The recent murders of Charlie Kirk at a university in Utah and the young Ukrainian girl on a train in North Carolina are horrifying. What are our American cousins doing?In Canada, three recent home invasions have left a young child in hospital and horribly traumatized by her rape, a father has been killed, and another father is facing serious prison time. What are we Canadians doing? According to York Region police, it is best that we do nothing. According to the CBC, there are adequate laws, rules, and regulations allowing self defence in Canada. To say otherwise is to spread misinformation.At the risk of spreading misinformation, I join the chorus of people calling for a “Castle Doctrine” rule in Alberta..BARAZZUTTI: The real reason tuition keeps going up at Canada’s universities.According to our premier, we Albertans are close to our roots and so have a different way of looking at the world. I agree. I am so close to my roots that if someone enters my home without my permission and makes any kind of threatening suggestion that might harm the ones I love, I want the law to support my fight with whatever is at hand. According to Just War theory (and self defence regulations), I should not shoot an intruder who carries a flashlight. I should hit him with my flashlight. But what if I don’t know what his weapon is? Don’t I have the right to protect my loved ones by speculating about the deadliness of his weapon unless he quickly identifies to me that he is unarmed and just needs a punch in the nose? Not according to our legal system. The tie goes to the intruder. Sorry. Not good enough..Here is what I think the Alberta government, in the spirit of being “close to our roots”, should do.Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms “guarantees the rights and freedoms of Canadians subject to limits that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Section 7 of the Charter states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”.BAKLINSKI: Who killed 19-year-old Canadian Rheanna Laderoute?.I think that we have the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, and security by a legal system that withholds the principles of fundamental justice. Think of it this way. If someone is threatening to strike you and a third person is holding you such that you can neither avoid being struck nor prevent the striker from striking, isn’t the third person acting against the principles of fundamental justice? The government has interposed itself as the third person holding us back from preventing the strike. That is fundamentally wrong and dystopian and not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Here is my idea..I think our premier should introduce and pass a Castle Doctrine rule in Alberta as an addendum or interpretation of the relevant criminal law that has force and effect only within the boundaries of this province. The rule would be based on a larger interpretation of Section 7 and it would be protected by invoking the Section 33 notwithstanding clause. This, of course, would be decried as “reading in”. Have other issues been “read in” to legislation? Yes, they have. In the 1998 Vriend decision, the court read “sexual orientation” into provincial law based on section 15 of the Charter. The decision allows courts to interpret laws to include rights not explicitly stated. I wonder if legislatures can have that noblesse oblige as well. I think it should be tested..WENZEL: Carney’s green dreams collide with cold realities.Such a move by the government would cause an uproar and would be immediately challenged. That is good. The role of the courts is to arbitrate differences of opinion in the interpretation of the laws of the land. The problem is not the court challenge. The problem is that our Alberta government is shy about declaring legislation that invites subsequent adjudication. I see things differently. I think the government should flood the justice system with “our way of looking at the world” and let the courts demonstrate the error of our ways. It would assist the independence movement and, for the moment, is the constitutionally approved way of co-existing in Canada.The Castle Doctrine rule needs airing and adjudication. My guess is that in the five or so years required for that airing and adjudication, the doctrine will be so welded into our society that overturning it will be impossible regardless of the court outcome. And that is okay too. The federal government does it all the time. Legislation, once implemented, is impossible to repeal. Try and roll back the MAiD legislation or the marijuana legislation or Bill C-69 or the tanker ban or you get the point.It is time for Edmonton to man up.
