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

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You do what you have to do and let the court settle the issue. It just is what it is.

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.  

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

Do you have any examples of this actually happening?  It all sounds like more what-if fear mongering. $10 says in the vast majority of a very small number of cases that charges are dropped long before it gets to court.

If insurance companies were paying attention they could probably make a fortune selling policies that cover legal fees in the event you're ever charged with defending yourself.

Edited August 31, 2025 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

This is nothing more than Poilievre trying to stay relevant...  A smart person would have waited until the facts were known, but it gives you something to hang on...

Poilievre's idea to amend Criminal Code wouldn't help Canadians acting in self-defence, law experts say

Changes could put public in more danger: lawyer

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-criminal-code-proposed-amendment-lawyers-1.7621888

Stop citing CTV as a source ffs, mor0n.

Of course they're gonna smear PP however they can, or find "experts" who will do it for them. 

 

You sound a lot like crackhobarbie. Did you just change your username?

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

Welcome back Flybaby... got a meme for me?

Awww, feeling left out??? LOL

[WestCanMan]

CBC's smear piece on Poilievre: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-criminal-code-proposed-amendment-lawyers-1.7621888

Quote

Criminal defence lawyer Kim Schofield said Poilievre's proposed amendment "doesn't clarify or make things simpler" and could put the public in more danger. 

"The presumption of reasonableness is a very dangerous and slippery slope," Schofield said. "What happens if someone makes a mistake and if the home invader is not truly an invader?"

Uhhh, thanks, Stupid Kimmie. Do you really think that the current laws will protect a homeowner who kills someone just for accidentally walking into the wrong house? 😆

"I thought that the bag of groceries was a bag of explosives, and the old lady was a terrorists, so when she yelled "AAAAAAAHHHHHH!" I thought it was the beginning of her saying "AAAAAHHHLAKABOOM!" and I chopped her in half. Can I go get some breakfast now? Are we done here?"

 

You're not even gonna believe this, but this was that stupid tw4t's very next sentence:

• Schofield says just because someone comes to your door, you "don't have the right to commit a violent act inherently, and we have to act reasonably, and that's, I think, what the Criminal Code allows."

The stupid little left4rd just used the word "reasonably" in her own description, after just deriding PP for using the word reasonable in his 😂😂😂

And wtf does she mean by "I think" that's what the current criminal code allows? Doesn't she "know"? She's a f'ing lawyer, and she just tried to make the case that Poilievre's proposal "doesn't clarify or make things simpler"... If she doesn't know then obviously PP was right, and they do need to simplify the wording.

 

And if the laws are so easy to understand, then why did CBC feel like they had to bring a lawyer out to explain it in the first place? They don't have to bring out a lawyer to explain that murder and theft are illegal. Hmmmmmmmm.

 

Last thing: the part of the law that people are worried about is the prosecution trying to make the case "Where did you get that weapon from? How were you able to have it ready so quickly?", as if having a weapon ready in one's home somehow criminalizes the owner. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Welcome back Flybaby... got a meme for me?

He has down-arrow syndrome, so he usually just sticks to what he knows. The memes never really work out in his favour. 

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He has down-arrow syndrome, so he usually just sticks to what he knows. The memes never really work out in his favour. 

Sucks to be you EH??? LOL

When the discussions or retorts are BS, then I will down vote and post memes. It keeps me bust as there is so much BS LOL

Oh and, they always work out in my favour when posted to a few of you. LOL

Sure get under your and a few others skin and that only proves my point  Stop retorting or using my name and then  I will not have anything to down vote or post memes about LOL

Edited August 31, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Rather dramatic don't you think....

No, it isn't.

The fact you think it is reaffirms why we should have a look at the current laws and any Crown tendencies toward overly harsh prosecutorial actions after the fact. A situation like this might just qualify as the worst experience of someone's life and I think we need to cut them a bit of slack. Ya... your milage may vary but the point is most  people aren't as smart as you.

As to the drama, there will be at least 3 cars there and the place will be lit up like Christmas. If you are a normal human being you will be shaky and almost certainly ill prepared for in-depth questioning by people who appear to be on your side but aren't necessarily. They will try to get information from you through elicitation (check that out).... it's a deliberate technique and you should watch for it. In any case, you do you... but I'd suggest that spilling your guts at the scene is likely to make your situation much worse than if you had waited and consulted a lawyer before giving a statement. 

