r/canadaguns • u/mantafloppy • Mar 13 '26
News / Politics / Activism The Conservative "stand your ground" bill is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Here's the actual law.
Before anyone says "finally we can defend our homes", you already can. Let me save you the rabbit hole.
1. The burden of proof is already on the Crown.
The accused never has to prove self-defence was reasonable. The Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is basic criminal law, confirmed by the Supreme Court.
> Source: R v Cinous, 2002 SCC 29
2. There is no duty to retreat from your home. None.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled multiple times that a jury isn't even allowed to consider whether you could have retreated from your own home. We already have a de facto castle doctrine, it just doesn't have a catchy name.
> Source: R v Forde, 2011 ONCA 592
3. Our law is already MORE permissive than U.S. Stand Your Ground.
McGill law professor Noah Weisbord, who literally wrote the academic papers on this, says Canadian law lets you "claim defensive force more easily than in the U.S." The Harper Conservatives already reformed this in 2013 (Bill C-26).
> Source: Weisbord, McGill Law Journal
4. The Collingwood case they keep citing? The law WORKED.
Cameron Gardiner shot two armed masked home invaders and the charges were dropped, under the existing law. The real problem was prosecutorial overreach and a messy situation (drug-dealing from the house, evidence removed before police arrived). A "presumption of reasonableness" in the statute wouldn't have prevented his arrest anyway. Only a prosecution immunity provision would do that — and that's not in this bill.
> Source: CBC News
TL;DR
The proposed change is legally redundant. The Crown already has to disprove reasonableness, that's not changing. What Cobena's bill won't do is stop homeowners from being arrested and charged while under investigation. Only a US-style prosecution immunity provision would do that, and nobody's proposing that.
You're being sold a solution to a problem that Harper already solved in 2013.
> Full DOJ legal breakdown: justice.gc.ca
58
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
Also my personal take is that while I do agree the law is mostly redundant, I think the bigger issue is that all too often police forces or the crown charge victims of home invasions defending themselves despite there being no reasonable chance of conviction even with the most basic preliminary evidence suggesting that it was a clear-cut self-defence case.
The real issue at hand is that the federal criminal code needs to make these police agencies/crown do their job and force them to investigate to determine that if charges are even necessary and whether said charges will hold up and result in a conviction.
Because what it seems like what's happening right now is people are getting charged because police are too fucking lazy to do their job and just say "let the court deal with it", as they're arresting you, ignoring the major financial and legal consequences that would hit the victim immediately, such as your PAL gets suspended or revoked, your guns get seized, and if you have a security clearance for a job, that's immediately revoked, and now you're fighting the government in court which for most people will likely mean bankruptcy, even though their was never a chance in hell you're going to be convicted for defending yourself in the first place.
In my view, this is the biggest Crux of why everyone's getting worked up over this. Stateside most agencies/State AG's do their due diligence and investigate properly, and they don't arrest/charge the defender until they actually have evidence or a genuine strong belief that any excessive force charge would actually result in a conviction in court. Canadian police just charge without so much as a 2nd, or even a 3rd thought on whether this charge will actually hold up in court, often punishing the victim more than the home invader...
4
Mar 13 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
Hey come on now, I said MOST lol.
2
-6
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 13 '26
Exactly this. But careful. Everyone in this sub will just say you're a liberal and some other shit because you're not just blindly supporting the conservatives.
This bill does nothing to address the issue like you said of lazy cops that charge before even doing a slight investigation.
142
u/mindlesstake Mar 13 '26
So you want us to ignore the fact that in EVERY self-defence case Crown presses the same 5 charges on the victim? Yes, burden of proof is on crown, but they will punish you by the process itself. Lawyers, your time, stress, losing your job – is a punishment by itself.
71
u/Minor-inconvience Mar 13 '26
Correct. So instead of being worried about going to jail we are worried about being financially ruined and our name dragged through the mud.
26
7
u/Eisenbahn-de-order Mar 13 '26
this is what i thought too. yes yadi yadi yada, but in the states, in this situation the homeowners are typically not even charged. the police will come out and say all is good it's rightfully self defense.
16
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 13 '26
But the cons bill wouldn't solve any of that.
