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

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox 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   

HA HA HA.  Sure  LOL LOL LOL

Go for it...refute the laws I have linked. I made no claim...I only linked the actual legislation...refute that LOL LOL LOL

You certainly get stoopider and stoopider with every post you make

 

[Legato]

16 minutes 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

 

 

Yes that's correct, now which part is beyond your comprehension?

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

PP wants to change the law his party enacted. 

 

No he doesn't. 

My god it's like talking to a rock with you.  

What he's looking to change isn't the law that you're quoting.  What he's looking at changing is the definition of 'reasonable grounds'  AND reversing the onus and burden of proof, 

I'll go slowly for you, This has been explained but we'll try one more time 

The law is fine.  However judges interpretation of that law has varied. And people are Charged even tho they will win because the courts and twats like you want to punish people for daring to defend themselves 

So what the conservatives want to do is leave that law ,but put into place a definition of 'reasonable' that makes it clear that any action taken in defense of your home IS reasonable, and to require the police to PROVE it WASN'T reasonable instead of the person having to prove it was 

Do you get that? Did i go slow enough? He doesn't want to change that law. 

Now, did that sink in or do i have to do it in crayon for you?

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

HA HA HA.  Sure  LOL LOL LOL

Go for it...refute the laws I have linked. I made no claim...I only linked the actual legislation...refute that LOL LOL LOL

 

 

Already did above  

You're not pointing at what PP wants to change    And i just explained again why  

Your problem is you're able to look things up, but not smart enough to understand what you're reading  

 

[Skybolts]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

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

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

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.

 

Posted were asinine. How you feel about that is up to you. 

What else do I not know? Oh... didn't you know,  how I didn't know, I can't take it?

Not impressive is your lack of knowing what I don't know. 

Requiring insurance is for each person to decide in this case, and has nothing to do with the laws regarding self defense. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the Liberal gov't makes it mandatory to have self defense insurance, while being illegal to defend oneself. 

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

 

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

 

It does not.   There are many lawful excuses and in fact i posted an example of one. Sorry but you've literally just proven yourself wrong. I've shown there's lawful excuse, you've posted that the law allows it with a lawful excuse.  I appreciate you taking the time to prove i'm right but honestly it really wasn't necessary. I already knew it and so did everyone else 

Quote

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

It means It's probably too soon for you to look like an uneducated jackass just yet, maybe leave that for after you've established yourself so that people don't' dismiss you day one as a twat. 

I was trying to say that a lot nicer previously but seeing as you asked me to spell it out.....

Here's a hint,  when @eyeball and I, who constantly disagree about everything,  BOTH think you're a twat.... that's peak twat    Maybe dial it back and double check your work for a bit 

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

Though it wouldn't surprise me if the Liberal gov't makes it mandatory to have self defense insurance, while being illegal to defend oneself. 

Seriously? Does this fall somewhere between an asinine argument or a ridiculous statement?

[Skybolts]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It does not.   There are many lawful excuses and in fact i posted an example of one. Sorry but you've literally just proven yourself wrong. I've shown there's lawful excuse, you've posted that the law allows it with a lawful excuse.  I appreciate you taking the time to prove i'm right but honestly it really wasn't necessary. I already knew it and so did everyone else 

It means It's probably too soon for you to look like an uneducated jackass just yet, maybe leave that for after you've established yourself so that people don't' dismiss you day one as a twat. 

I was trying to say that a lot nicer previously but seeing as you asked me to spell it out.....

Here's a hint,  when @eyeball and I, who constantly disagree about everything,  BOTH think you're a twat.... that's peak twat    Maybe dial it back and double check your work for a bit 

You posted an example of a case where there was no evidence the owner pointed a firearm at a person.  You can only argue your lawful excuse in court. If you point a firearm at someone and there is proof of this you will be charged. Its pretty clear.

Do you agree your insults are childish? 

[Skybolts]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Seriously? Does this fall somewhere between an asinine argument or a ridiculous statement?

It sure does. Something the liberals would do. 

[ExFlyer]

54 minutes ago, Legato said:

Yes that's correct, now which part is beyond your comprehension?

It was all for your edification and education. I already knew. 

