It’s dark. You’re moving briskly through the north Common. You think you’re alone, but then again…sometimes Halifax doesn’t seem like the safest streets to walk. Having something in your purse or pocket to offer some protection sounds great, but be careful before you go buying any peace of mind.
In Canada it’s illegal to carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense. And according to the Criminal Code, a weapon can be anything designed, used or intended to cause death or injury or even just to threaten or intimidate another person. Since that’s pretty much anything, the legality of what’s allowed in your pockets hinges on intent. If you’re carrying a blade to open a can of apple juice at a picnic, then you’re fine. If you’re carrying a blade to open a can of whoop-ass on a potential assailant, then you’re in trouble. Same deal for pepper spray, which you can carry to protect yourself from rabid canines but not from overzealous exes. Likewise for tasers, stun guns, batons and probably ballpoint pens.
“You have the right to defend yourself but you can’t be carrying pepper spray or knives or guns for that purpose,” says Halifax Regional Police spokesperson Pierre Bourdages. “If your intent to carry these weapons is to either defend yourself or to harm someone, you could be charged with carrying a concealed weapon.”
Since no permits allow someone to carry anything that can be used for self-defense, Bourdages recommends an inexpensive, attention-grabbing device: air horns. Of course, burst your assailant’s eardrums and you still might face charges.
“If you’re carrying that in your purse, that’s fine,” Bourdages says, “but if you’re carrying that and you actually assault someone with that item, the item becomes a weapon.”
See, self-defense allows you to use as much force as possible to stop an attack, to break free from an assailant. But if you keep attacking after you break free?
“Then it would be excessive force,” says Bourdages. “Then you could be charged with assault.”
Perhaps the best option for personal safety is making your body into a lean, mean, self-defense machine. There are several self- defense classes all around Halifax, or, if money is no object, you could always hire yourself a professional bodyguard. Outfits like Source Security can arrange for your own personal Kevin Costner at an hourly rate.
“The price varies anywhere from mid-30s up to several hundred dollars per hour, depending on who it is and what all is entailed in the work,” says Source’s Ian Hamilton.
The moral of the personal-safety story? No knives, no sprays, no guns, no anything, really. It’s unfortunately just you and your air horn out there.
This article appears in Sep 4-10, 2014.
The police “logic” is imbecile!
Nonsense!
Section 20 of the firearms act provides for you to be authorized to carry a pistol to protect your life and the lives of those you love.
Canadian law has always had provision to do so.
Currently, a bureaucrat is given discretion to determine whether you “need” a pistol to protect life. That is unacceptable.
No government agent is smart enough to make that decision for you. That must change.
Perfect example why the law needs to be re-written. PERIOD!!!
What an asshat. Defense means defending. What if I am weaker than my assailant?
This gives a whole new meaning to “criminal law.”
The police merely interprets…they do not write the law, which obviously needs to be re-written..every case is unique as defending oneself depends on the parties in presence, the force utilised, the intent of the attacking party and is he armed or not, how much does he weigh compared to you, is he younger and more fit, and the list goes on and on…that law has to be re-written with clear objectives of identifying what is an attacking party against who is the defending party and up to where can you go to injure the attacking party : reasonable force is not enough to stop an attack.. you have to be violent and brutal in overcoming the attacking party. That also has to be in the law.
If somebody attacks me and threatens my life, they better be prepared to die. No grey zone here in my opinion.
You can’t defend yourself with a weapon in Canada but a criminal can attack you with them. Lets face it here in Canada you simply can’t defend your self. Its sick. Some lunatic attacks you with a knife or a gun and your supposed to defend yourself with hope, hope that he doesn’t kill you, hope that the police might pull the doughnuts out of there moths and come and help and hope that they don’t charge you if you are left with absolutely no choice but to defend yourself with force. THE LAWS NEED TO BE RE-WRITTEN. The laws need to be re-written so that they don’t favor the criminal.
Categorically FALSE that there is no provision to carry a concealed weapon. Section 20 gives us that ability, but it is the discretion given to the Chief Firearms Officer on whether or not that permit is issued that prevents us from actually being able and allowed to legally carry to protect ourselves.
The fact is, I think if that law/regulation were challenged, it would fail in court, as is has been shown in case law before that any service provided by the government must not be “unattainable” by the average citizen. So while yes, the provision exists, the fact is that it is unattainable, and thus, unconstitutional. Sadly, we don’t seem to have the funds to fight this in court, as I believe we would most certainly win, if we took it to the supreme court.
