Replace 'reasonable' in self-defence
Petitioners ask Criminal Code ss.34–35 be amended to remove 'reasonable' and replace it with 'by any means necessary, including lethal force', and to enshrine home inviolability (Castle Doctrine). The government responds that the Code already provides defences and prosecutions are decided independently.
Why we would sign this petition
- Makes explicit legal protection for people who use force to defend themselves or property, reducing fear of prosecution.
- Responds to concerns about delayed police response in rural areas by permitting immediate self‑defence.
- Clarifies home inviolability by enshrining a Castle Doctrine into the Criminal Code for legal certainty.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Removing the 'reasonable' standard and allowing 'any means necessary' risks disproportionate, excessive or lethal responses and could endanger bystanders.
- Such a broad change would undermine proportionality in criminal law and may increase wrongful deaths or vigilante actions without clearer limits.
- Government notes existing defences and independent prosecution; alternatives like improving policing or clarifying thresholds may address concerns with fewer public‑safety trade‑offs.
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.