WhatFinger


While self defense is not illegal in Canada it is defined in the narrowest possible terms, and discouraged to the point where most are not aware of its legal boundaries

Prickly prospect of self-defense - Laws in Canada not particularly favourable toward people protecting themselves



Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that the average duration of incarceration for the crime of murder varies little between here and the United States. The absence of capital punishment in Canada and the wider variance in sentence length in individual states versus provinces would account for much of the mistaken impression.
Second degree murder with its absence of premeditation and resulting less severe sentences – often in the area of 12 years – would account for the remainder of the scepticism. The public’s reconciliation of a crime as heinous as murder with a sentence of 12 years is an uneasy one at best, regardless of its lack of premeditation. Where Canada differs significantly from our American cousins is in the preventative measures open to the general public for the individual defense against those that would rob us and our loved ones of our continued earthly presence. In Canada, violent self defense is not a polite topic. It has the tone of vigilantism. Its mere mention conjures up the spector of abhorrent behaviour. Behaviour bordering on criminal and resulting in the retention of a lawyer to prove one's innocence should self defense be required. While self defense is not illegal in Canada it is defined in the narrowest possible terms, and discouraged to the point where most are not aware of its legal boundaries. Those boundaries are contained in Canada’s criminal code sections 34-37. The most relevant, Section 34 (2)( a )and (b) reads,“ Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.”

Support Canada Free Press


Recently a friend returning from a shopping trip in New Hampshire, surprised to learn average citizens could legally carry a firearm in public, inquired as to why they would need to when there are plenty of police. In May 2004, I attended a conference in Saskatoon where one of the speakers was Richard W. Stevens, a lawyer by profession and co-author of “Dial 911 and Die – The Shocking Truth of the Police Protection Myth.” A central thesis of that book is that when violent death is seconds away police are only minutes away, police that bear no legal responsibility or liability when they are unable to protect the life of the caller. This divergence of the Canadian and U.S. views of self defense is relatively new from a historical perspective. Both countries have a constitutionaly recognized right to life with deep roots in the English Magna Carta of 1297 and that country’s early common law. Only recently have both England and Canada adopted a dim view of the private individual’s exercise of self defense favouring an almost total surrender of that responsibility to the agents of the state, the police, who typically arrive only in time to gather evidence surrounding the murder.

Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6

While Sections 34-37 of the Criminal Code allow for self defense the state’s legal stranglehold on any of the instruments of force normally required to execute that defense severely curtails the ability to adequately respond to deadly threats without government sanctions for doing so. Ian Thompson of Port Colborne, Ontario learned that lesson the hard way. After four masked men shouting death threats threw six Molotov cocktails at his home with him in it, Mr. Thompson (a former firearms safety instructor), after calling 911, fired three shots in the ground and a stand of trees in an attempt to stop the attack. For his trouble he endured a financially crippling 2 1/2 year legal battle to have four firearm related charges dropped or result in acquittal. Even strictly non-lethal instruments of self- defense are rigidly controlled. Only law enforcement officials can legally carry or possess pepper spray labeled for use on persons. Canisters with the label "bear spray" are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act. While legal to be carried by anyone, it is against the law if its use causes 'a risk of bodily harm to another person' and carries a penalty of a fine up to $500,000 and maximum jail time of 3 years. Carrying bear spray in public, without justification, can lead to Criminal Code of Canada charges. While “bear spray” may be legal to have, it is up to the courts whether it was legal to use on a person if you did. Given the uncertainties around the issue of self defense and the means to exercise it many of its advocates have adopted as an axiom that it is better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.


View Comments

Al Muir -- Bio and Archives

Al Muir is a businessman and resident of Plymouth, Nova Scotia, who keeps a close eye on the political front, both local and nationally.


Sponsored