But it is most certainly true that, outside of that we are not legally allowed to carry ANYTHING for the purposes of self defense. Having said that, if we are carrying something for other purposes, and it just so happens to be used in self defense, but this was not our intended purpose, then it becomes legal. What a crock of a law, what a horribly thought out process to determine if someone has or has used a weapon.
I carry a pocket knife every day, and have done so since about grade 8 or 9 (yes, even to high school), but did not carry it for self defense. I carried it for day to day use. If that knife was used in self defense, I would not be convicted of a crime, though in Canada, the punishment is often the process, so I would likely be charged and would have to defend myself in court. But the fact remains, this is bad law, and like many others (C-68 and C-17 come to mind as glaring examples), it must be repealed. Self defense is a universal human right, as is the right to personal security. Our laws MUST be changed to reflect this, and not allowed to limit it based on lies told under the guise of public safety (lies that were even admitted as such by some who pushed them…).
To Michel Blain
Your post is a perfect example of the core problem with our laws. Your trying to suggest a system of rules should determine when and how you can defend yourself and much of what you suggest is based on traits of the attack and attacker…
So what your saying is that there should be rules that determine how you can defend yourself and how much force YOU can use based on how big, strong, old or violent your attacker is.
Heres a idea… Defend yourself however you can… period. NO ONE should EVER find themselves being charged in any way when they are the victim. If an attacker doesnt want to be excessively harmed… don’t attack people. Easy solution. If you choose to attack people, no matter how big, strong, fast or violent you are, you should be prepared to suffer whatever damage the person your attacking can inflict on you in an attempt to stop you.
Wow, the comments on here are pretty sad.
“Reasonable force” is pretty *ahem* reasonable and has been well tested and established over many years of case law. You are permitted to use as much force as necessary to defend yourself and remove the threat. Guy points a gun at you? Yes, by all means stab and kill him with that kitchen knife. Angry customer threatens to punch you? Yeahhhh don’t think you’re getting away with pulling out your baseball bat and beating him until he’s dead.
As far as I know the system is pretty good at giving the benefit of the doubt to the initial “victim”. Yes, the process can on occasion be unwieldy, but that’s the price we pay for living in a society where people don’t beat other people into a coma just for putting their hand on their arm.
Can someone then explain why police are entitled to carry these same objects (pistols, pepper spray, tasers, batons, etc) for the use of self defence? Same goes for armoured car drivers and a few other professions. I guess their lives must be worth more than those of the rest of us useless civilians.
@Tony Ianella
You clearly have no researched this in any way, shape, or form. Saying that “you think” the system gives the benefit of the doubt to the initial “victim” (why do you put victim in quotes? they are the victim, if attacked by someone illegally assaulting them….don’t try to minimize it), and saying that the system is well tested by case law – these are completely false statements.
Look up Ian Thompson, for example. Or the guy who arrested a repeat thief in Onterrible and was charged because he held him until the police could find the time to attend the scene. Look up “Self Defense in canada”. You will find MANY cases of individuals who were charged and taken through the courts because they used what MOST people would consider REASONABLE force against an attacker. Yes, there are a few where they have gone overboard (look up the two brothers who beat a guy to within an inch of his life when they came home to find him trying to get into their garage, forget the names on this one too). But for the most part, it seems people in Canada are generally pretty reasonable with self-defense, yet they still get charged in some way.
In Canada, most average people (read: 99.9% of the average citizen population) will not be given an ATC (Authorization to Carry) for a handgun for protection of life. This is not the law, it is the way the Chief Firearms Officers have decided to enforce the law.
The truth is, in Canada, if you use force beyond your body, against any attacker, you are likely to be dragged through the courts. Not always, but likely. If you use your body alone, you still might be. If they cannot find a good reason to charge you with assault/attempted murder/murder, then you will often be charged with a firearms or weapons related offense, simply because they couldn’t pin something else on you (See Ian Thompson, again).
There is no reason for me to be charged if I am forced to use my pocket knife against a knife, gun, bat, or other weapon-wielding attacker, yet the likelihood of that happening is FAR greater than the likelihood of me being allowed to go on my way after I give a statement. How is that a good system? If someone attacks me with a knife, and I manage to get my own knife (which I carry for general day to day use and NOT self-defense, as far as anyone else is concerned) out and use it on the attacker, is there ANY reason at all that I should be charged? Any reasonable person would say no, I was attacked, and I defended myself.