[Legato]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

It was all for your edification and education. I already knew. 

but did not comprehend

 

[taxme]

On 9/2/2025 at 12:21 PM, taxme said:

In Canada today, the victim has now become the criminal. Everything done in this gawd forsaken country is all done azz  backwards. It appears like right is now wrong and wrong is now right. Left is now right and right is now left. This is what lieberalism is all about. Mess with peoples heads. Keep them confused and fighting with each other. They are true masters at deception, lies and bullshit. Sadly, so many Canadians will at their bullshit up over and over and keep voting for them. As far as i am concerned, Canada is doomed and not worth the time of day any longer. Try and convince me that i am mistaken here, if you can? 

Well, i see that exflyer cannot convince me that i am wrong. So, what else is new with the lefty troll. 🤮

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No he doesn't. 

My god it's like talking to a rock with you.  

What he's looking to change isn't the law that you're quoting.  What he's looking at changing is the definition of 'reasonable grounds'  AND reversing the onus and burden of proof, 

I'll go slowly for you, This has been explained but we'll try one more time 

The law is fine.  However judges interpretation of that law has varied. And people are Charged even tho they will win because the courts and twats like you want to punish people for daring to defend themselves 

So what the conservatives want to do is leave that law ,but put into place a definition of 'reasonable' that makes it clear that any action taken in defense of your home IS reasonable, and to require the police to PROVE it WASN'T reasonable instead of the person having to prove it was 

Do you get that? Did i go slow enough? He doesn't want to change that law. 

Now, did that sink in or do i have to do it in crayon for you?

Already did above  

You're not pointing at what PP wants to change    And i just explained again why  

Your problem is you're able to look things up, but not smart enough to understand what you're reading  

 

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

but did not comprehend

 

I am sorry you cannot comprehend. 

When you grow up maybe higher education can help you.

[ExFlyer]

37 minutes ago, taxme said:

Well, i see that exflyer cannot convince me that i am wrong. So, what else is new with the lefty troll. 🤮

No need to convince you.... it is clearly evident you are mostly wrong to any thinking person LOL

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Skybolts said:

You posted an example of a case where there was no evidence the owner pointed a firearm at a person. 

You mean other than he shot him.  And he was crippled for life.  As i pointed out and is easily verified. 

Did you think he used one of those magic curving bullets where you point in ANOTHER direction and it hits the guy you aimed at?

Kid, if you insist making stupid dumb assed statements like that people are going to call you names. You are far too stupid for this conversation. 

Quote

You can only argue your lawful excuse in court. If you point a firearm at someone and there is proof of this you will be charged. Its pretty clear.

This guy pointed his gun, pulled the trigger, wounded the bad guy, said "i'm glad i did it and protected my family" and no charges.  And that's one of hundreds of cases. 

The only thing clear is that you're a twat who doesn't have the slightest clue what hes' talking about. 

[Skybolts]

Thank you for demonstrating your level of maturity.  You appear to be the loudest person in the room. We all know what that means.

The law is clear on this. Point a firearm at a person loaded or not, is an offence. Your exceptions to the rule do not change the rule. 

87 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

Marginal note:Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 87

1995, c. 39, s. 139

 

Now calm down. Crying whining because you don't like someones statements on the internet is foolish.   

Edited September 3, 2025 by Skybolts

[User]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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

Feel free to comment on this if you can:

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. 

 

[Gaétan]

13 hours ago, Skybolts said:

Nobody said anything about the "right to kill". 

Prime example of the typical Liberal mind; lacking logic, and reason.

Yes but with the Poilievre laws it will be done in practice. If the leader of the conservatives doesn't want his members of house talk in public it is because they are horors that come from hell.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Skybolts said:

It sure does. Something the liberals would do.

How, with legislation? Maybe something like ICBC or Healthcare with premiums to pay for it. Call it Lawcare.

You figure lobbyists from Big Law and Big Insurance are proposing to Liberals they do this? I wouldn't put it past them to listen I suppose.

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, User said:

Feel free to comment on this if you can:

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. 

 

Pierre Poilievre is trying to drag Canada down the same dangerous road as the U.S. — pushing a “stand on guard” Criminal Code amendment that experts warn would do nothing to protect homeowners but could make Canada less safe.

Here’s the reality:

Canada already has strong self-defence protections. Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, Canadians can defend themselves or others if they reasonably believe force is being used against them. Courts already weigh context and evidence carefully to protect homeowners acting in good faith.

