Sometimes You Need To Use Force To Defend Human Rights

There's always the statement that as much as possible you should avoid violence. But there are times where you can't avoid violence. I wonder if nutjobs like Leila Dilemma, Etta Rosales and Chito Gascon ever figured that out as CHR chairpersons? CHR itself may have deprived the right of Filipinos to self-defense. It's time to think about it that why do you sometimes need to use violence or force to defend human rights.

Policemen are to help uphold the right to live in a safe society. Why do policemen carry guns and batons? It's because there will be the time to use force will be necessary. While negotiations should be done as much as possible but sometimes, you need to kill a crook to save an entire bus of hostages. Do you remember what happened during the Manila Hostage Crisis that unfortunately put the Philippines to shame? They could have shot the late Mendoza at his foot with a sniper or take him down from a distance if need be. If killing a crook is the only option then by all means do it to defend the human rights of the hostages. It's more important to save a bus full of hostages than to save the life of somebody who's threatening others. Sometimes, you need to kill someone to save someone. Killing someone in self-defense is not the same as killing someone as a crime.

But that doesn't seem to be the logic of the CHR chairpersons Dilemma, Rosales and recently Gascon. One reason why CHR is defective is because it somehow thinks of human rights abuse the wrong way. For them, unless it's police or military who does a crime then it's not a human rights abuse. CHR should investigate all human rights abuses of victims of crime. They don't have to wait until it's police or military. Abusive policemen and abusive soldiers should be reported to their proper offices and CHR can help document these abuses. On the other hand, shouldn't CHR also document the human rights abuses done to the victims of crime? I guess by CHR logic anybody who gets shot by the police regardless whether the reason is valid (to protect someone) or not (abuse of authority) then the person is a victim of human rights violation. That kind of logic is screwed up because whether you're a victim of a civilian or a soldier or policeman you should have your right to appeal to the human rights department.

I wonder what would Chito Gascon want? Replace all lethal weapons that the military and police use for self-defense with rubber weapons? That would definitely be a stupid idea that would end up with the police falling apart. The crooks and invaders are using deadly weapons so why shouldn't police and military be armed with deadly weapons that civilians shouldn't carry around without permission? How can the nation defend itself if it doesn't have deadly weapons to use in the case of an invasion. Does Gascon think the weak military of the Philippines is enough to defend itself from any invasion? Whether he likes it nor not time will come negotiations will fail and you need to use force. The use of force is not forbidden. Instead, it's the last resolve when negotiations fail.

Think about that.