Pierre Poilievre proposes changing the law to allow people to defend their home and families without all the present complicated requirements.

[Venandi]

47 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

the law is the law and to try and make this a political issue blaming the liberals is wrong.

This isn't about liberals and conservatives... it's about average people running afoul of laws they didn't know existed on the worst day of their lives. There are traps for the unwary that I would argue put the home owner at a distinct disadvantage simply because they haven't thought it all through.

 

47 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Whatever the weapon is does not matter..

Ohhhhh...It does matter, what you use, how you use it and the intent behind its use most definitely does.

 

47 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

My point is the PP is making this a political football and blaming the sitting government while in fact, it was his government that made the change to the law that also charges the homeowner.

Frankly, I don't care who does it or what their motivations are, it needs to be addressed. This particular event is nothing more than the catalyst for addressing an issue that needs addressing regardless of what the circumstances or outcome end up being.

Depending on what you say after the fact, and your intent in carrying it, that soup can will be deemed a defensive weapon that you had no legal right to carry for the purpose you carried it. Defensive canes are an interesting exception I think, your reason for carrying it is between you and you Doctor and your medical history is not something you are compelled to explain to a responding officer.

47 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

If it is not a partisan issue, then PP should not be making it one.

I don't know that he is... and if he is I don't even care. I would applaud JT if he had done the same thing. 

Edited September 1, 2025 by Venandi

[blackbird]

This report is just to show what home invasions can do.  They are not a minor thing.

"VAUGHAN, ONTARIO - A father of three was shot to death in his own home in Vaughan while trying to protect his family from armed intruders.

Early Sunday morning, police say, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, 46, was asleep in his Vaughan home with his wife and three children when armed robbers broke into his house and demanded valuables.

What happened next is under investigation by York Regional Police.

“He was shot while trying to protect his four-year-old daughter who had a gun pointed at her,” said one of his employees at his business.

“On Sunday, Aug. 31, 2025, shortly before 1 a.m., officers attended a residence in the area of Andreeta Dr. and Barons St. for a report of a home invasion,” said a news release from York Regional Police. “On arrival, a male was located inside the house suffering from trauma to his body. Despite lifesaving efforts, he was pronounced deceased at the scene.”

There is no confirmation yet how many shots were fired. "

 

[Venandi]

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This report is just to show what home invasions can do.  They are not a minor thing.

These are going to increase in frequency IMO because it makes good sense for bad guys to do it this way, meaning via targeted dynamic entries. 

CQB breaching, clearing and weapon retention techniques are actually on YOUTUBE. I would argue that they never should have been allowed to be.... but that's just me. 

Since this has clearly become a ridiculously partisan issue, I see no profit in pursuing the matter further. Cheers. 

Edited September 1, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

57 minutes ago, Venandi said:

This isn't about liberals and conservatives... it's about average people running afoul of laws they didn't know existed on the worst day of their lives. There are traps for the unwary that I would argue put the home owner at a distinct disadvantage simply because they haven't thought it all through.

 

Ohhhhh...It does matter, what you use, how you use it and the intent behind its use most definitely does.

 

Frankly, I don't care who does it or what their motivations are, it needs to be addressed. This particular event is nothing more than the catalyst for addressing an issue that needs addressing regardless of what the circumstances or outcome end up being.

Depending on what you say after the fact, and your intent in carrying it, that soup can will be deemed a defensive weapon that you had no legal right to carry for the purpose you carried it. Defensive canes are an interesting exception I think, your reason for carrying it is between you and you Doctor and your medical history is not something you are compelled to explain to a responding officer.

I don't know that he is... and if he is I don't even care. I would applaud JT if he had done the same thing. 

You are correct, there needs to be changes.

Yes he is but he also has to acknowledge it was his government that allowed this to happen and hos law has top be amended or removed..

https://globalnews.ca/video/11355918/poilievre-proposes-criminal-code-amendment-to-legalize-use-of-force-in-home-invasions

[CdnFox]

On 8/30/2025 at 2:38 PM, blackbird said:

At least you admit you believe the criminal is always innocent and the victim is the guilty party.  True to liberalism.

Ummm that's you kiddo. 

Especially if the criminal is an illegal immigrant.  You've spent WAY too many threads defending criminals to pretend otherwise now. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

This report is just to show what home invasions can do.  They are not a minor thing.