Sadly there are also many very UNreasonable people in this country, including (it seems) most Liberal and NDP voters, who would rather see the victim charged for possession of a weapon, even though the only reason they were brought into the mess is because someone attacked them, and even though that “weapon” likely saved their life.
You call this a good system? You, sir, are completely out of touch with reality. I don’t mean to be offensive, but you clearly have no idea what reasonable is, you have no idea how the “system” works, and you have no idea what has happened in the past with respect to people defending themselves and being charged and dragged through the courts, regardless of the conviction. Case law does no good if the police continue to press charges and the crown continues to pursue them – it only does some good if the police are told that they should not arrest someone if it is pretty clear it is a case of self defense. If they find otherwise, they can always come back and arrest later, however you can not “un-arrest” someone and “un-put them through the hell of being charged and tried for a crime they did not commit”. We have a MASSIVE problem with police acting first (shooting, arresting, charging, whatever), and asking questions later to sort it all out. Far too many innocent people get dragged through the courts, and many of them are victims already. Don’t make a victim have to be a victim again, this time by his own damn country! It’s bad enough he’s been made a victim by a criminal – the justice system, police, and the government should be there to support and assist the victim, not to further victimize him.
The right of self defence is not something which is granted by government, it is a universal human attribute. Governments like to accrue to themselves rights and priveleges which are not available to everyone else, which is utter nonsense. My ability to protect myself and my family are not granted by any entity, and as much force as is necessary should be the applicable method. Who has the moral highground, the woman who is lying bleeding and raped in an alley waiting for the police to arrive, or the woman who is explaining why she has shot the rapist to the police after they arrive.
Regarding the question as to why the police can carry self-defense weapons and we peons cannot – you certainly hit it on the head. The lives of the police and the political elite are clearly, by law, far more important than the lives of mere piss-ants like you and me.
Our country is heading right towards the crapper, and we’re all partly to blame for allowing it and not standing up for ourselves. We used to be a country where every man could carry a pistol for self defense. We let that be changed, not in law, but in practice. We used to be a land where a victim could defend themselves and not worry about the wrath of police and the justice system visiting him instead of his attacker. We are no longer that land. We are now the land where the victim is always at fault, and the attacker is just a “poor misguided soul who needs our love, hugs, and encouragement – we can help him change!”
F##K that noise – the attacker needs to be jailed, for a LONG LONG time, taken out of society, and punished. We need to get this idea that we can change people by jailing them out of our collective heads and put it in the crapper where we put everything else that comes out of our a$$. Trying to change someone by sending him to a facility where there are many other (often more hardened, violent, and disturbed) individuals like him is not going to fix him, it is going to punish him, and it is going to remove him from society, as he has shown he is not fit to be part of society. When someone is violent towards innocent people, they cannot be trusted, and should be locked away (or killed, if they murder or rape someone – we need to also bring back capital punishment). If we had the laws change like this, then we would see so many less problems in our society. Instead we have the Libtards and Dipps who want to try to hug criminals straight, and criminalize the innocent, for the sole reason that it allows them to feel powerful and in control. NEWS FLASH: We are not communist North Korea, China, or Russia – we demand our freedom.
Flashlights.
http://homereadyhome.com/carry-a-tactical-flashlight/
Exhibit A: Surefire E2D Defender Ultra.
Also, the law does need to be changed.
This mindset embodied in Canadian law mimics that of Great Britain, and absurd isn’t strong enough a word to describe it.
Insidious is more like it. How in God’s name can any government which, according to the principles of Western culture, ostensibly exists to secure the liberty and safety of its peaceable constituents, undermine their personal safety by forbidding them the tools to protect themselves?
In Britain, if one is attacked by a thug on the street and uses his umbrella as a truncheon to deter the attack, that person will be arrested for carrying and using an offensive weapon. From the information afforded in this article, the same ludicrous condition exists in Canada.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is just CRAZY.
Peaceable, law-abiding citizens do not commit crimes, with or without a gun. Crimes committed by normal folks in the heat of passion do happen, but are a miniscule percentage of the total. Miniscule.
There is a principle in common law, from which Canadian law purportedly ensues, called the Doctrine of Prior Restraint. This doctrine holds that governments cannot broadly attenuate the fundamental individual rights of the people based upon the conjecture of what they MIGHT do with that liberty. The punishment of the law must follow the commission of a crime, and cannot subjugate the people a priori, or liberty is meaningless.
Canada, clean up your act. Don’t continue insisting on unrealistic altruism to an insane extreme.