You should expect to be charged because you (vey likely) will be as a matter of course, that's what this discussion is about and it's gone completely off the rails in an unhinged manner.

In all cases your actions need to reasonable and measured... what would a reasonable person have done if they were in your situation? If you're older and infirm in any way that becomes a mitigating factor in the use of force. 

If a person comes at you with their fists you can hit him with the bat, you don't need to box with him... you can't hit him 75 times with it though because that's unreasonable.

If a person armed with a crossbow appears about to use it you can use lethal force...you can't shoot him 10 times and appear reasonable though.... and you can't stab him 75 times after he stops moving either.

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Is that because you know me so well, or is it just your own sense of self awareness?

Your sarcasm ends our conversation at this point, I'm not going to spar with you. I'm simply assuming you are a normal person facing a life threatening confrontation (perhaps) for  the first time... but heh, maybe you're a ringer. The point is most people aren't: surprise, pain and violence of action tends to rattle them and they don't make the best decisions under that sort of pressure. I think they deserve to be cut some slack on the worst day of their lives... by hey, I'm a MAGAT, right Flybaby?

 

 

Edited August 31, 2025 by Venandi

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

keeps me bust

Well, it's important to keep bust...

[ExFlyer]

34 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Well, it's important to keep bust...

Yeah sorry..."keeps me busy" ...responding to fools like you for posts like this one of yours. LOL

Edited August 31, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Venandi]

42 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

"keeps me busy" ...responding to fools like you for posts like this one of yours. LOL

Sounds like thirsty work alright, certainly not for the faint of heart.  

Take the breath of courage and soldier on... you're winning.

Edited August 31, 2025 by Venandi

[User]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's not WJWD.

I don’t speak gibberish. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Sounds like thirsty work alright, certainly not for the faint of heart.  

Take the breath of courage and soldier on... you're winning.

Thirsty?

Faint of heart?

Breath of courage?

Yeah, OK, I am winning....thanks LOL

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, User said:

I don’t speak gibberish. 

That's right, you speak hsirebbig.

[User]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

You do what you have to do and let the court settle the issue. It just is what it is.

Except, the whole discussion here is to change "It just is what it is" to protect people who are engaged in self-defense from letting the courts settle it, because that is a very expensive and time-consuming thing for the person being charged/accused.

 

 

[Venandi]

Off topic a bit but I believe we'll see more in the way of home invasions in future: 

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/homicide-investigation-underway-after-one-person-found-dead-in-vaughan?itm_source=news

These are targeted attacks, nothing random about it, they are scoped out in advance and they want you to be home.  IMO this approach is generally safer and more effective for the bad guys, they pick the time / place and you will be the one to show them where the money, jewelry etc is. After that they'll be on their way again in quick time.

It appears to me that they now work in organized (and practiced) teams employing dynamic breaching techniques and copy the CQB principles of surprise, violence of action, and use of overwhelming force.

Maybe just me, but I would expect to see foreign national teams of these folks rotated in and out of the country. That's what I'd be doing... we have created the perfect storm here to make that approach attractive to the bad guys. 

I'm not going to get into the weeds on home defence here but there certainly are things that you can do within the law and IAW current regulations if you chose. The other option (again IMO) is total cooperation. It's no time for a uniquely Canadian display of passive aggressiveness. You are either all in or you aren't... either is fine by hybrid stuff is likely to get you hurt.   

This could be an entire thread and then some. Now... get "busty" there Flybaby and down-vote this sucker.

 

Edited September 1, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, User said:

Except, the whole discussion here is to change "It just is what it is" to protect people who are engaged in self-defense from letting the courts settle it, because that is a very expensive and time-consuming thing for the person being charged/accused.

 

 

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.

Self defence can also be falsified and the court action is to prove or disprove it. The case of Oscar Pistorius is but one example but I m sure there many more.. 

 

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, Venandi said:

Off topic a bit but I believe we'll see more in the way of home invasions in future: 

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/homicide-investigation-underway-after-one-person-found-dead-in-vaughan?itm_source=news

These are targeted attacks, nothing random about it, they are scoped out in advance and they want you to be home.  IMO this approach is generally safer and more effective for the bad guys, they pick the time / place and you will be the one to show them where the money, jewelry etc is. After that they'll be on their way again in quick time.

