions Act 2015, the Evidence Act 2008, and the Sentencing Act 1992; and
(b) consider the approach to self-defence laws in the United Kingdom, including section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (UK).
Limbrick was perfectly reasonable in his reason for bringing the motion. He then went through a series of real-world stories from people who have been caught up in this unnecessary dilemma.
‘Yes, they should call the police. But then they have a choice: what do they do next? The police take some time, and the criminals are very quick. Aaron was prepared. He had a baseball bat. He picked up the baseball bat, and he went out and confronted this intruder in his home. The intruder had some possessions of his. The intruder panicked and ran away into the night. I said to Aaron, “What do you think would’ve happened if you had actually hit this guy in the head with your baseball bat?” No one can actually give me a straight answer.’
If the government is not on the side of the citizen being attacked and robbed, whose side are they on?
That is a question for the 18 members of Labor, the Greens, and Animal Justice who voted the motion down.
Labor MP Jacinta Ermacora said, ‘I have enjoyed lending my mind to the dilemmas of this issue.’
‘The first thing to say is that the government does not support the motion, and my first reaction is to think of the safety of anybody involved in some kind of altercation or home invasion or in a circumstance where they are protecting their own property. I can appreciate that there is an awful dilemma in trying to strike the right balance with people’s right to defend their property or people’s right to be safe in their own home in the context of a crime being underway. I would like to acknowledge the motion, and it is a very interesting space.’
She went on to add, ‘I know that the motto in my family is, no property is worth your life or serious injury.’
The next part of her comment I could barely believe.
Ms Ermacora accused the UK’s Castle Doctrine of using ‘sexist language’.
‘But I was, I must say, as an aside, a bit shocked to note that UK laws have not been automatically rewritten to eradicate the exclusion of women via sexist language. Just as an example…’
…the defence will be available to a person if he honestly believed it was necessary to use force and if the degree of force used was not disproportionate in the circumstances as he viewed them.
‘In Victoria that would mean that law does not apply to me but does apply to men, because we have changed our legislation to eradicate all of that language. But that is certainly an aside.’
I wonder if the Victorian Labor Party could ask themselves a simple question: Are women more worried about the use of ‘he’ in a piece of legislation they’ll never read, or their ability to legally defend their property and person from criminals?
Liberal MP Trung Luu did much better.
‘People are scared. Scared for their safety, scared for their family’s safety, and scared about the impact that these crimes have on their community’s reputation. People are fearful of the possibility of legal action, both civil and criminal, if they react to an intruder in their home. This is because the current self-defence law of the Crimes Act 1958 does not fully address individual protections against criminal and civil action, especially when you are looking at the Crimes Act under section 322N, which has the abolition of self-defence at common law.
‘The fact is that section 322K of the Crimes Act leaves self-defence open to the possibility of litigation if one chooses to act against a threat, because the point of proof is subject to a person’s interpretation when it comes to conduct and a person’s response in the circumstances as a person perceives the threat coming towards him or her.
‘Then the person also needs to prove that there is an imminent threat and that the force applied is reasonable and proportionate to the threat. How can the average person out there comprehend all this stuff in a split second?’
He adds, ‘A victim should not have to second-guess their actions or conduct against an intruder who breaks into their home.’
And as he goes on to point out, the victim has no way to assess the actual threat. Is it a kid looking for car keys or someone intent on murder?
‘There are news headlines after news headlines of intruders smashing their way into people’s homes, stealing personal belongings and cars, yelling, threatening that they are going to kill the victim while waving a weapon such as a machete.’
Then it was the turn of Greens MP Katherine Copsey.
‘The Greens will not be supporting this motion,’ she began, before going on to quote crime statistics calling the situation ‘complex’. (It’s not.)
‘Victoria already has clear, modern statutory tests for self-defence … the Greens’ justice platform prioritises investing in prevention and evidence over the theatre of law and order.’
The ‘theatre of law and order’?
‘The Greens support investing in what actually reduces crime: stable housing, youth services, mental health and drug treatment, and community-led justice reinvestment. Preventing crime is more effective than flashy headlines.’
Guess what else reduces crime… Increasing the personal risk to criminals instead of treating them like victims that just need a few more cuddles and generosity from the taxpayer.
‘Fear thrives when the public conversation is reduced to slogans.’
Then it was the turn of Labor MP Ryan Batchelor.
It took Mr Batchelor a while to get through his congratulations to the Labor government, but when he did he settled on the ‘slogan’, ‘The government is of the view that our self-defence laws are proportionate and well established.’ He then returned to congratulating the government.
You can read the full list of replies here, but I shall put out an example from Animal Justice MP Georgie Purcell. Hers might be the most ridiculous of all.
‘I cannot support something that shifts the burden of safety from the community onto individuals and certain residents, because proposals like this can send a message to the community that to take the law into your own hands is an acceptable public policy response, and that is a recipe for the escalation of violence in my circumstances and not one of safety, which we are all striving for. We should be careful about reforms that normalise taking violent action in the name of defence.’
I am not sure how Ms Purcell got confused, but let us try to clarify. Arriving at someone’s house with the purpose of dishing out revenge for a grievance is ‘taking the law into your own hands’. Beating the crap out of someone trying to rob your home and threaten your family is self-defence. It is a big difference in concept.
There also seems to be a genuine belief from left-wing women replying to this that they would ‘not like to be in the position’ to defend themselves. This is bizarre. Clarifying the extent of your self-defence rights does not imply that you must defend yourself. There is no suggestion from the law or Mr Limbrick that you cannot simply run away.
‘I personally do not want to be in a position where I am having to defend myself like that, because I would not have the confidence that I would be able to maintain it and defend myself properly. They would probably get me in the end,’ said Labor MP Sonja Terpstra.
Then we have this pure nonsense from Labor MP Sheena Watt, who appeared to forget what the topic was.
‘We have launched statewide electronic monitoring for youth offenders to ensure compliance with bail conditions and deter further offending. It is why we are bringing in reforms to stamp out racism, discrimination, and hate and protect minorities and vulnerable groups in the community. We have seen that some of the most heinous acts of racial vilification in Australia’s history have happened recently and right here, with neo-Nazis staging demonstrations around our city and spreading their hateful messages. Messages that actually threaten the safety of people of colour in our community. So I was really pleased to see decisive action against this sort of hate and all the things that we are doing to protect people being targeted by these groups because Victorians deserve to feel safe in their own state, wherever they are. I will just say and reaffirm that racially motivated crimes committed by these really vile individuals absolutely will not be tolerated in our state.’
What the heck does any of that rant have to do with Victorians defending themselves? This is mindless ideological ranting. What a worthless contribution to public debate and a waste of everyone’s time.
After it was pointed out that she was shouting at the sky, she replied: ‘Yes, I accept that people have been threatened in their homes, and I am also saying that Nazis have threatened to violently hurt people of colour.’
Good luck, Victoria.
The motion failed, 18-17.
Ayes (17): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rachel Payne, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (18): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
