The recent knife attack in Paris, in which a jihadist allegedly targeted three women in broad daylight before courageous bystanders intervened, should provoke uncomfortable questions about how modern societies expect vulnerable citizens to defend themselves. Calls inevitably follow for more police, more CCTV, tougher sentencing and greater surveillance. Yet these measures all share one fatal weakness: they usually arrive after the attack has already begun.
For decades Western societies have steadily restricted the means of self-defence available to ordinary citizens. The underlying philosophy has been one of equality. If one person may not carry an effective weapon, then neither should anyone else. The law treats everyone alike.
But should it?
Equality before the law is an admirable principle, yet equality does not mean identical physical capability. A healthy young man generally possesses a significant advantage in strength, speed and aggression over most women, many elderly people and those living with physical disabilities. Criminals understand this reality perfectly well. They do not choose victims by consulting anti-discrimination legislation. They choose those least capable of resisting.
This suggests a provocative alternative. Rather than extending self-defence rights equally across the population, perhaps they should instead be expanded selectively for those who are demonstrably more vulnerable. Women, elderly men and women, and mentally competent people with significant physical disabilities could be permitted to carry more effective defensive weapons than able-bodied adult men.
Immediately comes the predictable objection: "That is discrimination."
Yes, it is. But discrimination is not always unjust. Society already discriminates whenever it has good reason to do so. Disabled parking bays, age pensions, mobility assistance, women-only domestic violence refuges and numerous workplace accommodations all recognise that equal treatment sometimes produces unequal outcomes. The law routinely distinguishes between groups when the objective is to compensate for genuine disadvantage.
The same principle could apply to personal protection.
The proposal would not be based upon moral superiority, nor upon any assumption that women are incapable of defending themselves. Rather, it would acknowledge statistical realities about victimisation and physical vulnerability. Rape, sexual assault and predatory violence overwhelmingly target those criminals perceive as easier victims. Giving vulnerable individuals greater legal capacity to defend themselves could alter that calculation.
Critics would raise legitimate concerns. Firearms can be stolen. Accidents occur. Defensive weapons may be turned against their owners. Any licensing system would therefore require stringent background checks, mandatory training, secure storage requirements and severe penalties for misuse. Whether these safeguards would be sufficient is an empirical question deserving careful study.
Nor would such a policy eliminate violent crime. Police remain essential, and prevention through mental health interventions, effective policing and criminal justice reform would still be necessary. Selective self-defence rights would simply recognise that, in the critical seconds before help arrives, the intended victim is often alone.
Modern anti-discrimination law sometimes assumes that treating everyone identically is synonymous with justice. Yet genuine justice often means recognising important differences. The law already accepts this principle in many other areas. Extending carefully regulated self-defence rights to those most at risk would represent another example of differential treatment serving the broader goal of equal protection.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that many societies already discriminate, but in the opposite direction. Current restrictions frequently ensure that the physically strongest offenders remain stronger than their intended victims. A legal framework that modestly shifted that balance toward the vulnerable may be controversial, but controversy alone is not an argument against examining whether present policies truly serve those most in need of protection.
The issue is not merely theoretical. Years ago, about 2013, concerns arose in Adelaide after reports of nurses being raped while walking across the parklands to distant car parks during night shifts. According to accounts from the time, some nurses began carrying scissors, steak knives, and make-shift weapons for protection because they believed they had little alternative when crossing isolated areas after dark. Whatever one thinks of that response, it reflected a basic reality: vulnerable people will often seek some means of self-defence if they feel the state cannot adequately protect them. The longer-term solution was not simply to tell nurses to remain defenceless, but to improve their safety by providing more secure parking arrangements closer to their workplace. Environmental design reduced the risk, yet the episode illustrates an enduring principle. Until society can guarantee immediate protection, vulnerable individuals will naturally seek ways to defend themselves.