I: Why Duelling Is Right

Duelling is right - a moral duty for an honourable person - because the only just and fair law is the law of personal honour. The most fundamental ideal of civilization is the noble ideal of personal honour.

Accordingly, a civilized, noble society would restore the custom of the personal duel as it would expect all individuals to resolve questions of honour through a duel. Thus would justice for the individual become once again the fair and true justice of the duel and trial by combat, and thus would real personal freedom be created with personal character respected and upheld as an ideal. This is in complete contrast to the inhuman, unfair so-called "justice" of all modern societies which in practical terms reduce individuals to complete serfdom.

No words are too strong to condemn the abstract inhuman laws of our modern societies which take away all the natural rights, freedoms and dignity of an individual and which render individuals powerless before the tyrannical might of the forces of the State. No words are too strong to condemn the inhuman treatment which the Institutions of our modern societies - such as Courts of Law - metes out to individuals.

One example of how powerless individuals have become is the tyranny of modern legal trials. What matters most in a modern so-called Court of Law is abstract evidence, and individuals are convicted and often sent to Prison on the basis of such evidence - or rather, on the basis of whether or not such evidence is believed by a Jury, a Judge or a Magistrate. The personal character, the honour, of the individual who stands accused is only of secondary importance - if it is considered at all. Further, the individual has for the most part to rely on "experts" who present the case for the defence. Thus, once the due process of modern Law is started - say with a person being arrested by the Police for transgressing some modern Law - then the individual is literally at the complete mercy of the System.

What really and fundamentally matters is not abstract evidence - but the honour of the individual and the freedom of the individual to defend their own honour through the test of facing death in either a trial by combat or a duel. If a person is innocent of some charge or accusation, they are innocent, regardless of how much abstract evidence is produced which seems to condemn them. For decades - for centuries - innocent people have been unjustly convicted of crimes on the basis of evidence which is either false or mis-interpreted

The truth of the modern system of Courts of Law is that such Courts deny the individual the most basic right to defend their personal honour. Technical rules of evidence, technical procedures, obscure points of law and often the glib words of professional Barristers and lawyers rule such Courts - not the honour of the person accused. What fundamentally matters is not evidence, not glib words, not obscure points of law - but the honour of the individual and the right of the individual to personally defend their honour through trial by combat or a duel.

The fact that so few people today accept this, or even understand it, just shows how far our societies are from the freedom and nobility of personal honour. Until a majority of people in society understand and accept the need for questions of honour to be settled by a duel, and until a majority live their own lives in accord with a Code of Honour, there will never be a truly free and thus noble society, for it is only personal honour - and the willingness to defend that honour to the death - which creates and which maintains such a free and noble society.

Until such time as such a free and noble society is created, based upon honour, honourable individuals must champion the duel of honour. They, through their belief in honour and their desire to live by a Code of Honour (of which the duel is an integral part) must strive to restore this custom of personal duelling to our present societies - regardless of the fact that our present societies see such duels as an illegal act. The laws which make such personal duelling illegal, and which are invoked against those who have the noble courage to fight a duel, are the dishonourable laws of a repressive tyranny and as such they deserve to be circumvented, and if necessary, totally ignored. A person of honour has a moral duty - a right - to disregard such tyrannical ignoble laws. For what matters - more than individual life itself - is honour.
 

II: Duelling

The most acceptable and civilized form of duel is by pistol, and those abiding by the Code of Honour are expected to use this form as and when necessary.

A formal challenge to a duel must be personally issued, by one party to the other, at which a date, time and place are specified (Dawn is traditionally favoured). Each duellist must be accompanied by a Second, to ensure fair play and an honourable outcome, as there must be a referee.

At the appointed time and in the appointed place, two revolvers, pistols or duelling pistols, as similar as possible, are checked and prepared by the referee, (ideally a man of honour should keep or have access to a matched pair of pistols specifically made for duelling, capable of firing one round and one round only). These revolvers or pistols, and the bullets, are also checked by the duellists and their seconds. [Note: whatever pistol is used it should be loaded or so adapted that one round and only round can be discharged from it when the trigger is pulled.]

The referee then allows the duellists to choose a weapon. The duellists stand back to back. At a sign or word from the referee they then walk a set number of paces agreed beforehand (ten being usual) before turning to face each other. The referee then says: "Take aim!" at which they take aim. The referee then says: "Fire!" at which they discharge the weapon. It is considered dishonourable conduct to aim and/or fire before the referee gives the signal to so do.

Should one person fire and miss, or hit and injure, the other duellist before that duellist has also fired, then the person who has so fired must wait, without moving, until his fellow duellist has also fired, if he is capable of so firing.

Honour is satisfied if the duel is undertaken in the above manner.
 
 
 

Some Notes On Duelling
 

There are four things which need to be understood about personal duels of honour.
 

(1) The etiquette, or rules, of duelling must be followed, for it is these rules which make this encounter between two individuals a civilized and thus an honourable encounter. A duel of honour is not a brawl, or merely a fight between two individuals - it is a dispassionate meeting of two individuals who use their own will, their own strength of character, to fight in a particular way.

The rules, the etiquette, of duelling make it such a dispassionate encounter - for a duel is a test of courage, of nerve, of character, of personal honour itself. Any and all conduct which is against the rules is dishonourable, and as such the person who does not abide by the rules is not an honourable person, and thus forfeits their honour and their honourable reputation.

If the rules are not followed, it is thus not a duel of honour.
 

(2) In a duel of honour, deadly weapons must be used. It is the deadly nature of the weapons used, with the possibility of death, which makes the encounter an honourable one. Deadly weapons include pistols, swords and long-bladed fighting knives of the Bowie type.
 

(3) The duel is a private affair between the two individuals concerned. As such, only the nominated Seconds, and a referee - acceptable by both sides - must be present. It is against the etiquette of duelling for any other people to be present.
 

(4) A person challenged to a duel must either personally accept the challenge, or decline the challenge. It is dishonourable and cowardly conduct to ignore a challenge once it has been formally issued. If a person who is challenged declines the challenge, then they must issue a personal apology, and if necessary, or called upon to do so, a public apology.

A man of honour will only challenge to a duel those individuals whom he believes can physically defend themselves and their honour with deadly weapons. Thus, it is dishonourable and cowardly if someone who is challenged to a duel tries to get someone else to fight the duel on their behalf.