“Your home is your castle.” That was Pierre Poilievre last Friday, calling for changes to the Criminal Code making it legal for people at home to use whatever force they like against an intruder. The Conservatives have a private member’s bill coming to that effect, to be called, inevitably, the Stand On Guard Act.
The bill is in hot pursuit of the recent charging of an Ontario man for allegedly stabbing a crossbow-wielding intruder half to death. As explained in a recent column, current Canadian law – passed by the Harper Conservatives – allows for the use of force in self-defence so far as it is “reasonable in the circumstances,” the burden of proof being on the Crown to prove that it was unreasonable.
Mr. Poilievre now finds that provision excessively “vague.” In its place, as he told reporters, would be an explicit stipulation that “if someone enters your home illegally and uninvited” and “you reasonably believe they are a threat to your family,” then “it is assumed that all the force you use against that person is reasonable.”
Note that word: all. As long as you “reasonably believe” they’re a threat, you can do what you want to them. The law will not inquire further.
What is the emergency that requires this extraordinary measure, overturning not only established Canadian statute but centuries of common law? Is an epidemic of violent burglaries under way? Are armies of innocent householders being frogmarched through the courts, merely for defending their families?
The belief in the right to self-defence – and the legal limits of a reasonable response
There’s certainly been an increase in violent crime generally. Police-recorded crime statistics tell us there were 967 violent crimes per 100,000 population in Canada in 2024, up more than 30 per cent since 2014.
But violent crimes during break-ins? The same statistics show the number of break-and-enters, at 293 per 100,000 population, has fallen 75 per cent since its 1998 peak. It is now lower than at any time since at least the 1960s.
About two-thirds of break-ins are residential. About 1 per cent of residential break-ins result in violence. So we are looking at about two break-ins per 100,000 population where a violent act is committed – on either side.
The exact proportion of these that are charged against the householder is not recorded, but it’s a fair bet that it’s tiny. If it were 2 per cent that would mean roughly 16 householders charged in a given year – in a country with 16 million households. Some fraction of those would ever go to trial. A smaller fraction still would ever be convicted.
Still, it’s the principle. If even one. All that. Okay, how would the Stand On Guard law change this?
On the one hand, the law would still require “reasonable belief,” so the notion that, as a Conservative release put it, “there will be no more second-guessing after the fact” is not quite right.
On the other hand, the absolute presumption that whatever force follows from that belief is and must be reasonable goes far beyond, not only current Canadian law, but even the “castle doctrine” laws, common in many American states, on which it is supposedly modelled.
The typical “castle” law stipulates that the presence of an illegal intruder in your home is enough to presume a “reasonable belief” of an imminent threat. But that presumption can be rebutted if the amount of force is judged unreasonable or excessive. Can be, and often is. Even in the States, there is nothing like the carte blanche that Mr. Poilievre seems to contemplate.
What is the record of these and similar laws in the U.S.? Did they reduce the number of break-ins, for example? No. A 2012 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research found “no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws.” On the other hand, the report’s authors noted, “we find that homicides are increased by around 8 per cent.”
No kidding. Take the current case of an 11-year-old child allegedly shot and killed by a Texas homeowner. The child was playing “ding dong ditch,” ringing doorbells and running away. He was felled by a shotgun as he fled.
Some online denizens have protested (on whatever basis) that he was actually kicking on people’s doors, not just ringing doorbells. Suppose that were true. That would be very frightening. If you lived in a neighbourhood with a lot of crime, maybe some home invasions, the sound of someone kicking loudly on – or, as you might imagine, in – your door would be terrifying. It might induce in you a reasonable belief of imminent harm.
And if you then shot an unarmed 11-year-old in the back? “It is assumed that all the force you use against that person is reasonable.”