The issue is with the police that always press the charges right away and then leave it to the crown to deal with.
This is an issue with the police not the actual law. It doesn't matter what law it is. The cops can arrest you for any charge they want to write down and then investigate. Then when no proof is found they drop the charges. But that's only after you've already been interrogated and had to pay a lawyer.
You can sue after if it's bullshit or whatever but end of the day they can ruin your life financially and your name until the courts clear you or they drop the charges themselves.
This is why I continue to say, fuck cops and their disgusting culture. They don't know the law any better than your average citizen.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
But the cons bill wouldn't solve any of that.
I'm just curious if you actually read the first reading or their posted explanation on it before making this conclusion.
The issue is with the police that always press the charges right away and then leave it to the crown to deal with.
They do this because of the murkiness of section 34 in our criminal code, hence cops just throw whatever they can to stick. If you can clarify the presumption of lawful self-defence, especially when someone is defending themselves or their home from an unlawful intruder, then the murkiness is gone and they wouldn't be able to press charges / the crown wouldn't have grounds to push it. That matters because clearer statutory language affects charging decisions, not just trial outcomes (which is what we're trying to avoid in the first place).
This is an issue with the police not the actual law. It doesn't matter what law it is. The cops can arrest you for any charge they want to write down and then investigate. Then when no proof is found they drop the charges. But that's only after you've already been interrogated and had to pay a lawyer.
I see this repeated alot but thats a bit of a leap. Police don’t charge people in a vacuum despite what arm chair reddit experts say, they charge based on whether they believe the Crown has a reasonable prospect of conviction. If the law explicitly states that a person defending themselves or their dwelling is presumed to be acting lawfully unless disproven, it becomes much harder for police to justify laying charges in the first place. (which is what the amendments the conservatives are trying to make).
I've seen a lot of this confusion in this thread so I'll use a simple example to explain.
Right now the system effectively says “Defend yourself and maybe the courts will clear you in a year. Good luck with putting your life on hold and paying shit tons of fees / having your guns taken lol"
The proposed changes try to make it closer to “If the facts clearly show self-defence, you probably won’t be charged at all.”
it's not perfect, no proposed law or act is, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Saying that this act won't do anything is just choosing to ignore the actual contents of it.
4
Mar 13 '26
They don't care wether citim is dragged into legal mud water at all, they are paid to spread Liberal Propaganda here. Check their post history.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Every case? No. Something like 9 out of 10 dont see the inside of a court room. This sub keeps saying every case gets dragged into court but they always link the same 6 cases.
It usually doesn't get to the point of needing a lawyer.
1
u/mindlesstake Mar 14 '26
Really? That's interesting. Where do you get this from? I want to see these stats too.
-8
58
u/soundssarcastic bc Mar 13 '26
Very cool, but I live in the real world where theyll try to imprison you if you so much as keep ammo in the same container as a trigger locked firearm, let alone point it at someone.
OP, do you have a PAL? Seems to be a lot of tourists to this sub lately
25
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
Seems to be a lot of tourists to this sub lately
We've noticed too. It's probably because Reddit is now using AI to alter/tailor any trending topic that matches their interest, so if someone is a political junkie that hates conservatives to the point they comment on any sub that has a CPC news bite, they'll eventually find our sub eventually and go ahead and brigade it and stir up shit in our community. We welcome thoughtful genuine engagement from non-regulars, but if their only purpose is to sling shit, then yeah, they're gone.
0
u/mantafloppy Mar 13 '26
I'm real : https://i.imgur.com/yYSXKVs.jpeg
I used to post here : https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/7qgci7/the_list_was_right_wildcat_are_garbage/
This post is only about what the actual current law is.
I'm left leaning and my view are not welcome here, so i normally dont post anymore.
6
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
Well that wasn't directed to you per se as you've been with us for quite some time, but a similar post of this nature was brigaded by a few anon, low karma/new accounts a few days ago, and personally I believe the whole personalized "trending" tab is probably what made these bad faith actors find our sub despite them hating guns, CPC, etc.
As mods we allow all views (within Reddit rules) as long as you're acting in good faith. If you're sincere in your beliefs, are genuine and you attack the point and not the person, you're more than free to share your views. Whether it will be well received by the community is its own thing though, aha.
