Amend Criminal Code self‑defence
Petitioners ask the Minister of Justice to amend Criminal Code ss.34–35 to remove 'reasonable', allow 'any means necessary including lethal force', and enshrine a Castle Doctrine protecting home defence. The government responds that ss.34–35 already permit reasonable defensive force, courts weigh circumstances, prosecutions are independent, and it knows of no homeowner convictions for reasonable defence.
Why we would sign this petition
- It would legally protect people who use force, including lethal force, to defend themselves or their homes, reducing fear of prosecution for immediate self‑defence.
- It would explicitly enshrine a Castle Doctrine so homeowners could defend property and person without uncertainty under current case law.
- Rural residents facing delayed police response would have clearer legal authority for immediate self‑defence, addressing time‑to‑response concerns raised by petitioners.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Removing 'reasonable' would eliminate an objective legal safeguard and could permit disproportionate or indiscriminate use of force, increasing the risk of unnecessary deaths.
- It would transfer hard legal judgments from judges and juries to a broad statutory permission, risking impunity, legal uncertainty, and conflicting prosecutions.
- Safer alternatives exist: improve police response, issue clearer guidance, or draft targeted amendments that retain proportionality safeguards rather than a broad 'any means necessary' standard.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: Whereas: Property crimes and crimes against persons have been on the rise in Canada for the past decade; Recent news from across the country where victims of crime are being criminally charged for simply defending themselves proves that Canadians do not have the right to self-defence; Canadians are deprived of their right to self-defence due to the limitations in section 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code which only permits the use of force to defend themselves under a vague and unjust criterion of "reasonable grounds", which does not fully protect victims of crime from legal prosecution by the Crown, and a clear infringement to the universal human right to self-defence under the UDHR; Victims of crime must necessitate the use of self-defence immediately when violent offenders commit crime in rural communities due to the delayed response time from law enforcement; and Canadian are deprived of their right to self-defence to protect their property due to the absence of the concept of inviolability of one's home, also known as "Castle Doctrine" in the Criminal Code. Therefore we, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada to: Immediately introduce and pass legislation that will repeal and replace wording in section 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code by removing any mentions of "reasonable" or "reasonable grounds", and replace it with the phrase, “by any means necessary including the use of lethal force"; and Amend section 35 of the Criminal Code to enshrine the fundamental right to the inviolability of one's home, also known as "Castle Doctrine," that will allow victims of crime to use any means necessary including the use of lethal force, to defend themselves and their property against a violent offender, free from fear of any legal prosecution by the Crown.
Government response
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Signed by THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY PATRICIA LATTANZIO The Criminal Code provides defences to individuals who use force to protect themselves or others, or their property from criminal liability provided that their actions are reasonable in the circumstances (sections 34 and 35). In determining whether the defensive actions were reasonable, courts must consider all the relevant circumstances, including the immediacy of the threat, the presence of weapons, the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties, and the history, if any, of the relationship between them. In Canada, decisions to investigate, charge and prosecute criminal offences are made by independently by police services and prosecutors in each province and territory. Crown pre-charge screening practices also vary across the country, with some jurisdictions like British Columbia and Quebec requiring mandatory Crown screening of all charges before they are laid to ensure there is enough evidence to proceed. The Government of Canada is not aware of any cases in which a Canadian court has convicted a homeowner for reasonably defending themself against intruders. The Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that our criminal laws remain firm, fair and protect all people in Canada.