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

[ExFlyer]

On 8/31/2025 at 1:29 PM, blackbird said:

You're correct about that.  The victim could be charged and put through a lengthy legal system and required to pay for a lawyer costing thousands of dollars and a lot of stress, including possible job loss.  All just because he tried to defend himself from an illegal intruder in his home.  That's not justice at all.

It is all because of the Liberal ideology that gives criminals the same rights as everyone else even though they don't warrant having them.  The victim ends up being the loser.  It is the same scenario as the catch and release laws that allow judges to release repeat and dangerous offenders repeatedly.  

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/

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And mainly because, like PP was saying, our laws don't make sense to the common people, and in some instances the laws and their application are downright stupid.

Yet it was PP and his gang that made that exact law...   LOL

 

[User]

44 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

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

Why do you keep spamming this as if it proves something?

It doesn't nor does it address the actual arguments being made. 

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Why do you keep spamming this as if it proves something?

It doesn't nor does it address the actual arguments being made. 

It does prove something.

It proves what the law is and not the nonsensical debate going on.

Knowing what you are debating or talking about supposedly makes you smarter.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Skybolts said:

Pointing a firearm intentionally at a person is a criminal offence in Canada. You will be charged. Matters not the situation. Exceptions are made for law enforcement of course, as they are above the law.

Absolutely a lie.  That is 100 percent factually wrong.  In fact there are many cases where the person was found not guilty of a crime after shooting people 

Here's an old one that's always been one of my faves but there's tonnes of them.  This one is plain as day tho, wasn't even a home invasion and NO CHARGES. 

Jewelry storeowner investigated in shooting of thief | CBC News

You can find the later articles.  Bad guy was paralyzed from his wound but lived.  Store owner had guns legally stored, no charges. 

The criminal code and legal precedent absolutely allows you to point a gun at someone if they're a threat and castle doctorine is already recognized and specifically mentioned in court cases as a defense. 

Where most people run into trouble is not stopping when the attack stops.  Intruder attacks, you shoot him once, no problem.  Intruder goes to the ground and you give him a 'finishing shot', murder.   Or the intruder runs away and you fire, murder. 

You've been here 5 minutes. Moving forward it's best if you learn what you're talking about before speaking, or you'll get eaten alive.

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yet it was PP and his gang that made that exact law...   LOL

 

The law is fine, it's how the courts play with the law that's the problem. 

But actually it wasn't PP or the conservatives who made the law YOU quoted.  See the part where it says "no change'?

They changed laws requiring retreat in some areas, and also changed what had to be considered when looking at force.

In the past if a man was going to hit another man that wasn't really considered a threat of grevious bodily harm or death.  Now, if the attacker is a 300 lb boxer and the attackee is a 140 lb internet nerd who lives in his mommy's basement named exflyer, then the difference has to be taken into account and it IS considered a threat. 

They also changed the law about holding a criminal for the police if they find him AFTER a crime. 

 

But at least you actually did look up the law instead of just being 100 percent wrong this time   So I won't laugh at you TOO hard  

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

It does prove something.

All your spamming proves is you're a mentally ill teen with a severe mommy complex and fatherly abandonment issues 

[User]

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

It does prove something.

It proves what the law is and not the nonsensical debate going on.

Knowing what you are debating or talking about supposedly makes you smarter.

We are not debating about what the law is. 

We are debating about the process for how that law is being used against people and the costs to them defending themselves from it when by all accounts they were engaged in self defense that should be considered just that. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, User said:

We are not debating about what the law is. 

We are debating about the process for how that law is being used against people and the costs to them defending themselves from it when by all accounts they were engaged in self defense that should be considered just that. 

 

He's never going to get that. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The law is fine, it's how the courts play with the law that's the problem. 

But actually it wasn't PP or the conservatives who made the law YOU quoted.  See the part where it says "no change'?

They changed laws requiring retreat in some areas, and also changed what had to be considered when looking at force.

