Self-Defense, the Castle Doctrine, and British Columbia

A New Conversation on Self-Defense in Canada

The right to protect oneself is a fundamental concept, but how it works in practice is a subject of ongoing debate in Canada. Our laws say that you can defend yourself, but there are important limits. One political party, the People's Party of Canada (PPC), believes these limits are too confusing and don't do enough to protect law-abiding citizens. They have proposed significant changes to Canada's self-defense laws, including bringing a concept known as the "Castle Doctrine" to Canada. This essay will attempt to explain the PPC's policy and then explore what these changes could mean for the people of British Columbia.

Understanding the Proposed Changes

The PPC's position is that current self-defense laws are too vague and can lead to unfair situations where a person defending themselves from a criminal is treated like a criminal themselves. Their plan to change this has three main parts.

First, they want to change Section 34 of the Criminal Code. This is the part of the law that deals with self-defense. Right now, it says that any force you use to defend yourself must be "reasonable in the circumstances." The PPC argues that what is "reasonable" is unclear, especially for someone in a moment of panic during a violent attack. They want to make the law clearer and stronger, making it more difficult to charge and convict a person who was clearly defending themselves.

Second, the PPC wants to introduce the "Castle Doctrine" into Canadian law by changing Section 35 of the Criminal Code, which deals with defending your property. The Castle Doctrine is a legal principle that says a person's home is their sanctuary. The name comes from the old saying, "an Englishman's home is his castle." In places with this law, if an intruder breaks into your home, you are legally allowed to use force—even deadly force—to protect yourself, without having to worry about being prosecuted. This would be a major change for Canada, which does not currently have this doctrine.

The legal focus would shift from questioning the victim's actions to recognizing the home as a special place where self-defense is given greater legal protection.

Finally, the party also wants to make it legal for people to carry certain non-lethal tools for self-defense. Specifically, they propose removing pepper spray from the list of prohibited weapons. They argue that this would give people, especially women, an effective way to protect themselves from attackers without having to resort to physical violence.

What Could This Mean for British Columbia?

If these policies were put into place, they would have a wide range of effects on people across British Columbia, from the legal system to daily life in different communities.

Changes in the Legal System

The biggest change for British Columbians would be in how self-defense cases are treated by the police and the courts. Adopting a Castle Doctrine would create a new legal standard.

Instead of a judge and jury trying to decide if a homeowner's actions were "reasonable" after the fact, the law would automatically give the homeowner more legal protection.

Those who support this change say it would empower victims and stop them from being re-traumatized by the legal system. They believe it would provide a clear, simple rule: if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to defend yourself. However, this could also create new legal challenges. For example, what if the intruder was unarmed, or a teenager who made a mistake, or someone who entered the wrong house by accident? The courts in B.C. would have to figure out how to apply this new doctrine in complex situations, and it would likely lead to many legal debates as the province adjusted.

Impact on Crime and Safety

The question of how these changes would affect crime rates in B.C. is complex. Supporters of the PPC's policy believe it would act as a deterrent. They argue that criminals would be less likely to break into homes if they knew the homeowner was legally allowed to use significant force against them. This argument might be particularly appealing to people living in rural parts of British Columbia.

According to Statistics Canada, police-reported crime rates in 2023 were generally higher in rural areas of B.C. than in urban ones. In these communities, police stations can be far away, and it can take a long time for officers to arrive. For residents in these areas, the idea of being more legally empowered to handle a threat on their own could bring a greater sense of security.

On the other hand, some research on similar laws in the United States has raised concerns. A 2020 study by the RAND Corporation found that "stand-your-ground" laws, which are related to the Castle Doctrine, were associated with an increase in homicides. The worry is that making it easier to legally use lethal force could cause some situations to become violent when they might otherwise not have. A verbal argument or a minor break-in could escalate into a deadly encounter.

Effects on Communities

Beyond the law and crime statistics, these policies could change the feeling within B.C. communities. For some, these changes would represent a welcome shift toward individual responsibility and the right to protect one's family and property. It might make people feel safer and more in control.

However, others might worry that such laws could lead to a more fearful or suspicious society. There could be concerns about an increase in vigilantism or that people might be quicker to resort to violence. Among more progressive perspectives, there is also a risk that such laws could have an unequal impact. For example, misunderstandings or biases could lead to tragic outcomes in confrontations involving people from different backgrounds or those with mental health challenges. Public opinion on this issue in British Columbia would likely be very divided, reflecting the diverse experiences and values of people living in different parts of the province.

What defensive actions are considered "reasonable in the circumstances" to protect one's family from those who would invade their home or commit a violent criminal act on a person on their own property?

Conclusion

The People's Party of Canada's proposals on self-defense and the Castle Doctrine represent a call for a major change in Canadian law. The plan aims to provide clearer legal protections for people who defend themselves, their families, and their homes from criminals. For British Columbians, the effects of such a change would be felt deeply, from the way the justice system operates within BC to the sense of safety as provided by the police and the courts in both urban and rural communities. While some see these policies as a necessary step to empower law-abiding citizens, others are concerned about the potential for increased violence.

Ultimately, this debate asks Canadians to provide comment and insight on fundamental questions. To what degree do we permit victims to protect and defend themselves in circumstances that are addressed by Castle Doctrine and self-defence? How do we prevent abuse of changes in the legislation? Can we establish a standard that effectively tests the language of "reasonable in the circumstances"? At what point is lethal force an acceptable "last resort"?

- - - - - Make Your Mark! - - - - -

Invest.

• Make us your go-to Website

• Choose us to be your Party

• Elect us as your Representative

Innovate.

• Read our BC Perspective

• Connect with your Association

• Follow us on our Socials

Inspire!

• Share your PPC Photos

• Wear your PPC Colours

• Share or Print this Article (links below)