Self-Defence Laws Are Fine — Politicians Aren’t

After a Lindsay, Ont., man was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly stabbing a home intruder, the case quickly moved from the courthouse to the political stage. Within hours, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre were using the tragedy to declare Canada’s self-defence laws broken. However, the reality is not that Canadians are helpless to defend themselves; it is that politicians can never resist the urge to turn a messy legal case into a cheap political prop.

The Lindsay case is defined as much by what we don’t know as by what we do, precisely what politicians prefer to ignore. Here is what we do know: in the middle of the night, a man awoke to find an armed intruder in his apartment. A violent struggle followed, reportedly involving both a knife and a crossbow, and the intruder was left with life-threatening injuries. The resident now faces aggravated assault charges. We don’t know: how the fight unfolded, when the threat ended, and whether force crossed the line from defence to excess. Those are questions for a courtroom, not a press conference. Unless, of course, you are a politician who finds microphones more useful than facts.

Ford wasted no time calling the justice system “broken,” thundering that, “You should be able to protect your family when someone’s going in there to harm your family and your kids.” Poilievre chimed in with his tough-on-crime poetry, demanding clarity in the law. Kevin Vuong, a wanna be Conservative former member of parliament, solemnly declared that people should be allowed to use “reasonable force” to defend themselves.

How do we know this outrage is performative grievance and not genuine concern? Because the law already does precisely what they claim it doesn’t. And here’s the kicker: Poilievre should know this better than anyone. The Conservatives rewrote the self-defence provisions in 2012. Poilievre voted for them. Now he’s out pretending that the law he championed is some sinister Liberal plot against homeowners. That takes an Olympic-level memory lapse or a strong commitment to gaslighting.

In Canada, everyone has the right to defend their families and homes. What we don’t have are American-style “castle doctrine” laws that essentially give you a hunting licence for anyone who stumbles across your property line. Canadian law is focused on reasonableness, not frontier justice.

Yes, “reasonable” – at least to those who weaponize their ignorance for political gain – is a fuzzy word. But the Criminal Code does not leave us guessing. It instructs courts to look at the nature of the threat, whether there were other options, whether weapons were involved, the size and strength of the parties, their history with each other, the proportionality of the response, and whether the force was used against someone acting lawfully.

The law doesn’t expect perfection or require homeowners to calibrate their blows with scientific precision. It asks us to put ourselves in the shoes of the person under threat. A woman confronted in the middle of the night by a masked, armed intruder in a remote home will be judged differently than an off-duty special forces soldier who finds a teenager passed out on his porch.

It is undoubtedly reasonable to use lethal force on an intruder who aggressively attacks you while you are sleeping. It is probably not reasonable to shoot your neighbour who sheepishly apologizes after drunkenly stumbling into the wrong house. This is not rocket science.

So yes, Doug, Canadians can defend their homes and families. The law allows this. And yes, Pierre, your law, the one you voted for already, makes that clear. And yes, Kevin, people can use reasonable force. That’s literally what the law says.

There will always be grey areas. Sometimes homeowners will be charged. That is why we have judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers. Those charges are often withdrawn or dismissed once the facts are tested. And yes, prosecutors could withdraw charges earlier if deemed appropriate, a suggestion Ford could make to his Crown attorneys if he were more interested in solutions than slogans.

Poilievre’s solution, as detailed by Andrew Coyne, is to propose a castle-style law that would “eliminate” second-guessing and take us down the same road that resulted in the killing of a Houston boy who was gunned down while playing Nicky Nicky Nine Doors. After this piece was submitted the homeowner was charged on this incident, an ironic reminder that waiting for facts is important when writing options or suggesting legislation.

Undermining the public’s understanding of the law, stoking unnecessary fear, and floating castle laws for a few cheap political points do more than distort reality. They corrode trust in the justice system, leave people confused about their rights, and feed the false belief that Canadians are helpless against crime. That may be good politics for Ford and Poilievre, but it is spinless and reckless leadership.

Canadians deserve clarity, not fearmongering. If the goal is to keep people scared and misinformed, then mission accomplished. But if the goal is honest leadership, maybe start with the basics: stop pretending the law says something it doesn’t. Canadians already have the right to defend themselves. They don’t have the right to be misled by politicians who know better. The only thing most Canadians need protection from now is politicians who think dishonest fearmongering is a form of public service.