In the past if a man was going to hit another man that wasn't really considered a threat of grevious bodily harm or death.  Now, if the attacker is a 300 lb boxer and the attackee is a 140 lb internet nerd who lives in his mommy's basement named exflyer, then the difference has to be taken into account and it IS considered a threat. 

They also changed the law about holding a criminal for the police if they find him AFTER a crime. 

 

But at least you actually did look up the law instead of just being 100 percent wrong this time   So I won't laugh at you TOO hard  

All your spamming proves is you're a mentally ill teen with a severe mommy complex and fatherly abandonment issues 

It was all about you but now. shady and user pop in so...this is for them too LOL

 

Edited September 3, 2025 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, User said:

We are not debating about what the law is. 

We are debating about the process for how that law is being used against people and the costs to them defending themselves from it when by all accounts they were engaged in self defense that should be considered just that. 

 

Yes  you ar. 

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

I presented the actual Law and also identified it was PP and his party that enacted the law.

For PP to try and squirm out by trying to make liberals the party that made this stupid law...is what the issue here is but, none of the PP suckers are willing to admit it is PP that s responsible for the law and how it is being enforced.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Skybolts said:

What a great example of how to make completely asinine arguments.

Says the arsehole who apparently doesn't know legal defense insurance exists or provided anything to corroborate what blackbird said, that people are being financially burdened as they're dragged through court after being charged with criminally defending themselves.

Do you any examples of this happening? I mean, this is something that happens every day isn't it or is it just on an occasional blue moon? 

[User]

43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes  you ar. 

No, we are not. Again, since you want to ignore the topic:

We are debating about the process for how that law is being used against people and the costs to them defending themselves from it when by all accounts they were engaged in self defense that should be considered just that. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes  you ar. 

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

I presented the actual Law and also identified it was PP and his party that enacted the law.

For PP to try and squirm out by trying to make liberals the party that made this stupid law...is what the issue here is but, none of the PP suckers are willing to admit it is PP that s responsible for the law and how it is being enforced.

What about the word "interpretation" makes you act like a clueless nannie.

[Skybolts]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Says the arsehole who apparently doesn't know legal defense insurance exists or provided anything to corroborate what blackbird said, that people are being financially burdened as they're dragged through court after being charged with criminally defending themselves.

Do you any examples of this happening? I mean, this is something that happens every day isn't it or is it just on an occasional blue moon? 

Direct to the o'l personal attack. Interesting how you know claim to know things about what I know. And yes this 'areshole'  can detect asinine arguments amongst other ridiculous statements.

[Skybolts]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely a lie.  That is 100 percent factually wrong.  In fact there are many cases where the person was found not guilty of a crime after shooting people 

Here's an old one that's always been one of my faves but there's tonnes of them.  This one is plain as day tho, wasn't even a home invasion and NO CHARGES. 

Jewelry storeowner investigated in shooting of thief | CBC News

You can find the later articles.  Bad guy was paralyzed from his wound but lived.  Store owner had guns legally stored, no charges. 

The criminal code and legal precedent absolutely allows you to point a gun at someone if they're a threat and castle doctorine is already recognized and specifically mentioned in court cases as a defense. 

Where most people run into trouble is not stopping when the attack stops.  Intruder attacks, you shoot him once, no problem.  Intruder goes to the ground and you give him a 'finishing shot', murder.   Or the intruder runs away and you fire, murder. 

You've been here 5 minutes. Moving forward it's best if you learn what you're talking about before speaking, or you'll get eaten alive.

 

Section 87 of the Canadian Criminal Code says otherwise. "without lawful excuse", In Canada there is not one. 

And what does my user name having "been here 5 minutes" have anything to do with this? 

Edited September 3, 2025 by Skybolts

[ExFlyer]

46 minutes ago, User said:

No, we are not. Again, since you want to ignore the topic:

We are debating about the process for how that law is being used against people and the costs to them defending themselves from it when by all accounts they were engaged in self defense that should be considered just that. 

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

Fact is he wants to change a law his party instigated because they f'kd up LOL

Just because you guys have, as usual, gone so far off topic. It ain't my fault but your inability to stay on topic...as usual

Edited September 3, 2025 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am not surprised such a stoopid statement comes from you.