Lawyers warn Poilievre’s plan is a slippery slope. Criminal defence experts say his amendment doesn’t simplify the law — it risks creating a presumption of “reasonableness” that would encourage excessive or reckless violence.

Marginalized communities will be hit hardest. Just like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground,” this kind of law disproportionately puts Indigenous, Black, and racialized people at greater risk of being shot, then blamed for their own deaths. Remember Colten Boushie — acquitted killers already slip through Canada’s courts. Imagine the signal Poilievre’s changes would send.

It’s U.S.-style politics, not Canadian solutions. The real problems facing Canadians are affordability, housing, healthcare, and climate security. Poilievre ignores them, preferring American culture war imports that divide us instead of making us safer.

📺  Without  reporting and legal analysis, Canadians would only hear Poilievre’s spin. Instead, we get the truth: his proposal offers “no real benefit” and could make Canada more dangerous 【https://r.pebmac.ca/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-criminal-code-proposed-amendment-lawyers-1.7621888】.

Poilievre wants to defund CBC because it fact-checks him and exposes when he copies failed Republican policies. If CBC is silenced, Canadians are left with Rebel News, Postmedia, and U.S. talking points dressed up as “common sense.”

[User]

Oh great... spam. 

[CdnFox]

17 hours ago, Skybolts said:

Thank you for demonstrating your level of maturity.  You appear to be the loudest person in the room. We all know what that means.   

Thank you for demonstrating that if you don't like the answer to a question you yourself asked you'll cry and pout. 

And i notice you haven't been able to offer a rebuttal to any of the points made,  

You appear to be the dumbest person in the room.  We all know what that means. 

 

Quote

The law is clear on this. Point a firearm at a person loaded or not, is an offence. Your exceptions to the rule do not change the rule. 

The lae does not say that ,

Quote

87 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

WITHOUT... LAWFUL.... EXCUSE.

That's the part you always ignore.  NO MATTER WHAT IT'S A CRIME!!!! LETS LOOK AT THE LAW.!!!!!!  (law says NOT a crime if you have a lawful excuse). 

LOLOL 

Kid, your own post shows you're wrong   There are several reasons you can point a gun at people. it CAN be an offense but no, if you're lawfully defending yourself or property it is NOT an offense,  I gave you examples from the real world and you still don't get it. 

Your being stupid isn't my fault. 

Quote

Now calm down. Crying whining because you don't like someones statements on the internet is foolish.

I see your mirror is talking to you    With that kind of projection  you should work for a movie theatre

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Pierre Poilievre is trying to drag Canada down the same dangerous road as the U.S. — pushing a “stand on guard” Criminal Code amendment that experts warn would do nothing to protect homeowners but could make Canada less safe.

Here’s the reality:

Canada already has strong self-defence protections. Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, Canadians can defend themselves or others if they reasonably believe force is being used against them. Courts already weigh context and evidence carefully to protect homeowners acting in good faith.

Lawyers warn Poilievre’s plan is a slippery slope. Criminal defence experts say his amendment doesn’t simplify the law — it risks creating a presumption of “reasonableness” that would encourage excessive or reckless violence.

Marginalized communities will be hit hardest. Just like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground,” this kind of law disproportionately puts Indigenous, Black, and racialized people at greater risk of being shot, then blamed for their own deaths. Remember Colten Boushie — acquitted killers already slip through Canada’s courts. Imagine the signal Poilievre’s changes would send.

It’s U.S.-style politics, not Canadian solutions. The real problems facing Canadians are affordability, housing, healthcare, and climate security. Poilievre ignores them, preferring American culture war imports that divide us instead of making us safer.

📺  Without  reporting and legal analysis, Canadians would only hear Poilievre’s spin. Instead, we get the truth: his proposal offers “no real benefit” and could make Canada more dangerous 【https://r.pebmac.ca/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-criminal-code-proposed-amendment-lawyers-1.7621888】.

Poilievre wants to defund CBC because it fact-checks him and exposes when he copies failed Republican policies. If CBC is silenced, Canadians are left with Rebel News, Postmedia, and U.S. talking points dressed up as “common sense.”

So you found someone on the internet you agree with that has no idea what they're talking about and we should listen because.....   why?

Honestly it's really no better than when you used to post actual ass porn. 

[Moonlight Graham]

Shooting home burglars on sight would do society a lot of favors.