That said, we sanction those that attack the character of those who have opinions contrary to the sub, as we expect all sub members to attack the idea/points, not the person. In essence, any comment calling you a "Liberal Cuck" or whatever will be removed as will anyone calling another member a "Nazi" because they're too right-wing.
4
u/RydNightwish Mar 13 '26
Nice to see a mod acknowledge what so many of the community knew was going on and were calling out weekly. Especially during the election. Much of which went willfully ignored by some in the former cadre.
+1 to you.
10
u/Eoghanwheeler Mar 13 '26
They’ll try to imprison you anyway. The laws only apply to whether or not you’ll be convicted. The crown can still charge you with anything they want.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Thats a different issue bud, and thats not a charge with jail time.
-2
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 13 '26
This doesn't even have to be regarding firearms. It can be the same with a knife or bat or whatever you use as a weapon
And this isn't even regarding self defense. It's anything.
A cop can pull you over, say they suspect you're impaired. You'll be charged and only after the can't find proof they'll drop it. But you'll already probably have your license suspended, and need to hire a lawyer.
Unless they proposed a bill where you cannot be charged until they have proof what you did is illegal it doesn't matter.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Unless they proposed a bill where you cannot be charged until they have proof what you did is illegal it doesn't matter.
The bill isn’t trying to magically stop police from ever laying charges. No law or act can do that. What it does is tighten the legal standard around defensive force, which makes it easier for police and prosecutors to recognize legitimate self-defence earlier and avoid charging the victim in the first place.
By amending the intent line and defining a valid defence, it would remove a lot of ambiguity which would make cops just slamming you much harder. Right now Canadian self-defence law relies heavily on a vague reasonableness test that officers and prosecutors interpret after the fact (which is why shit gets thrown until it sticks). When the law is unclear, police are more likely to lay charges and let courts sort it out, if there's more clarity then we'll see a shift in the system.
(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (1.1), the fact that, knowingly and without being entitled by law to do so, the person against whom the act was committed had entered the dwelling-house is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they had entered with intent to use force against a person lawfully present in the dwelling-house.
(2.2) The conditions under subsection (1) are presumed to be met if a person uses force, including lethal force, against a person who, without being entitled by law to do so, has entered the dwelling-house in which they are lawfully present.
It's a step in the right direction given how absolutely cooked self defence is in Canada.
32
u/sorean_4 Mar 13 '26
I’m sorry, the Crown currently will do anything to persecute gun owners. They will destroy you by arresting you, treating you like a criminal, take your firearms away and make you spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal defence that should never be needed. Person being charge for discharging a weapon while being robbed is standard process for the crown.
1
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 13 '26
But this is where everyone is getting it wrong. They are not specifically saying firearms. Just trying to say if you defended yourself. Which the law is already there.
Whether you use a gun, bat or knife is irrelevant. The issue is the charges are laid before any investigation and laziness. Because the police just leave it to the crown. But by that time you need to hire a lawyer and deal with everything else that comes with it.
The issue is not in the way our laws are written but in the way our police forces do their job.
2
u/sorean_4 Mar 13 '26
Police officers do not charge you with an offence. It’s the crown that puts forth charges. The law is ambiguous enough, with the mandate of using enough force to stop the attacker where using a weapon is seen as a reason to pursue charges. Canadian laws are horribly written with ambiguity left to the courts. If this law stops families from being victimized by the court system for self defence I’m all for it.
2
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
Police officers do not charge you with an offence. It’s the crown that puts forth charges.
It depends on the province/territory. Some will allow police to lay the charges directly (Crown can still withdraw, change the charge), while others only let the police advise the crown on what they should be charged with.
1
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 13 '26
The police can and do lay charges as well. It's just up to the crown to convict
19
u/sushixp bc Mar 13 '26
From the way this is worded.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-270/first-reading
It automatically justifies any force against an unlawful intruder of a dwelling-house saving the home owner from being charged and help a lawyer buy a new Rolex for just trying to defend themselves in court.
All the previous laws are still subject to being charged and being punished by the process itself.
