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

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s proposal to amend the Criminal Code to strengthen legal protections for Canadians defending their homes has sparked debate among criminal law experts. The proposed amendment, which suggests that the use of force against a person who illegally enters a home and poses a threat should be presumed reasonable, has been met with skepticism.

This comes in light of a recent incident in Lindsay, Ont., where a 44-year-old man was charged for allegedly attacking a home intruder. Poilievre seized on this moment to push for changes to the Criminal Code, but experts argue that Canadian law already provides sufficient protection for homeowners in cases of self-defence.

According to Noah Weisbord, a law professor at McGill University, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show that the force used against an intruder was disproportionate. Section 34 of the Criminal Code outlines the framework for self-defence, stating that individuals are not guilty of an offence if they believe force is being used against them or another person and their actions are reasonable in the circumstances.

Criminal defence lawyer Kim Schofield warns that Poilievre’s proposed amendment could actually put the public in more danger. She emphasizes that the current Criminal Code allows for self-defence but also requires that any use of force be reasonable. Courts consider various factors when determining the reasonableness of an act of defence, and guidelines are in place to assist judges in making this decision.

Weisbord raises concerns about adopting laws similar to Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute, which has been linked to an increase in homicides. He worries that implementing such a law in Canada could disproportionately affect marginalized communities, referencing the case of Gerald Stanley in Saskatchewan. Stanley was acquitted in the fatal shooting of Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man, after he and others entered Stanley’s farm.

In conclusion, while Poilievre’s proposal may seem like a step towards enhancing protections for homeowners, experts caution that it could have unintended consequences. As the debate continues, it is crucial to consider the implications of any changes to the Criminal Code on public safety and the rights of all individuals involved.