Trudeau has gone rogue again in a USA TV interview. .This time it's about guns and the right to self-defense in Canada. He said, "guns are for hunting and target practice, but never for self-defense.” No one in Canada has a right to defend themselves, their family or their property with a firearm, Trudeau boldly declared..He doubled down. “We have a culture where the difference is: Guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada — and there are lots of gun owners, and they’re mostly law-respecting and law-abiding — but you can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada,” Trudeau said. “That’s not a right that you have in the constitution or anywhere else.” But what does that say about all the guns that surround the prime minister wherever he goes?.Trudeau is wrong. Start with rights and rules of defense from the United Nations. Then read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and specifically the Criminal Code. Trudeau is no lawyer. His deeper problem is his politically exploitive mindset. The recent legislative announcement about guns waited for an emotional expedient time, the recent tragedy in Uvalde, TX. It is again political virtue-signaling Liberal style. Recent government announcements focus on licensed gun owners but don't focus on crime. It’s a classic distraction tactic that makes it look like they are doing something, especially if it's trending in the news cycle. .The opportunistic one-dimensional political philosophy is about short-term ratings rather than wise governance. Never forget the picture pose of Trudeau kneeling with a Teddy Bear in hand at a supposed grave near a residential school; aboriginal leaders were deeply offended. How much of what we have heard from Trudeau about his concerns about inequality, beliefs in reconciliation, desire to build a middle class, wishes for affordable child care, and strategies for business innovation, was just spadework for next week's polling results..Canadians are being played..The handgun freeze now being sought by the Liberals is an ambitious attempt to restrict access to firearms in this country. Trudeau announced the plan shortly after the school shooting in Uvalde. He falsely claimed the handgun measure “will go a long way towards keeping Canadians safe.” However, nearly all handguns used in crime are illegally possessed and are smuggled into Canada, which laws or bans do not touch. .Self-defence in Canada is commonly misunderstood. Many believe Canadians have no right to defend themselves, no matter the circumstances. They are wrong..The defence of the person is the oldest natural right. We have a natural right to defend our bodies and those of our loved ones. If the need arises, we will intuitively and unquestionably do so regardless of what the law says..What does Canadian law say?.Defending yourself, contrary to Trudeau's assertion, is not against Canadian law. The Criminal Code of Canada very specifically allows self-defence and defence of property in Sections 34 and 35..Should one find themselves in the unfortunate position of self-defence with deadly force, in Canada you will likely be charged with something. Canadian justice authorities don’t like Canadians using defensive force to stay alive. There is the usual scolding from the RCMP about general public safety and vigilantism..However, unless you’ve done something disproportionately wrong, the odds of being convicted are very low. One must understand the ambiguity and uncertainty of the Canadian Criminal Code if one gets involved with guns and self-defense of yourself and/or your loved ones. The situational proportionality of a reasonable person is the test..Use of force must be “reasonable” in the totality of the circumstances and that reasonableness will be decided by the courts and the justice system, not by you..Here, from the Criminal Code of Canada, Sec. 34, is the self-defence provision:.Defence of Person.Defence — use or threat of force.34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if.(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;.(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and.(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances..Factors.(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:.(a) the nature of the force or threat;.(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;.(c) the person’s role in the incident;.(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;.(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;.(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;.(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;.(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and.(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful..Unfortunately, no matter how right you are in an episode, you will likely be charged with something if a weapon is used in self-defense. But there is the old phrase, “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.”.The responsibility one accepts as a lawful firearms owner includes the accountability for every single bullet fired. Legal gun owners accept the obligations and responsibilities of their training and licenses, however, Trudeau does not take responsibility for misleading the public.