[Venandi]

18 hours ago, User said:

We are debating about the process for how that law is being used against people and the costs to them defending themselves from it

He's doing that on purpose and nothing you say will change it. 

Speaking personally, the law as written isn't a big problem for me, if you have a passing familiarity with it you can navigate it in a reasonable manner.... and reasonableness is the gold standard in such things.

What people are deliberately failing to acknowledge is the aftermath (in terms of charges) for average folks who inadvertently fall into "traps for the unwary" on (what is perhaps) one of the worst encounters of their lives.

In fairness, that's to be expected because most people have never considered such things in a scenario driven manner before they're confronted with it for the first time. Put In a military context, simply reading the existing rules of engagement (ROEs) to your crew isn't as helpful as scenario driven discussions, pop quizzes, and rehearsals. 

The fact that anything you use as a weapon is subsequently considered a weapon bugs me a bit (that might just be me) but... depending on what you say after the fact it can cause you grief. The soup can and bear spray scenario I mentioned earlier are examples. Some may remember the plight of the "Spiceman" in Toronto years ago. He was a restaurant owner who used a handful of asian spices as a "weapon" against a trespasser. As I recall, he got the whole arrest without a warrant thing wrong because he didn't actually observe an indictable offence and thus wasn't protected by the use of reasonable force caveats contained in the law.

In any case, my  point is that deliberately carrying "asian spices" for defensive purposes is not the same as having them in your possession (for a legitimate reason) during the course of a confrontation. If we go back to the soup can thing, you are going to be asked why you were carrying it... "it's my lunch" will be viewed differently under the law than "I need something to defend myself from thugs on the bus." Elicitation techniques (in the right hands) are pretty compelling you may find yourself saying things that bite you. Even with my limited exposure to such techniques, I bet I could steer the "pleasant conversation" in either direction, you will likely be charged if you're carrying it for defensive purposes and used it to defend yourself. 

Here's another example:

In the bear spray shed robbery I used earlier, the police arrive and interview you and your wife separately. There was no firearm used in the encounter but they know you have them in the house. They ask your wife if there are guns in the house (they already know the answer) then they ask if she has an R/PAL (they know the answer to that too). When she says no, the cop responds with something to the effect of, "can you get the key for me I need to look inside?" She complies.

Two things just happened here... you have agreed to a voluntary search and you have violated the safe storage rules by virtue of her knowing where the key is (she doesn't have an R/PAL).  In the safe they find a .22 semiautomatic rifle you've had since childhood, 3 days ago it got added to the list of prohibited weapons.... your next offence is not having it double locked, with a trigger lock even though it was in a locked safe to start with. There's two serious charges here and we're just getting started and the guns had nothing what so ever to do with the event.

Now, how many gun owners track this stuff? How many wives know where the key is or what the combonation is. She might even use the little shelf in it occasionally to store cash from work.

LOL, after that (and for the next year) she'll have a lot more room for those night deposits though. 

The video I posted has a proposed solution I now think has some merit. He proposes that in cases of homeowner self defence, where charges are laid by the Crown, that an evidentiary hearing in front of a judge is required post haste to validate the Crown's contention that there is a reasonable expectation of a conviction. He also suggests that the threshold for prosecution be significantly higher than that which now exists... essentially that the level of violence used by the homeowner in defending himself needs to be egregious and wildly out of proportion to what a reasonable person would do.

Since we're considering deliberate, dynamic breaches by multiple assailants for the purpose of robbing the home owners, assuming that the bad guys are armed and intend you harm is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. The brother-in-law and lawnmower scenario is hardly worth responding to IMO... you either get this at a reasonable level or you don't.

All IMO of course.....

    

Edited September 4, 2025 by Venandi

[Moonlight Graham]

Snake oil PP finds headlines that irk people and then proposes a law about it to try to show he'd do something about it. He doesn't give 2 hoots if the law makes sense or not, it's all just for theater.  Canadians aren't this stupid to fall for this huckster nonsense

[Venandi]

14 minutes ago, Venandi said:

He's doing that on purpose and nothing you say will change it. 

And he isn't the only one...

See what I mean?

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Snake oil PP finds headlines that irk people and then proposes a law about it to try to show he'd do something about it. He doesn't give 2 hoots if the law makes sense or not, it's all just for theater.  Canadians aren't this stupid to fall for this huckster nonsense