This article is replete with falsehoods and the quoted police officer is wrong on several points. Go online and read the statute law and case law on self defence in Canada. Using a weapon of opportunity to defend yourself (pocket knife, stick, etc) against an unprovoked attack is not going to automatically land you in court. There is also plenty of case law that backs up the use of deadly force using firearms against armed attackers; and I’m not talking about by police officers, but by us civilian peons. While the Criminal Code does specifically prohibit the possessions of pepper spray (for use against humans, but not other animals), switchblade knives, brass knuckles, tasers and some other potential self defence tools, but it does not state anywhere that using a weapon of opportunity to defence your self is illegal. Simply put, this cop is showing his philosophical/political biases rather that stating the facts.
Carry pepper spray for dogs, an axe for cutting wood, a knife for cutting cardboard boxes, and a morning-star (mace) for tenderizing deer meat.
The can of raid in your purse, thats for bugs, not the eyes of a rapist!
all legal……..
and if you happen to be attacked by a group of jerks in Halifax that want to murder you.well you can use all of these “non defense items” for self defense, legally
the law isnt the problem, its the cops that TELL you what that item you are carrying is for.
The problem is the police who feel they are a political body, a political lobby group, or a branch of the judicial body that gets to interpret laws as they seem fit.
That knife I carry for opening boxes is for opening boxes, period. If you see me with it it is not a “weapon” it is a tool.
This isn’t Texas, FFS. The spokesperson even mentioning “gun” in the same sentence as “but you can’t be carrying pepper spray or knives or guns for that purpose” is redundant. With a restricted weapons permit you are allowed to transport a firearm (pistol) from your home to a range in a manner which would leave its use as a self defense weapon, um, pretty much useless unless you are going to hit the assailant over the head with it. To carry it any other time in any other way is a crime in itself.
About the “The best self-defence isn’t always a good offence ” story, this can be summed up in two words, the initials being BS. The person who wrote this knows nothing about what he was writing about.
People in Canada have the right to use “reasonable force” to defend themselves however the Police will investigate the use of force so the actions need to be justified. The issue is one of reasonable force. This means that once you are safe and the threat is over you should stop your actions I.E. your attacker is running away so you don’t go and chase him down then beat him to death with a 2”X4”.
…And yes there are times when you can be justified in using firearms to defend yourself.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/prairie-justice-rifle-toting-homeowner-puts-self-defence-202625427.html
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
The Canada Criminal Code makes things quite clear. The police have no greater rights to self defence than an ordinary citizen. Bill C-26 in particular makes it quite clear what the rights of citizens are with respect to self defence, defence of property, and citizen’s arrests. They are greater than what most people think.
However, it’s quite true that police forces interpret matters differently. I walk around with a belt-mounted knife routinely, not because I fear for my life, but because it’s a useful tool. As it happens, I spent 6 years in the US Marine Corps, in combat arms, and I don’t need a knife to disable an attacker – I can dismantle someone inside 10 seconds and put them in hospital just by breaking their elbows, crushing their larynx, popping out their eyeballs, and smashing their kidneys. Which would have me in jail, actually. Even if they were intent on hurting *me*.
You’re safer if someone transgresses on your property and behaves violently, and any competent lawyer can defend you if someone breaks into your house and is a physical threat to you, and you have to f**k him up. Out in public, the police will probably handcuff *you*. But on balance, it’s better to be in jail than to be badly injured or dead. What are you supposed to do? Call 911 while you’re being swarmed ?
It’s true that it’s practically impossible to acquire a handgun weapons permit for self-defence. It just won’t happen. Realistically if you are in a bad situation, where you expect violence – there’s been threats made – you acquire that pepper spray, you know where your knives are, you know where the baseball bat is, if you’re a hunter you keep your shotgun or rifle handy at home and in the car (and f**k the regulations for how you’re supposed to transport the weapons).
Like I said before, it’s better to be alive and in jail than dead or badly injured. Much better that your threat is dead or badly injured. A lot of cops grow big balls because they can carry a handgun and spray and tasers….and I’ve seen quite a few pretty weedy looking HRP officers that if they didn’t have that shit would be in a world of hurt.
What about a disabled wheelchair bound person that can not physically defend themselves…?
I happen to be another Kevin Price in Halifax and I do not carry weapons of any sort. I wish to distant myself from the other Kevin Price in Halifax and his comments. I am a peace loving person. Thank you.