"VAUGHAN, ONTARIO - A father of three was shot to death in his own home in Vaughan while trying to protect his family from armed intruders.

Early Sunday morning, police say, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, 46, was asleep in his Vaughan home with his wife and three children when armed robbers broke into his house and demanded valuables.

What happened next is under investigation by York Regional Police.

“He was shot while trying to protect his four-year-old daughter who had a gun pointed at her,” said one of his employees at his business.

“On Sunday, Aug. 31, 2025, shortly before 1 a.m., officers attended a residence in the area of Andreeta Dr. and Barons St. for a report of a home invasion,” said a news release from York Regional Police. “On arrival, a male was located inside the house suffering from trauma to his body. Despite lifesaving efforts, he was pronounced deceased at the scene.”

There is no confirmation yet how many shots were fired. "

 

According the MH's wisdom, this event never happened, and that person was doing the right thing by choosing to be unprepared for that event.

That being said, the story about "the burglar was pointing a gun at his daughter so he was protecting her"... is false. 

I'm not even gonna pretend that there's a chance that it's in any way, shape or form an accurate depiction of events. 

[User]

10 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The court issue is easily dismissed if in fact it was self defence. 5 minutes in court and it is over or...it is deemed not being self defence.

That is not how court goes, nor the entire process. It is many months if not years of depositions, court hearings, motions, bail, and who knows how many thousands of dollars in legal fees. The last time I check in the US, cases like this will take a minimum of 50,000 USD and that isn't even if it gets more complicated and drags out, retrials, appeals, etc...

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

That is not how court goes, nor the entire process. It is many months if not years of depositions, court hearings, motions, bail, and who knows how many thousands of dollars in legal fees. The last time I check in the US, cases like this will take a minimum of 50,000 USD and that isn't even if it gets more complicated and drags out, retrials, appeals, etc...

 

And that's the goal, destroy them economically. 

You're american so you may not have heard of this one but one of the more famous cases in Canada (but by no means the only one)  was the Ian Thompson case, were 4 nutbar neighbours with long histories came to his house to burn it down with him in it. He opens his gun safe takes out a revolver (very important) and then goes out and fires 3 warning rounds (nobody hit) into the ground and they run off and he calls the cops and starts to put out the fire. 

All of this was on his home security cameras btw 

THey arrest him and claim unsafe storage of firearms (we have strict rules).   But the case was full of the most ridiculous nonsense in legal history 

They claimed it was PHYSICALY IMPOSSIBLE for him to get his gun out that fast.  They submitted videos of him reenacting it and easily getting his gun out that fast.  They still insisted it wasn't. 

They claimed he tried to cover up his crime because he must have picked up the brass after he fired the rounds, showing that he was trying to hide the rounds ejected by his gun. He pointed out his gun was a REVOLVER and doesn't eject rounds and the prosecutor said he was lying and that revolvers DO eject rounds as they're fired so he MUST Have picked them up. . I'm not even making this up. 

Canadian gun owners rallied around the guy and we all donated to his defense and in the end he won, but it cost an absolute fortune and they pulled every dirty trick to drag it out until the absolute very end. 

Ontario man acquitted of charges in home attack says case sets self defence precedent

 

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, User said:

That is not how court goes, nor the entire process. It is many months if not years of depositions, court hearings, motions, bail, and who knows how many thousands of dollars in legal fees. The last time I check in the US, cases like this will take a minimum of 50,000 USD and that isn't even if it gets more complicated and drags out, retrials, appeals, etc...

 

Oh...you are assuming the case of home invasion in Canada will have to go on trial in the US???  Who is going to appeal???

While in Canada, it may take a bit of time to get on the court docket, it can and most probably be dismissed in a few minutes.

Read the law...get informed.

Edited September 2, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Gaétan]

On 8/29/2025 at 11:39 AM, blackbird said:

"Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre is calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to clarify the reasonable use of force in the face of a high-level threat, such as a home intruder."

PP made an announcement yesterday calling on the Carney government to amend the criminal code to remove the long list of requirements placed on residents when defending themselves and their family.  Apparently the present law is complicated and very involved and one must be some kind of lawyer to understand it.  That must be changed to simplify it and make it understandable for everyone.  When a criminal breaks in to a person's home, the victim just doesn't have the time to go through all the complexities of the law to figure out what to do.  He simply has to act to do what he can to protect him and his family at that moment.  The law presently doesn't work that way.