It appears to me that they now work in organized (and practiced) teams employing dynamic breaching techniques and copy the CQB principles of surprise, violence of action, and use of overwhelming force.

Maybe just me, but I would expect to see foreign national teams of these folks rotated in and out of the country. That's what I'd be doing... we have created the perfect storm here to make that approach attractive to the bad guys. 

I'm not going to get into the weeds on home defence here but there certainly are things that you can do within the law and IAW current regulations if you chose. The other option (again IMO) is total cooperation. It's no time for a uniquely Canadian display of passive aggressiveness. You are either all in or you aren't... either is fine by hybrid stuff is likely to get you hurt.   

This could be an entire thread and then some. Now... get "busty" there Flybaby and down-vote this sucker.

 

•  

Posted just now

12 hours ago, User said:

Except, the whole discussion here is to change "It just is what it is" to protect people who are engaged in self-defense from letting the courts settle it, because that is a very expensive and time-consuming thing for the person being charged/accused.

 

 

Expand  

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.

Self defence can also be falsified and the court action is to prove or disprove it. The case of Oscar Pistorius is but one example but I m sure there many more.. 

 

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/

[Nefarious Banana]

Have listened to a group of folks from southern Idaho and Nevada discuss general well~being where they live. Most all of them 'packed' and said that home invasions/car jackings were non~existant.

[LinkSoul60]

20 hours ago, Venandi said:

Your sarcasm ends our conversation at this point, I'm not going to spar with you. I'm simply assuming you are a normal person facing a life threatening confrontation (perhaps) for  the first time... but heh, maybe you're a ringer.

No sarcasm intended right...   I made my point and stated the same throughout but 'I don't it and am ill prepared'....okay.  I'm good with ending the conversation and waiting until the facts come out. 

[ExFlyer]

17 hours ago, User said:

I don’t speak gibberish. 

Yes you do LOL

[Venandi]

1 hour 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.

From what I've heard, most of these don't actually go to court, they're fairly cut and dried and the charges are dropped prior to the court date; that speaks to systemic integrity and IMO it needs to change.

The point here... the one that keeps getting missed (and deliberately so IMO) is that the Crown knew there was no reasonable expectation of a conviction from the get go, they simply make you jump through the hoops at great expense as a deterrent to others. It will take a year to sort it out, you'll be dragged through the mud and all of your guns will be confiscated regardless of whether they were part of the scenario or not. 

The cost (and stress) of all this to an individual who may already be traumatized by the event speaks to prosecutorial integrity. That integrity, and/or the lack of it  is what the issue under discussion is about. 

Deciding to defend yourself in court is almost as bad as spilling your guts to the police on fight night... but you do you, I'm rooting for ya.

 

Edited September 1, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

26 minutes ago, Venandi said:

From what I've heard, most of these don't actually go to court, they're fairly cut and dried and the charges are dropped prior to the court date; that speaks to systemic integrity and IMO it needs to change.

The point here... the one that keeps getting missed (and deliberately so IMO) is that the Crown knew there was no reasonable expectation of a conviction from the get go, they simply make you jump through the hoops at great expense as a deterrent to others. It will take a year to sort it out, you'll be dragged through the mud and all of your guns will be confiscated regardless of whether they were part of the scenario or not. 

The cost (and stress) of all this to an individual who may already be traumatized by the event speaks to prosecutorial integrity. That integrity, and/or the lack of it  is what the issue under discussion is about. 

Deciding to defend yourself in court is almost as bad as spilling your guts to the police on fight night... but you do you, I'm rooting for ya.

 

I generally agree with your take on this.

As I said though, there are exceptions and that is why the law is the way it is. 

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/

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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.

Again, that's not actually the issue here. With a bit of research and common sense most people can navigate it. There are two issues here that bug me (actually there are a bunch of them but I'll only mention two)

1. The prosecution aspect - we've discussed it a bit here but haven't gotten into the weeds with it. Suffice it to say it can really ruin your day financially, personally and professionally.

