Europe’s self-defense crisis and state failures

As violent crime surges across much of Europe, restrictive policies and eroded rights to self-defense leave citizens vulnerable.

European politics deters self defense, and citizens have little recourse while risks abound.
European politics deters self-defense, and citizens have little recourse while risks abound. © GIS – This cartoon is available for sale in our shop.

Violent crime is on the rise in many European countries, and internal security is worsening. Germany has seen cases of unprovoked attacks, some with knives and others with automobiles. Most recently in Aschaffenburg, Bavaria, an Afghan immigrant attacked children from a kindergarten, killing a two year-old and a courageous passerby who gave his life to protect the other children. 

One of the few core functions of a state is to provide a framework that protects the internal and external security of the population. This means the internal protection of citizens’ life, security and property against perpetrators (criminals) on the one hand, and maintaining external security measures against foreign aggressors on the other.

It is not sufficient, however, to simply hire a number of police officers to keep criminals at bay. To dissuade attacks, any security framework should also allow for self-responsibility and civic courage. 

Poor governance and failed policies

In many respects, our modern welfare democracies go much further than ensuring the core functions of the state. Nanny states abound with rules, regulations and “benefits” mirroring excessive taxes on the citizen from birth to the grave, and the burdens reach even beyond one’s estate. The result is that individual freedom is increasingly limited and self-responsibility is lost.

There are now no-go areas where the police can operate only with the utmost safeguards and precautions. 

In this context a state claims the monopoly of security and strictly limits any possibility for self-defense. To protect woke rules, honesty about the root causes of increasing criminality, such as failed migration policies, is ruled out. This is the case in most Western European countries, while some Central European countries – transparently addressing the issue − are highly criticized.

The consequence is that internal safety in many countries, primarily in urban areas, is highly unsatisfactory at best. In populous French cities, and also in Brussels, there are now no-go areas where the police can operate only with the utmost safeguards and precautions. 

In many areas of Europe, private security companies are required to protect the safety of private homes against robbers. Policing is insufficient and citizens are broadly deprived of any means of legitimate self-defense.

The work of the police is made still more difficult by pervasive aspects of anti-racism dogma. People of different origins or complexion should of course not be treated more harshly or be subject to racial profiling. But unfortunately, claims of xenophobia or racism, even if unsubstantiated, can have negative consequences for the police force or individual policemen.

The citizen is taught to blindly trust government, and if attacked, to be a victim rather than a hero.

That does not mean that crimes against people or property are only due to migration. But what may be difficult for many to accept is that the means and motivation for self-defense in Europe are neither encouraged nor supported. To the contrary, if a thief breaks into your house, you are not allowed all means to defend yourselves, your family and home, but only “appropriate” ones that will be determined by a judge after the fact. How can you determine the intruder has no weapon and does not intend to murder you?

Besides the legal consequences of practicing self-defense, a culture of being cowardly is nourished. Instead of countering attacks, you are instead advised to collaborate with the perpetrator or run away. The latter might be the best in some circumstances, but it should not be the only acceptable behavior.

A reality check is needed

Even the addition of thousands more police officers will be insufficient to provide for the security of the population if self-defense is ruled out. In the case of Aschaffenburg, the courageous man prevented more fatalities, but paid with his own life. The first reaction of the German interior minister was not self-criticism for the state’s failure to protect the children nor praise for the selfless hero, but rather political muttering akin to “Oh, hopefully this will not be used by populists.” Yet precisely this will happen, and with good reason and much legitimacy.

Read more by Prince Michael of Liechtenstein

As knife attacks in Germany have increased in recent years, the government in its wisdom has passed a rule forbidding knives in public places. Common sense, however, reveals such a measure to be far from implementable. To show some energy and responsiveness, German police were ordered to raid a Christmas market in Ludwigshafen, and they searched the handbags of ladies for knives. Will that help to reduce crime? Or, if a person buys kitchen knives, do they have to go home before entering a Christmas market?

This is the path of weak and irresponsible reasoning: Only the state can offer protection, people should not bear arms. Private ownership of weapons is becoming extremely limited. With such policy, states prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their surroundings, yet criminals will always find the means to perpetrate their crimes. All the while, the notion of self-defense is unwanted and partially criminalized. The citizen is taught to blindly trust government, and if attacked, to be a victim rather than a hero.

This is quite a cunning way to control society. It is not the way of democracies with free citizens, it is authoritarianism. Victims are much easier to rule than heroes. 

Related reports

Scroll to top