r/canadaguns • u/GhostProtocolGaming • Mar 12 '26

News / Politics / Activism Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

https://www.conservative.ca/stand-on-guard-2/

The bill makes important changes to Section 34 of the Criminal Code so that force is presumed to be justified if used against an illegal intruder. Conservatives first announced the ‘Stand on Guard’ principle back in August, asking the government to introduce legislation in the fall session.

270 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

235 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

39

u/GhostProtocolGaming Mar 12 '26

In Ontario, an "illegal intruder" (or trespasser) is defined as any person who enters a property without permission, lawful justification, or legal authority. This includes individuals who enter a dwelling-house (home) either through force or by using a temporarily open, unlocked, or partially opened entrance.

17

u/Nearby_Purchase_8672 Mar 12 '26

Definitely important to know how it is defined, and that this doesn't exclude because a door was unlocked

14

u/LongRoadNorth Mar 12 '26

The issue in Canada isn't what the law says is legal force or not. Because contrarily to what the conservatives say you do have the right to protect yourself.

The problem is cops lay charges regardless and then it's up to you to go through all the court proceedings to prove your innocence.

The more important and beneficial change needs to come in the way the police issue charges more than what the law actually is in regards to defending yourself. They charge before they even investigate when it comes to defending yourself in your home. That needs to change.

Because even if we had this stand your ground law, there will be plenty of times it's abused or used when it shouldn't be and you'd still be charged.

4

u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26

The problem is absolutely the law, not just police procedure.

Right now in Canada under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, self-defence is written in a vague, multi-factor test that gets interpreted after the fact by courts. That’s exactly why police lay charges so often the law gives them no clear standard in the moment. If the legal threshold is unclear, officers err on the side of charging and let the courts sort it out.

That’s precisely why a clearer framework like what the main topic poster posted is objectively a step forward. Laws modeled after things like Stand-your-ground law or stronger castle doctrine principles create clearer presumptions for lawful self-defence. When the law clearly states that a person defending themselves in their home is presumed justified, it reduces the ambiguity that leads to automatic charges.

We don't necessarily need a full on copy paste of stand your ground, but we certainly need to review our current system because punishing the victims in a home invasion is fucked up.

Also specifically the “it might be abused” argument isn’t serious. Every law can be abused, fraud laws, assault laws, even the current self-defence law. That’s why courts exist. The possibility of misuse isn’t a reason to keep a system where law-abiding victims risk being treated like criminals for protecting themselves.

Fixing police procedure alone doesn’t work when the underlying legal standard is ambiguous.