It is called defiance against the tyrannical behaviors of unstable kinds of TOXIC OVERT PLANET OF SCUMSHIT for people. They use their Jesus as a weapon over their issues. Over their problems. Over their inconsistencies as people. They use their Jesus as a weapon. And it has been done of centuries. That is an excuse. Not a remedy to the kinds of unstable people that they have always been as them. The psychopath. As a toxic cocktail for people, it is my decision to remove all in order to rid myself of even one. You will not be forgiven. Do not worry. Go follow your Jesus, as your weapon of uncivilized beast for people. He is to me a hypocrite as one. You represent yourselves as leaders and you cannot even collectively agree as them. That defines you as a hypocrite in your own religions. Do not be overt upon me over your uncivilized behaviors and use your God as a weapon upon me. Get out of my life. RIGHT NOW.
You call me as toxic people an apothecary as them? Think again what you are as people in your own delusions in regards to yourselves. Before you think that you are omnipoint omnipotent as people. Get out of my life. And take your weapon in his name. His name as your weapon is Jesus for hypocrites. Get out. Right now. Remove yourselves, immediately and face the fact of what you are as that sort of overt scum losers for people in yours before you determine that you are qualified to make any statements upon me that you yourselves cannot face. GET OUT. RIGHT NOW. Remove your toxin as people from my life. IMMEDIATELY. TOO LATE. YOU get out. And take your weapons of DESTRUCTION ENTITLEMENTS WITH YA. RIGHT NOW. You are known to be the opposite of what you perceive of yourself. What kind of person do you look at in your mirror. Are you that person or are you the delusions in your own mind that you think you are as them? You get out of my life. RIGHT NOW. You leave this country for you being in it as hypocrites. Right now. Try living with yourself before you think that you may be that weapon of destruction using your Jesus as that WEAPON OF DESTRUCTION apothecary. GET OUT. RIGHT NOW.
The laws the way they are written in Canada would rather just see a victim of a crime, DIE vs. defending themselves in any way. They protect the criminals Period. Defend yourself successfully and to jail you go and made an example for any other who might be thinking of doing the same thing in the future, what they fear the most. On the question of if my assailant has a gun and you survive the attack using nothing but a knife = jail for carrying a knife and using it. The government would crucify you in court to be put away in jail for as long as they could. Unless your related to someone near the top then all that would be buried away in a hurry.
As a human being, we all have the freedom for self defence. I don’t think that carrying sprays or similar stuffs while travelling will considered as a crime. Actually it is the responsibility of the government to assure the security of people. Like the air horns mentioned here, there are a lot of mobile apps that produce high sound when the user is attacked by someone. Such applications have millions of users worldwide. Similarly, the people who had attacked by someone should get the justice. For example, in the case of rape victims, most of them won’t try to sue a case against the rapist. Even though there are a lot of defence lawyers in Toronto, people still used to hide such incidents. Law firms like http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com offers free consultation for people who need legal advice.
This is one of the areas we need to take a lesson from our American neighbors. We should be aloud to defend ourselves without fear of being prosecuted for preventing someone from raping or murdering us. I’ll carry whatever defenses I need to protect myself and my loved ones from predators and if the government has a problem with this and charges me…then they are the predators and terrorists and need to have their eyes opened.
Canada is the only place your not able to protect yourself or you family with a weapon without being criminally charged anymore. These politicians need to think what if it was there son,daughter or grandchildren that an intruder tried to harm would they have the same outlook to charge them criminally just for protecting themselves with a weapon. I doubt it, it would be in the debate room as we speak. Canadians need to speak up on this issue to the Federal gov’t and maybe one day there will be enough people that do, to change the laws on this issue. I can understand some rules to a degree like
– Firearms no shots over the waist unless intruder is packing a firearm as well
-Stun Guns “Women should be the only ones allowed to carry one with permit”
-Batons are legal in Canada but again can’t be used in self defence
-Pepper Spray/Bear Spray
-Baseball Bats
-knives 3-4 inches
-Legalize concealed carry
This would be all Canadians would need to protect themselves better than what we have now which is nothing.
As in canada so as the states
It seems very few people truly understand what a “Right” is. They know the word of course and therefore assume they know, but usually it’s only from some vague concept they were given as a youth, lacking any true understanding of the actual “essence” of the “principle” it was created to symbolize. This is a result of the degradation of language and the individual’s lack of appreciation for its true purpose, as well as the unawareness in the magnitude of its influence on reality.