22
Mar 13 '26
[deleted]
9
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Don't forget the part where you have to put your life on hold for months/years, drop six figures in lawyer fees (who's gonna cheap out on this if jail time is on the line) and have shit tons of stress and anxiety over defending your family.
8
u/Possible_Jellyfish69 Mar 13 '26
I am a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer. I do not know if you are a lawyer or more familiar with this area of law than I am, but for any non-lawyers reading this thread, I would note the following.
The law is very fact specific, and whether a decision has precedential value to a new case depends on the similarity or dissimilarity of the facts in that decision relative to the case at hand. Where a case has significantly different facts, it is often found to be distinguishable, justifying a different result/ruling. Citing a single case for a broad proposition can be very misleading. Moreover, newer precedents and appellate decisions may have effectively rendered older decisions to no longer be good law.
Additionally, charges being dropped is a matter of prosecutorial discretion by a particular prosecutor. While they consider the applicable law in exercising such discretion, this has no precedential value and does not necessarily mean a different prosecutor would drop the same charges in a similar case.
Again, I am not a criminal lawyer and this is just my two cents.
25
u/Windermyr Mar 13 '26
Sure, it works until it doesn’t. I testified in a case that sounded like perfectly reasonable self defense. Someone shot and killed another that was attempting to enter the home, threatening to kill the defendant. Defendant shot and killed the intruder. He was subsequently convicted of either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter (can’t remember which). I was tempted to ask the CA why this wasn’t considered self-defense, but ultimately didn’t.
This was in northern BC, BTW.
3
u/Eisenbahn-de-order Mar 13 '26
would you be able to point to who this was? must've been in the new and can surely disprove the OP
9
u/Windermyr Mar 13 '26
I had to go through my invoices to find it.
Incident occurred in September, 2006. Trial occurred in early 2009. R v Ballantyne. He was sonvicted of 2nd degree murder.
BTW, I am a (retired) forensic pathologist. I performed the autopsy on the decedent, and so my involvement in the case, and testimony in the trial, only involved determining the cause of death. Which, in cases like this, is cut and dried. I am not told much about the details of what happened, since that doesn't help me determining cause of death, and those details are none of my (professional) concern. Nevertheless, as a gun owner and this being a case of a gun being used in apparent self-defense, I was definitely concerned personally.
3
19
Mar 13 '26
The bill is always about fixing the "The process is Punishiment" BS and protect home invasion vitcims from woke judges that often sided with criminals.
Time to get out of your liberal rabiit hole and look at reality for once.
-2
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Your argument lost all credibility when you called judges woke.
Most cases drop charges before they show up in a courtroom. Reality is against your argument here bud.
5
Mar 13 '26
"Most cases drop charges before they show up in a courtroom"
How about you read my origiunal and understand the point, "The bill is always about fixing the "The process is Punishiment" BS . Self defense cases took years, money and shit load of stress for the victim to not get CHARGED.
No one is saying YOU CAN;T SELF DEFESNE, people are saying the current legal process is too unfair for victim to go through.
Go troll elsewhere.
1
Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
Mod Message: Hey come on bro, that language isn't necessary. You can repost without the name calling/insults.
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments
Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.
Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.
Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.
19
u/Even-Somewhere-9554 Mar 13 '26
Do me a favor: get your PAL then come back. Stop spreading bs
-1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Self defense is not a valid reason to get a PAL so this isn't much of an argument against this post.
8
29
u/CompMakarov Mar 13 '26
Your naive, borderline delusional post ignores how Home Defense is treated by the Crown and Police in reality.
In the real world, the Crown almost always presses charges against people who defend themselves in their own home, regardless of the actual basis these charges stand on. This is not how self defense works in the US. If the US judicial system sees that your case is basically guaranteed to go your way, they won't even bother pressing charges. It saves everyone time, money and reputational damage.
That's not how it works here though, here, our dogshit judicial system weaponizes the letter of the law (i.e. not the spirit) against us in every way possible. They always press charges, they drag out court cases if possible, confiscate your gun, suspend your PAL, etc. They do everything in their power (even if you are justified) to make using guns in self defense as non-judicially painful as possible.