2. The fact that virtually anything is deemed a weapon once it is used as a weapon. That means the can of soup you carried to work on the bus and the bear spray you walked out of the house with at 2am. Intent is a thing here... you have to be careful what you say.

Here's what I mean (and I'm not suggesting that anyone lie about it either):

You go outside at 2 am with bear spray and find someone stealing equipment out of your shed. He rushes the only exit which is now directly in front of you, you hose him down, make an arrest without warrant since you witnessed an indictable offence, the police arrive and cart the bad boy away.

Now here's a possible question in the form of an elicitation:

"Good job on that arrest sir, looks like it went smoother than most of mine do, good thing you took that bear spray out with you eh?"

----You're in a state of shock here and forgot to note the wind direction before unloading the spray, if you haven't done that it's not fun and it's definitely not the best time for this discussion but you think you're just having a friendly chat with a nice officer... but you actually aren't.----

YOU SAY: Thanks, ya... when I saw him there I brought it along just in case. Good thing eh?

I SAY: "We have a bear and racoon problem here (we do by the way) and when I heard the noise that's what I thought it was." Note though, I wouldn't actually say that until the following morning after talking to a lawyer.

In this case you are authorized to make an arrest and use what ever force is reasonable to effect it... but are you authorized to carry pepper spray in the course of making a deliberate arrest of someone you saw before you left the house?

This is all infinitely variable and I'm not going to write a book here, it could actually be a 100 page thread and we've only scratched the surface of it. 

It really isn't a partisan issue at all, real people get caught up in this stuff and are hurt by it even if the pain is financial. Bad guys don't invade houses based on the political persuasion of the occupants, this can happen to anyone. 

 

Edited September 1, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

26 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Again, that's not actually the issue here. With a bit of research and common sense most people can navigate it. There are two issues here that bug me (actually there are a bunch of them but I'll only mention two)

1. The prosecution aspect - we've discussed it a bit here but haven't gotten into the weeds with it. Suffice it to say it can really ruin your day financially, personally and professionally.

2. The fact that virtually anything is deemed a weapon once it is used as a weapon. That means the can of soup you carried to work on the bus and the bear spray you walked out of the house with at 2am. Intent is a thing here... you have to be careful what you say.

Here's what I mean (and I'm not suggesting that anyone lie about it either):

You go outside at 2 am with bear spray and find someone stealing equipment out of your shed. He rushes the only exit which is now directly in front of you, you hose him down, make an arrest without warrant since you witnessed an indictable offence, the police arrive and cart the bad boy away.

Now here's a possible question in the form of an elicitation:

"Good job on that arrest sir, looks like it went smoother than most of mine do, good thing you took that bear spray out with you eh?"

----You're in a state of shock here and forgot to note the wind direction before unloading the spray, if you haven't done that it's not fun and it's definitely not the best time for this discussion but you think you're just having a friendly chat with a nice officer... but you actually aren't.----

YOU SAY: Thanks, ya... when I saw him there I brought it along just in case. Good thing eh?

I SAY: "We have a bear and racoon problem here (we do by the way) and when I heard the noise that's what I thought it was." Note though, I wouldn't actually say that until the following morning after talking to a lawyer.

In this case you are authorized to make an arrest and use what ever force is reasonable to effect it... but are you authorized to carry pepper spray in the course of making a deliberate arrest of someone you saw before you left the house?

This is all infinitely variable and I'm not going to write a book here, it could actually be a 100 page thread and we've only scratched the surface of it. 

It really isn't a partisan issue at all, real people get caught up in this stuff and are hurt by it even if the pain is financial. Bad guys don't invade houses based on the political persuasion of the occupants, this can happen to anyone. 

 

I disagree. The issue here and 4 pages of posts are because the homeowner is charged.

Under the present laws that the Harper government enacted.  https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-26/

 

While we agree that the homeowner should have all the rights to protect his home and family, the law is the law and to try and make this a political issue blaming the liberals is wrong.

https://www.strategiccriminaldefence.com/faq/self-defence-laws-canada/

1. Yes, it can be financially hard but, as you said earlier, it will probably be thrown out within 5 minutes.

2. Whatever the weapon is does not matter...a home invasion and threatening you is against the law.

The rest is rhetoric.

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