Victims have been charged by police for defending themselves and their family from dangerous offenders armed with a gun or other weapons and have been put through an expensive legal system for many months.  Or they have been locked up in jail before finally being exonerated.  It is very expensive to have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself and your family just because you were trying to defend yourself when criminals invaded your house.  This has to be changed.  PP proposal will change the complicated laws that exist now to simplify it and make it more reasonable for someone to defend themselves and their family.

 

I don't realy know the law you are refering but everybody has the right to legetimate defence but you cannot use it has an excuse to do more harm than it is necessary.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

I don't realy know the law you are refering but everybody has the right to legetimate defence but you cannot use it has an excuse to do more harm than it is necessary.

You admit you don't know the law.  Well, apparently is is complicated and has been interpreted by police in a way that puts victims of home invasions in a vulnerable position of being charged and dragged through the legal system at great expensive, and possibly put in jail for a period of time, possibly loss of their job, and upheaval in their life.  They may eventually be cleared of wrong doing, but the law is apparently complicated and not reasonable.

[Gaétan]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You admit you don't know the law.  Well, apparently is is complicated and has been interpreted by police in a way that puts victims of home invasions in a vulnerable position of being charged and dragged through the legal system at great expensive, and possibly put in jail for a period of time, possibly loss of their job, and upheaval in their life.  They may eventually be cleared of wrong doing, but the law is apparently complicated and not reasonable.

Could you put the law you are refering so that every one could see if it is reasonable or not.

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

Could you put the law you are refering so that every one could see if it is reasonable or not.

It's not the law itself, but the interpretation of the said law.

[Gaétan]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You admit you don't know the law.  Well, apparently is is complicated and has been interpreted by police in a way that puts victims of home invasions in a vulnerable position of being charged and dragged through the legal system at great expensive, and possibly put in jail for a period of time, possibly loss of their job, and upheaval in their life.  They may eventually be cleared of wrong doing, but the law is apparently complicated and not reasonable.

Exemple: If an individual wants to take my wallet, I have the right to prevent them from doing so, but once you have recovered your wallet and they flee, you cannot chase them down and knock them out or kill them, just common sense.

[CouchPotato]

32 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

I don't realy know the law you are refering but everybody has the right to legetimate defence but you cannot use it has an excuse to do more harm than it is necessary.

See the post above by CdnFox....

 

[ExFlyer]

54 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You admit you don't know the law.  Well, apparently is is complicated and has been interpreted by police in a way that puts victims of home invasions in a vulnerable position of being charged and dragged through the legal system at great expensive, and possibly put in jail for a period of time, possibly loss of their job, and upheaval in their life.  They may eventually be cleared of wrong doing, but the law is apparently complicated and not reasonable.

 

44 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

Could you put the law you are refering so that every one could see if it is reasonable or not.

Here is the law...it does not put the "victim" in a vulnerable position. It was PP's government that put the law into place. It is him to try and amend his law. 

The self defence law portion of C-26 was proposed by a conservative, (Rob Nicholson) and was passed in the house by the conservatives. My argument and disagreement is primarily with a number of posters trying to make this a liberal law and should be stricken because it is liberal and, as I see it, not understanding what the law actually is.

https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-26/

Here is the actual law. It is very clear and no hysterics or political BS associated with it. 

"34.(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

• (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;   No change from old law."

 https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html

Case law

 https://www.dunnandassociates.ca/news/you-have-the-right-to-self-defence-within-limits/

Ontario law 

https://www.kruselaw.ca/video/home-invasion-self-defence-in-canada/

Edited September 2, 2025 by ExFlyer

[User]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh...you are assuming the case of home invasion in Canada will have to go on trial in the US???  Who is going to appeal???

No, I was not assuming that at all. It was pretty obvious I was just using that as an example of the costs involved, as I presume it is just as expensive in Canada. 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

While in Canada, it may take a bit of time to get on the court docket, it can and most probably be dismissed in a few minutes.

Read the law...get informed.

Except, as already evidenced here, it doesn't always happen like this at all. 