5
u/Eoghanwheeler Mar 13 '26
That’s an issue with crown policy not the law.
6
u/CompMakarov Mar 13 '26
The point is that the letter of the law is being abused. The fact that we have laws that are not concrete like the US on what constitutes self defense and what doesn't (like Castle Laws) makes it incredibly easy for the Crown to always default to pressing charges.
It becomes borderline impossible for the Crown to act like that if there are very concrete laws and judicial precedent that outline what constitutes self defense or not, because at that point, basically any lawyer can just ask the judge to throw out the case before it passes in court and they will have no choice to do so.
My above paragraph is exactly why the US judicial system acts the way it does towards self defense now. Most judges know there's too much legal precedent and black-and-white laws regarding self defence that 99% of cases won't even get to court. There's no use even pressing charges.
2
u/WhatTheCannuck Mar 13 '26
Don’t get me wrong - I’m picking up what you’re putting down. But as a point of clarification - the Crown doesn’t press charges, the Police are the ones who charge you with an offence, the Crown (often months later) then gets to decide what to do.
In reality, this would clarify the whole routine of charging everyone and letting the courts decide. Great move IMO.
0
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 13 '26
That's the Crown issue not the law. And it doesn't matter if it was a gun or knife they still press charges. But again that's on the crown.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
That's the Crown issue not the law. And it doesn't matter if it was a gun or knife they still press charges. But again that's on the crown.
By clarifying the law, it would force the crown and cops to charge more accurately instead of throwing on everything and letting the courts sort it out.
11
7
u/Final-Garage3326 Mar 13 '26
It is a real problem, look at all crime stats from 2015-2025 its outrageous, also you should not be charged with a crime and go to jail for self defense only to spend 100k defending yourself in court just for them to overturn what is obvious , you have the right to defend your self and home and the people there
35
u/rastamasta45 Mar 13 '26
I’ve never in my life seen people argue for less freedoms and not more. LPC voters are really weird?
10
u/Nautaloid Black Powder Enjoyer Mar 13 '26
People love authoritarianism as long as they can delude themselves into thinking that it’s okay when their team does it.
-3
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Its not less freedoms. Its the same amount we already have. Killing someone for existing in your house is illegal and should be. Even with stand your ground and castle laws they use a measure of reasonable force. And killing an unarmed person not attacking anyone is unreasonable.
-5
u/__WayDown Mar 13 '26
Conservatives argue for fewer freedoms as well, but it's just something that might not affect them personally so they don't think about it.
15
u/Murray3-Dvideos Mar 13 '26
Cool story. I'm still more terrified of Cops then I am of criminals in this Country........ Elbows up, hands behind your head
-4
7
u/BulltacTV Mar 13 '26
As someone who has spent some years tied up in court proceedings, the process is the punishment. I have a friend who almost took his life from the stress of facing possible prison for 5 fucking years while the crown dragged proceedings out.
Canada also has laws concerning how you defend from a threat, which is absolutely ridiculous. The law should be very simple; if someone enters my home and I perceive threat to me or my family (im not convinced on threat to property), their life is forfiet. The victim shouldnt even see the inside of a coutroom.
3
u/Minor-inconvience Mar 13 '26
What I know from reading and following the news is that I am more than worried about police and prosecutors than home invaders. That being said home invaders are a serious problem in canada lately. It’s pretty pathetic that people have to be worried about police and malicious prosecution when defending their family and home. Our rights and freedoms have been slowly whittled away. I don’t care if people see this as redundant. Pass this law and follow it up with another one that goes further.
3
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Before anyone says "finally we can defend our homes", you already can. Let me save you the rabbit hole.
That's not the argument people are making for this act. The core disagreement isn’t about whether self-defence is legal in Canada. The issue is about how clearly the law protects people who use force in obvious defensive situations and how it can possibly ruin their lives in the current system due the murkiness of our law (which in turn feeds into the the way the crown and cops function).
I'll just drop the two of the three prongs they want on this amendment in plain language because it really feels like some people in here didn't do any of the reading.
Presumes Reasonableness. Force used to stop a home invader who poses a threat will be deemed reasonable; there will be no more second-guessing after the fact. Ends Legal Limbo. Canadians defending themselves should not spend years in court while criminals walk free. This law gives clarity to citizens, police and prosecutors.
