THOMSON: When the crooks come calling and the cops don't

Civil, racial and religious unrest is becoming increasingly prevalent around the world, and Canada is no exception to this trend. Regrettably our federal government is either unwilling — or too inept — to implement measures that will meaningfully address the chaos that many Canadians are facing on a daily basis. Which is why it’s time for Canada to adopt ‘Castle Doctrine’.Castle doctrine, commonly referred to as Castle law, is a legal tenet first proposed by Sir Edward Coke in England in his 1628 treatise, The Institutes of the Laws of England. There he famously wrote: “For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium...” That is, "and each man's home is his safest refuge."In general, Castle Doctrine is supposed to offer a person increased protection and immunity from legal prosecution and consequences when acting out of self-defence. This includes the use of force, up to and including deadly force, in order to defend oneself or others against an intruder, or injury, in a legally occupied space such as their home or vehicle.At present the United States has 45 states that employ some form of Castle Doctrine and the country as a whole has a history of it going back more than 200 years. In the 1980’s these laws were nicknamed “make my day” laws, which were a nod to Clint Eastwood’s character “Dirty Harry” Callahan.In some jurisdictions these laws have expanded over time to include language that an individual may “stand his or her ground,” signifying they have the right to defend themselves on any legally occupied space, not just on their own property. Others have gone the opposite way with more restrictive criteria for the use and reasonable application of self-defence.Yet in Canada no such laws exist. In this country Section 34(1) of the Criminal Code outlines the legal framework for self-defence, and Section 35 defines the context for defence of property and the language in these sections, particularly Sect. 34, smacks of victimhood and timidity — which is to say it is very Canadian. It places emphasis on avoidance and places the onus on the individual who acted in self-defence to establish that their actions were reasonable, proportional, and justified.This means that after acting in self-defence one must demonstrate that:A force or threat of force was being used against them or another person.They acted for the purposes of defending themselves or others from that force or threat of force.The act was reasonable in the circumstances.This is starkly contrasted in Castle Doctrine in many jurisdiction in the US. In these states they have replaced the necessity to prove self-defence was ‘reasonable’ or that an individual feared for their safety, with a “presumption of reasonableness,” or “presumption of fear.” It is a noteworthy and commendable difference because it puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor, or assailant and their legal teams to prove a negative.A significant part of the problem in Canada is that the people who make and adjudicate the laws pertaining to self-defence are rarely exposed to or have to face the dangerous and increasingly violent reality that many Canadians are experiencing. The reality is that home break-ins for auto thefts in Toronto are up 400 percent from 2023, the national homicide and sexual assault rates are both at three-decade highs, there have been several ISIS-style attacks planned on Canadian soil, and our bail system allows violent criminals out to reoffend in unimaginably horrific ways on a near daily basis.Yet all of that is just statistics to them.Our politicians and law makers have security details who get carry concealed handguns, pepper spray, or conducted energy weapons, such as tasers, to provide protection from assault. Regular Canadians are not afforded such personal protective measures.Those elite legislators own homes in upscale or exclusive neighbourhoods, where there is little to no risk of crime or assault, and they can afford expensive security systems for peace of mind. Most Canadians do not — if indeed they own a home at all.In fact most Canadians, especially in rural parts of Canada, may have to wait hours or even days for law enforcement or emergency services to reach them in a crisis. Even in a major centre like Toronto, the average response time to a 911 call that is rated as Priority 1 is 18.1 minutes. That’s an eternity, especially in a situation where someone has broken into your home or jumped into your car.Don’t believe me? Try this experiment. Go down to the roughest part of the town or city where you live and find an individual who is on drugs, is incoherent, and is acting wildly or violently. Then sit down or stand beside them for 18.1 minutes and see how long it feels.This is where castle doctrine can offer some sense of security and level the playing field for Canadians who are worried about their public safety but aren’t fortunate enough to be a politician or a judge.Canadians shouldn’t have to worry about proportionality, reasonableness or the legal ramifications of self-defence when facing down an intruder in their house, vehicle — or while being dragged into an alley to be raped or robbed. Only one thing matters — survival by any means necessary.To this end the General G.S. Patton maxim applies to personal defence as it does to war: "To so use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum time."Odds are that the police won’t be there to save you, and the law, as it stands, will only serve to condemn you. Of the two, only the latter is something we can change, and it’s high time we do.

THOMSON: When the crooks come calling and the cops don't

Related Stories