A “Right” is not just the list of 10 in the “Bill of Rights” of the Constitution. Actually many rights were not defined in the Constitution, one example of “how” and “why” is that most of the individuals creating this illegitimate “claim” of government were powerful individuals, part of organized societies of individuals who wanted slavery, do to their vested interests in slavery. They used that power to influence the arbitrary “definitions” of certain “rights” (this process tends to limit and restrain the understanding of true “Rights” among the masses). For example, how they influenced this with the phrase “You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which was originally “You have the right to life, liberty, and property” ( property meaning every individual owns their own body and everything they create “the fruits of their labor”). First it’s important to realize the fact that at the time people still owned chattel slaves, that’s why certain ruling individuals would not allow that wording into the Constitution and into the public historical memory, so the “creators” of the “U.S. Government” or RULERS made immoral compromises (hint: Hegelian dialectic) to the so-called “Bill of Rights” to better their own interests at the expense of countless individuals who would suffer from the belief in this illegitimate “contract” of “authority”. A “Right” is a “principle” it is a fundamental truth and can not change, the true nature of what Rights are can not be compromised on. Only when multiple rights conflict with one another does conflict resolution and a possible compromise come in, because your rights are absolute until it conflicts with another’s Rights, as I will explain further.
Through logical deduction you can easily find what is the “most right”. First it’s important to understand that Rights can only be rightfully determined through the individual points of view and the circumstances of the situation and NEVER through the point of view of a collective, since a collective is a CONTRADICTION, a LIE, all that exists are individuals. Everything can be weaponized such as collectivism, which is an abstract concept, it can be useful as an organizational tool, but is often used to convince individuals to give up their rights for the good of the collective, which is never necessary or in their interest, but instead usually in the interest of the individual using the fallacy.
You can easily understand Rights for yourself and it has nothing to do with memorizing arbitrary law. First you must ask where do rights come from? Rights come from (god, existence, whatever you want to call it) think of it as if, there was no other person in the world, you as a human were given life, the ability of speech, you were given the ability of movement, as well as other abilities. Now you have the ability and Right to use those abilities in any way in which you see fit, because you exist and own your life (why would you exist to have those abilities if you were not to use them?). Now when you add another person into existence, you still have the same Rights to basically do whatever you want, but now that someone else is in existence, that means they have the exact same rights as well, but only as long as it doesn’t infringe on another individual’s rights. Whereas the argument “if I have the Right to do whatever I want, why don’t I have the Right to kill anyone I want or stop them from speaking?” Well they have the right to speak, and live, so your right to do what you want is nullified if it comes in conflict with another’s rights. In that scenario it is up to the individuals to engage in conflict resolution. This can be as simple as going each other’s separate ways and avoiding conflict altogether or something more complex such as a “contract”, that can be communicated to other individuals to prove the legitimacy of your “claim of agreement” which is only legitimate if all parties have agreed. This can prove your Rightfulness to use what would otherwise be unjustified acts, giving you a legitimate claim on remedying the dispute in a scenario where one does not fulfill the agreed upon terms. If you try to ignore this and decide to infringe on their rights instead, that’s where they have the right to self-defense. Individuals don’t have the right to initiate violence on another individual, but they do have the right to use violence to defend themselves and their Right’s. A big misunderstanding that causes much conflict, resulting in the infringement on individual Rights is the incomprehension that, you do not have the Right to things such as safety, such as forcing others to do things to make you or themselves safer, you only have the right to make yourself more safe!!!
Simply put you have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it does not infringe on another individual’s Rights. Rights are simple to understand, because by understanding the fundamentals of what a Right is, any individual can understand right from wrong. That is how law should be, simple. We don’t need law, all we need is to understand Rights, which helps to logically determine morals. That’s why every individual should judge every conflict with this perspective. Too many people don’t understand what Rights are or where they came from, most assume the state gives you Rights or the Constitution gives you Rights. That thinking has allowed the individuals who control the state, to create all kinds of immoral laws to control society and secure their position, because the social engineers think they have the right to manage us and control us, making us and everything their property. That’s why they promote ignorance and self degradation or why they don’t teach true rights, so they can manipulate and deceive people into voluntarily and involuntarily giving away all their rights to the state.