 

Wow that mirror was the best investment you ever made. You get so much use out of it   

[ExFlyer]

30 minutes ago, Legato said:

What about the word "interpretation" makes you act like a clueless nannie.

interpretation

1: the act or the result of interpreting : explanation

 

2: a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style

 

3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information

 

Legal interpretation is the rational process of giving meaning to legal texts, such as statutes, constitutions, contracts, and wills. It involves analyzing the context and language of the text to determine its intended normative message and apply it to specific situations. This process can be guided by various theories, such as originalism or focusing on the plain meaning, and employs established rules and principles to avoid absurd or unjust results.

 

None of which anyone on this forum has the ability to do. So, all that is said here off the topic is rectal plucks.

So, everything you think you know about legal interpretation makes you look like a clueless nannie

 

 

Edited September 3, 2025 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes  you ar. 

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

I presented the actual Law and also identified it was PP and his party that enacted the law.

For PP to try and squirm out by trying to make liberals the party that made this stupid law...is what the issue here is but, none of the PP suckers are willing to admit it is PP that s responsible for the law and how it is being enforced.

But it wasn't.  

Sorry, but that law predated them

 ALl you provided was proof that you're stupid'  

And again, the current law allows the gov't to prosecute people who are innocent, basically assuming the're guilty until proven otherwise 

What pp is talking about is changing the law to reverse that onus, that the homeowner is presumed to have acted reasonably unless someone can prove he didn't. 

This isn't complex for god's sake. 

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Wow that mirror was the best investment you ever made. You get so much use out of it   

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

Direct to the o'l personal attack.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

8 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

Interesting how you know claim to know things about what I know. 

I was commenting on what you didn't seem to know.

16 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

And yes this 'areshole'  can detect asinine arguments amongst other ridiculous statements.

What's so asinine about getting legal insurance if you're convinced the world is filled with dangerous criminals and you stand to be ruined financially should you have to defend yourself from them?

Is this an issue or not? You appear to be weighing in on the side of the argument that says it is.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

interpretation

1: the act or the result of interpreting : explanation

 

2: a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style

 

3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information

 

Legal interpretation is the rational process of giving meaning to legal texts, such as statutes, constitutions, contracts, and wills. It involves analyzing the context and language of the text to determine its intended normative message and apply it to specific situations. This process can be guided by various theories, such as originalism or focusing on the plain meaning, and employs established rules and principles to avoid absurd or unjust results.

 

None of which anyone on this forum has the ability to do. So, all that is said here off the topic is rectal plucks.

So, everything you think you know about legal interpretation makes you look like a clueless nannie

 

Wrong again little guy  

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/constitutional_forum/index.php/constitutional_forum/article/download/11060/8501/29005

Why Canada has the most activist Supreme Court in the world | National Post

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/29429/1882524621/1882524571

Sorry but your definition is not applicable to canada any more, 

Swing and a miss, 

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But it wasn't.  

Sorry, but that law predated them

 ALl you provided was proof that you're stupid'  

And again, the current law allows the gov't to prosecute people who are innocent, basically assuming the're guilty until proven otherwise 

What pp is talking about is changing the law to reverse that onus, that the homeowner is presumed to have acted reasonably unless someone can prove he didn't. 

This isn't complex for god's sake. 

Oh yes it was

Oh no it did not

PP wants to change the law his party enacted. 

The self defence law portion of C-26 was even proposed by a conservative, (Rob Nicholson) and was passed in the house even 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/

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

And yet i know more than you   
 

And while i can refute your claims with facts, you can't refute any of mine and have to resort to a meme to hide behind out of fear   

[ExFlyer]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Wrong again little guy  

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/constitutional_forum/index.php/constitutional_forum/article/download/11060/8501/29005

Why Canada has the most activist Supreme Court in the world | National Post

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/29429/1882524621/1882524571

Sorry but your definition is not applicable to canada any more, 

Swing and a miss, 

The swing and a miss is all yours LOL

Your links have nothing to do with or change nothing to the laws enacted by PP and his party in September 2013.