You've cited a few cases and some of them don't even quite fit because they don't actually address the core point of the act. Just to be clear, in our legal system, a handful of previous cases don't actually hold much merit. As long as there is vagueness in certain sections of the criminal code (like section 34/35), people will still get slammed.
The entire point of the stand on guard act is to provide more clarity to current criminal code and to also remove the whole idea of dragging victims through court.
- The burden of proof is already on the Crown.
The accused never has to prove self-defence was reasonable. The Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is basic criminal law, confirmed by the Supreme Court.
This has no bearing on the point of discussion. The Crown must disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, but that only applies at trial. This doesn't mean anything because right now due to the test of reasonableness the cops use when they lay charges aka they'll still charge you with anything that they can stick. If the Stand on Guard act was applied, it would lower the threshold and potentially mean you can't be charged in the first place.
- There is no duty to retreat from your home. None.
This was never the question. The retreat from your home may not be required but your response still gets heavily second-guessed after the fact. That’s exactly why people still get charged in clear home invasion scenarios.
- Our law is already MORE permissive than U.S. Stand Your Ground.
This is a paper, it's not actually that relatable to our practical laws (No seriously, the entire paper is running a theoretical comparison) or the situations that many Canadians find themselves in. It's a good attempt to appeal to a higher source / form of authority but it doesn't really land when you actually look at it. We're not trying to import a direct American law. Canadians defending themselves are regularly arrested first and sorted out later, this is a hard fact, police and crown often treat self defence as something to be litigated at trial rather than resolved early because of the vagueness of our laws. Some states don't have that issue with castle doctrine and we currently just face tank it in Canada. The Stand on Guard act would provide further clarity and remove some of those scenarios.
- The Collingwood case they keep citing? The law WORKED.
The question isn't whether the law worked or not. It's not about getting found guilty or not guilty, in fact that was never the core issue. I'm just curious how much you actually know about this case, it was a pretty bad one. Some dude who was masked up breaks into a guys house, he gets shot and the home owner gets hit with charges. The entire point of the act is to cut away at the presumption that the home owner did something wrong. The CBC article states just as much too.
But Willschick said he worries people may see what his client went through and hesitate to protect themselves in similar situations.
The article is just more proof we need to see changes towards the system. Dude was dragged through court for MONTHS. Wouldn't it be fun to put your life on hold, spend six figures in lawyer fees and deal with all that stress?
The proposed change is legally redundant. The Crown already has to disprove reasonableness, that's not changing. What Cobena's bill won't do is stop homeowners from being arrested and charged while under investigation. Only a US-style prosecution immunity provision would do that, and nobody's proposing that.
You're missing the point though. Discretionary decisions still happen before any court evaluates the self defence claim, thats the problem. The current act proposal is aimed at reinforcing that defensive force in certain circumstances should be presumed reasonable unless evidence shows otherwise, which could influence charging decisions earlier in the process; aka the cops won't charge you for defending your family BECAUSE it's more clear in the law so they won't just throw whatever sticks anymore.
You're being sold a solution to a problem that Harper already solved in 2013.
Except that the problem still exists. People still have their lives ruined because they defended themselves. The gap the act is trying to address isn't if self defence is legal or not, it's whether the law provides clear enough protection to prevent people who defend themselves from being treated like criminals first and victims second.
Clarity in the law is what changes this.
1
-3
u/admin_bait14 Mar 13 '26
Agreed, heard/seen too many innocent people in the US get smoked because of 'Stand your Ground / Castle Law' doctrine for arguing with the wrong person, knocking on the wrong door, or pulling into the wrong driveway... I love my fellow Canadians but bad laws don't fix bad situations.
-5
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
100% agree. The worst part about this is that its just another token CPC bill destined to fail so they can say they're on our side until another election comes.
Hell even stand your ground and castle laws have reasonable force factors. You cannot kill unarmed people just because they're on your property.
•
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
Usually, this would go into the politics thread, but I'm going to keep this on the main page as I kind of want to see how this discussion would evolve outside the Politics and Debates Thread.