COLUMN: Think Again – Stronger self-defence protections are needed

A 66-year-old man in the RM of Dufferin was recently charged with careless use of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, and discharging a firearm in a reckless manner.

These sound like serious charges. Obviously, we don’t want people recklessly firing guns. But the circumstances behind these charges give us some important context and should change how we look at this case.

In fact, this man was responding to four individuals who unlawfully entered his property and stole some of his possessions. Rather than just passively let the thefts happen, the homeowner confronted the intruders and fired his rifle in the direction of the two stolen vehicles they were driving.

Police managed to apprehend three of the four alleged thieves and charged them with a variety of offences. Incredibly, the 66-year-old homeowner was charged as well, even though he obviously was just trying to defend himself and his property.

You might wonder what happened to the right of self-defence. Unfortunately, while homeowners do have the legal right to defend themselves, the restrictions placed on this right make it quite limited in scope.

For example, Section 34 of the Criminal Code lists no fewer than nine factors that courts must take into consideration when determining whether the force used by homeowners was reasonable under the circumstances. These include everything from the “nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force” to “any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident” to “the size, age, gender, and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident.”

The last time I checked, frightened homeowners aren’t going to pull out a copy of the Criminal Code to carefully evaluate all nine of these factors before defending themselves against potentially armed intruders.

If you don’t want to risk getting shot at by a homeowner, maybe you shouldn’t go onto his property to steal things. I’m quite certain that the 66-year-old man in question would have been more than happy to keep his gun in storage that day rather than deal with intruders on his property.

In light of this fact, Borderland PC MLA Josh Guenter introduced a sensible resolution in the Manitoba Legislature earlier this year that would have called on the federal government to reduce the factors when determining self-defence to just two—whether someone is illegally trying to enter a person’s home and whether that person presents a threat.

Guenter knows that homeowners don’t have time to figure out the exact size and age of the intruders, nor are they able to ponder on every possible interaction they might have had with them in the past. When you are facing an immediate threat and your adrenaline is pumping, you need to make a split-second decision that enables you to protect your family, your property, and yourself.

Sadly, Wab Kinew’s NDP government refused to support Guenter’s resolution when he introduced it in the legislature. Instead of standing with homeowners who deserve to know that they won’t be deemed criminals for defending themselves, NDP politicians are content to continue with their soft-on-crime approach.

As for the argument that the Criminal Code falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction, provincial governments regularly lobby the federal government for changes to federal legislation. Passing Guenter’s resolution in the legislature would have been an important way to send the message that the Manitoba government supports the right of all Manitobans to defend themselves.

Your home should be your castle, which means you must have the right to protect it. If Wab Kinew’s government won’t support homeowners, we need a new government that will.

Michael Zwaagstra is a teacher and deputy mayor of Steinbach. He can be reached at mzwaagstra@shaw.ca.