 

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, User said:

No, I was not assuming that at all. It was pretty obvious I was just using that as an example of the costs involved, as I presume it is just as expensive in Canada. 

Except, as already evidenced here, it doesn't always happen like this at all. 

 

You used an American court situation which you assumes was the same. It is not a valid example or comparison. Canadian courts are not even close to the American system.

My point was and is, if the issue went to court and it was clearly a defence of hearth and home, it would be thrown out.

My other point is that people are making incorrect assumptions and should become aware of the actual law and where it came from, and I have added links several times, .

 

[I am Groot]

On 8/29/2025 at 3:13 PM, herbie said:

This is why I don't like PP or his ill informed advisors.
You already are allowed to defend your home!
But you just can't use excessive force. You can hold a home intruder at bay with your shotgun, club him with it if he's aggressive but unless he's armed with a weapon and attacking you, you can't just blow a hole through him.

So you can only use your shotgun as a club until what time? What if he's bigger/stronger than you, or a better fighter? What if having a shotgun pointed at him doesn't deter him from jumping you?

Sam Harris once said that when it comes to police struggling with someone, every fight can be a fight to the death, because if the policeman loses the fight, the person he's fighting can take his gun and kill him. 

Under the present law, an assailant can walk towards you as you hold your shotgun on him, grab it, take it away from you, and use it on you, and you're not allowed to shoot him.

[I am Groot]

On 8/30/2025 at 6:38 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly right.

The political response is straight out of the playbook that appeals to people who believe that Hollywood crime scenes happen frequently, to the point that we need to have a conversation about it. 

This is a big country full of violent criminals. Such things do happen frequently. Except in most cases, people don't have any way of defending themselves. We only really hear about it on the few occasions when they do.

I'm also more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when attacked in their own homes by strangers who have no business being there.

On 8/30/2025 at 6:38 AM, Michael Hardner said:

We need to talk about boring things like the economy, unity and the environment. 

Except for the economic nationalism, none of that should raise anybody's blood. 

There's nothing to talk about. We must spend trillions on climate change despite it having no impact or we're not good and moral people. And all problems with the economy are because of Donald Trump. The media has spoken.

[User]

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You used an American court situation which you assumes was the same. It is not a valid example or comparison. Canadian courts are not even close to the American system.

I swear, you and so many others on this forum are so fundamentally dishonest. 

Here, is a Canadian resource since you want to be so damn obtuse:

• Criminal trial lawyer cost: $40,000 – $100,000+ for complex trials

https://www.fedorowiczlaw.com/ontario-criminal-lawyer-fees/

[I am Groot]

On 8/31/2025 at 10:29 AM, Venandi said:

I live 35 minutes away from the nearest detachment, the response time in my area isn't their fault. The manning levels are someone else's... guess who.

I have a friend who was recently an EX at the RCMP HQ. She said that there was a firm rule that came down from above several years back that no training platoon could be started until and unless it had a required percentage of identity group members. So if you don't have enough minority members and women, all the white men who have been approved for training don't get the phone calls. Since there's a lack of minority group members who want to be police and who can meet the standards and pass the tests, this has had a negative impact on RCMP numbers. BTW, same thing at Border Services and, I suspect, the military.

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You are correct, there needs to be changes.

Yes he is but he also has to acknowledge it was his government that allowed this to happen and hos law has top be amended or removed..

Maybe the law was adequate in the days we weren't jammed with foreigners from the more violent parts of the world due to the Liberals, the laws were slack with fast parole, especially for brown people (who happen to make up most of the violent criminals), the judiciary almost entirely made up of social justice warriors appointed by the Liberals, and almost instant bail due to... the Liberals.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds 

The term 'reasonable' is, of course, entirely open to interpretation. 

[ExFlyer]

43 minutes ago, User said:

I swear, you and so many others on this forum are so fundamentally dishonest. 

Here, is a Canadian resource since you want to be so damn obtuse:

• Criminal trial lawyer cost: $40,000 – $100,000+ for complex trials

https://www.fedorowiczlaw.com/ontario-criminal-lawyer-fees/

Obtuse?

 All I said was that in this type of case was that it would probably be thrown out of court in minutes.

If you did need a lawyer...which is improbable, from your link

• "Hourly rate for defence lawyers in Ontario: $150 – $800 per hour"                                   
• Or you could get legal aid.