You have been duped into slavery/subjugation by a system that takes you at a very young age and conditions ignorance in your mind. Since the beginning of time man has been fighting and dying for their Rights. “Theft” is taking something that is the property of another individual without their consent. Since all the money you earn from working is the fruit of your labor, that is your property. How can you believe that it is morally acceptable for a group of people who call themselves government to threaten you with force, to demand you give them over half of your income, your property, to use in any way they see fit, even for things you don’t support? That is an infringement on the Rights of individuals and is slavery, so by supporting government you support slavery. If you disagree I challenge you to logically explain; at what percent of theft does it become slavery? I bet you would agree 100% is slavery, but what about 99%, 80%, most governments have over 50% “tax” (theft by another name) and many hidden taxes such as inflation. If your argument is “governments provides necessary utilities”, I’d counter with so do slave masters
Obviously these laws had to be written By Far leftist Liberal and NDP Politicians’ – one can tell by that same style of abstract thinking they do!
Eg: PM Justin Trudeau’s of the wall mental thinking: Quote, “If you kill your enemy they win”
Isn’t it fun to be under the thumb of a moron?
I use sarcasm do defend myself. It is just super.
@Dwayne Desbiens – A very well articulated post … until you tried to make an equivalency between taxation and slavery. Your comparisons are valid as far as they go, but you overlook the two most fundamental aspects that distinguish the two: Unlike slaves, citizens who live in a free country and who don’t like the taxation system are free to a) vote to change it or b) move elsewhere. Options of where to move to escape taxation are slim to be sure, but they do exist for anyone who’s willing to give up access to all the services and amenities of a tax-based society. It would be a hard choice, but a choice nonetheless. A slave has zero choice. Taxation is not slavery.
Everything everyone is saying here is definitely correct but you should think about the resulting consequence. The law where people who rob will get arrested on their 3rd strike, ended up making thieves killing people after they were caught twice. While it seemed like a good system at first to warn people, it ended up causing a lot of harm.
What making self defense weapons illegal do is take the blaming of the perpetrator’s arrest to the government rather than the person. This way criminals will tend not to hold a strong vendetta against good people minding their own business. Most likely due to Criminals holding strong resentment to the people that sent them to Jail [rather than their own actions].
Yes its illegal, but if you still do it, and do it responsibly I’m sure the judge will drop your charge or at least penalize you a small amount to prevent the criminal from acting out of increased anger. Criminals hate being antagonized, they hate being seen as the “bad guy” they like to be seen as people who were in unfortunate circumstances. Due to this lack of responsibility who will they blame if they get injured AND go to jail for assault? They definitely wont take it out on the government Im sure about that.
Especially women at night, honestly I came from a country where anyone can freaking walk around and its safe due to the densely populated cities. Women should not have to be afraid of walking alone at night, however I suggest that you always carry a flashlight, and an animal mace, as you will never know if its an animal or a person attacking you when its dark anyway.
Stay safe everyone!
That’s the Canadian way. No need for a real military. Everyone loves Canadian right? LOL. Not.
When another country claims sovereignty of Canadian arctic waters with an armed ship, the Canadian government will issue a strong protest! LOL
Follow this model through for personal defense; if you are attacked at Yonge and Dundas, issue a strong protest! LOL. What a joke………
I am perfectly agreeing the fact that gun should never allow in concealed carry for self defence in Canada but why pepper spray is not allowed for self defence tho is just stupid. Think, about a woman walking at night in street if she get assaulted by a guy the he is the twice of her size. Also, paper spray were proven to be one of the most effective way for a woman to defend herself. We should definitely modify the law to permit buying and possession of a pepper spray that is designed for human use and also permit the use in self defence case.
Socialist Canada does allow humor to be used in self-defense. The best advice is to be prepared with a fool-proof joke that you can tell your assailant while he is trying to stab you, and then while he is on the ground laughing uncontrollably you can make your getaway.
I’m 14 and i walk home from school on the way i pass a poor part of town and people alls try to get money and one time a guy grabed me so i busted his gut. the next day i bought a knife and wen’t back there and i told him ied give him a peace of my mind if he touched me even one time, he never got neirh me agein or any one elecs, go’s to show the power of a knife but when i read whats abuth this i think it’s bull****
Why are we letting an idiotic police officer interpret our laws instead of a qualified laywer?
This is some serious nonsense, we effectively have a duty to die if we’re attacked by an armed assailant, especially if they have an illegally obtained firearm. Our current firearms and self defense carry laws are telling Canadians to die.
Scum. These laws were written by criminals.
If someone threatens your life, you MUST do whatever is nessesary to stay alive. Cops are reactionary, they come after crime is committed. Do you die in the streets like a dog or stand up.
i would still rather be charged than killed by an attacker, in reality Most people aren’t charged when its self defence a lot of the time after a long trial and a waist of time of money. All the time you hear in the new about someone that is charged with kidnapping or something because he tide up the burglar and you know the charges will be dropped but it still goes to court and bla bla bla. and then the charges are dropped. the chances of getting caught are slim anyway, If someone attacked you and you beat him with a bat just don’t report it, I doubt the thug is going to go to the police and say some beat me because I was mugging them.
A kubotan isn’t a terrible choice. It’s basically a sharp, hard plastic or wooden stick, say 8 inches, that can be jabbed into soft bits. Technically, carrying one for defense is almost certainly “carrying a concealed weapon”, an offense under s.90 of the Criminal Code. Although, first, you might carry it openly… not sure whether that helps… the section title of s.90 is Carrying a “Concealed” Weapon but the text of s.90 doesn’t refer to concealment. Second, you might claim that you’re carrying this weapon for a legitimate purpose… not sure what… breaking the glass on your car window if submerged in one of Dartmouth’s lakes, propping the window open in your heritage house. So, technically, you’re probably breaking the law, but, reality, there are very close to zero cases of otherwise law-abiding citizens getting charged with carrying a kubotan. Quick search at CanLii… 3 cases even mention kubotans, in one its only incidental and not related to a weapons charge, and the other two are beyond the linguistic barrier of my education. (They’re in french.)
A bad-ass cane (especially with some training) is another choice. Google cane (fighting, combat, weapons, etc.). I would recommend that you stick with a good solid cane, but not get something that anyone half knowledgeable is going to look at and say, “Wow, did you get that from Martial F@#$ing Art’s Canes.com?” Deniability. And why is a 22 year-old girl with strong knees walking with a cane? “It was my grandfather’s. Walking with it reminds me of him.” There’s a dojo in Dartmouth that focuses on cane, I believe.
And, if I ever got into a serious altercation and beat the guy badly (or put his eye out with a kubotan or tactical pen), instead of the much more likely outcome, getting my ass kicked, I wouldn’t file a police report about almost getting robbed. I’d get in a taxi (Casino… pay me later for the plug, fellas), headed the absolute opposite way to wear I live. 1 km should be far enough. Then walk the long way home.
Fuck our government and the corrupt cops! Someone tries to harm you or yours. You do whatever you have to to defend yourself and your family!
After you are safe, you call your lawyer THEN dial 911. When the cops show up, you don’t say shit. Not one fucking word! Not even something simple as, your name or tell then what happened when they ask. The cops WILL ask what happened!
You say one one thing, “my lawyer is on the way” or I want a lawyer.
so you’re telling me if i a 16 year old girl goes out for my part time job in the summer and i get grabbed by some old man when im going home from work and i pepper spray him IM the one who gets charged?? HOW is that fair?
Those “laws” are fucking stupid & backwards. The country is going to shit, it no longer feels safe to walk down the streets without constantly looking over your shoulder, and it seems like not a single day goes by anymore without people being randomly harassed & attacked on public transit (several attacks on public transit made headlines just this year alone). Yet the authorities don’t do jack shit to prevent that from happening, all they care about is preventing non-violent law-abiding citizens from walking the streets or taking public transit while carrying a concealed weapon (knife / gun / pepper spray / whatever) just to have a fighting chance of protecting themselves and not taking shit from some deranged fuckwit(s) who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near any public spaces.
I’m from the USA and all for gun laws, but this seems ridiculously extreme. I”m disabled. I came across this article looking to see what I could bring for wildlife defense when driving to Alaska this summer. I’m fine with leaving my handgun at home, but I CAN’T fight back bc of my disability. I rely on pepper spray bc its one of the few things I can use to protect myself. Guess if someone jumps me while camping, I’ll just use strong words. LOL
I carry a can of bear spray in my truck. The truck is a modified 4×4 used for work in the bush. I carry a wide range of recovery straps, tools and other gear.
I was stopped by a Conservative Officer at a hunting season roadblock. The young RCMP asked all the standard questions including “Do you have any weapons?” I said no. All good. As I was pulling away, he spotted the top of the bear spray canister in the pocket in the back of the driver’s seat. He told me to stop and reached in to get the can. He gave me s@#t for lieing about not having a weapon. I explained that I work in the bush but he carried on about the “weapon” and my answer to the question. I spotted a grey haired RCMP member and called him over. I explained my side, he took one look at my truck and the field gear in it and sent me on my way.
I watched him in the rear view mirror chatting with the young constable.
That’s kids these days. And that’s Canadian bureacracy.