The Shotgun Blog
Friday, January 21, 2011
Self Defence? Not in Canada
His surveillance cameras caught the attackers lobbing at least six Molotov cocktails at his house and bombing his doghouse, singeing one of his Siberian Huskies. But when Mr. Thomson handed the video footage to Niagara Regional Police, he found himself charged with careless use of a firearm.
The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
Mr. Thomson’s is the latest in a series of high-profile cases in which people have been charged after defending their homes and businesses against criminals. Central Alberta farmer Brian Knight became a local hero after shooting a thief who was trying to steal his ATV. He pleaded guilty to criminal negligence earlier this month. In October, Toronto shopkeeper David Chen was acquitted of forcible confinement charges after he tied up a repeat shoplifter and demanded he stop raiding his grocery store.
Their cases are renewing calls for Canada to introduce a version of the “Castle Doctrine” found in many U.S. states, which allows citizens to defend their property with force.
To Tim Hudak (Ontario Progressive Conservative leader) and Prime Minister Stephen Harper: If you have a conservative bone left in your bodies, push for legislation to ensure Canadians have a real and effective right to defend themselves and their families. Put away your posturing nonsense about "hug-a-thug" and actually do something to help Canadians defend themselves. If your opponents don't like it, fine let them vote down such measures in Parliament and reap the consequences. Here is a popular and principled issue you can fight an election on.
Too many of us still blithely assume we have a right to self-defense, against the mugger on the street corner or the home invader. This is not true. For all practical purposes the police and Crown want us to sit passively, see our property destroy and loved ones assaulted, and wait for the police to arrive. This is bad enough in urban areas. In rural areas, where the nearest RCMP or OPP detachment could be miles and minutes away, it is asking people to surrender themselves to the tender mercies of the worst in Canadian society.
Victims of violence in Canada, who defend themselves, are being attacked twice. Once by the criminals and again by their own government.
Another G20 civil rights violation has come to light here. In this video taped incident a York Regional officer informs a fellow Canadian: "This ain’t Canada right now."
Like hell it isn't.
Let me explain carefully, so even government employees can understand this: In Canada government is the servant of the people, not it's master. We delegate to government certain powers in order to preserve our natural rights. If governments prevent us from asserting those rights - the most basic being one of self-defense - then it has ceased become our defender and instead become a usurper of our freedom.
Caledonia, the incidents with David Chen, Brian Knight, Ian Thomson and G20 suggest that governments at all levels have become arrogant and contemptuous of the rights of Canadians. The belief seems to be that they will decide what is safe and good for Canadians. This is not vigilantism we are calling for, it is the simple and ancient right of self-defense, something which even many authoritarian regimes concede in practice, if not in principle.
These are freedoms obtained in centuries of British constitutional struggle. Freedoms defended in two world wars and the struggle against communism. Freedoms defended in the fight to preserve civil liberties at home.
Forgot about your petty partisanship. This is the real danger to your freedom and personal and economic well being. Without these rights, the rest doesn't matter a damn.
Posted by Richard Anderson on January 21, 2011 | Permalink
Wow, you pretty much hit this one out of the park. Along with your slagging of the Canadian MSM and lefty blogoshere earlier, you have had your best week. Seriously.
Posted by: B | 2011-01-21 8:26:16 AM
That`s the intrepid Niag Reg ' Police ' for you . About the only thing they are useful for is drinking coffee and sitting around to collect a bloated pension . Anyone remember the botched Bernardo incident where tapes of the murders were hidden in his house where they lay during a police search until one of the lawyers ' found ' them and subsequently sat on them during the proceedings , enabling Homolka the accomplice to be out on the streets after 12 years in a country club prison . And if you`re not a woman or drug addict good luck in getting them out for a legitimate crime .
Posted by: daveh | 2011-01-21 9:31:22 AM
The only thing missing from the junk that hangs off the belts of Canadian Police Officers are cattle prods because that would be the most appropriate tool for the job given the dominant ruling class mindset (of all parties) and the apparent docile nature of the herd.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2011-01-21 9:57:51 AM
Just curious, is there some sort of society that stands up for those who are persecuted for defending themselves? If not, maybe it's time to get serious about this. It doesn't have to be a "radical" group, who offers rewards for taking down "scumbags". Just a common sense association, with a minimum of lawyers.
Posted by: dp | 2011-01-21 10:32:27 AM
A friend of mine was sitting in his car after picking up a few groceries when some idiot came up and grabbed himand tried to pull him out of the car. My friend swung a bag of groceries (canned goods) at the guy and the guy took off.
When my friend called the police to report the attempted carjacking and explained the details he was politely informed that he has left himself open to a charge of assault.
Marvelous police society we are geting ourselves into.
Posted by: fredinprincetonbc | 2011-01-21 10:44:24 AM
What do you call a violent attack against ones person? Tyranny. What do you call it when a Gov tells the people what they can and cannot do , and use the Police to enforce there rules? Nazi Germany. We have just moved into the "Have your papers out and ready" time of Canada. I dont kneel to tyranny just like i dont kneel to crime. This is my Canada. And i want it back. " A true patriot must be willing to defend his country against his Government " " Dissent is the greatest forms of patriatism one can show his Country " Goverments have gone un-checked for far too long and now we pay the price of the abbolishment of personal freedom's and rights. This is a sad time for what i called the Greatest nation on earth. Im not a Liberal , Conservative , or Democrat..... I am a Canadian damnit , and we want our Country back !
Posted by: Calgary Sheepdog | 2011-01-21 12:29:49 PM
The problem is that most Canadians don't care to be patriots. A patriot is someone who endures all the repercussions of insisting we live strictly by the constitution. That means no loyalty to a flag or a politician - just a set of old principles. The constitution is the highest law in the land, yet there are no penalties for subverting it. History has shown that it would be safer to set aside the law against murder and enforce the constitution than vice versa. Hitler got rid of the constitution as one of his first major acts because he knew it was a bridle to his tyrannical intentions.
Posted by: DTOM | 2011-01-21 4:25:33 PM
Certainly the police can demonstrate a total lack of common sense and even behave as thugs at times, but we must keep in mind two vital things. One is that the police are obligated to follow the marching orders given them by those in charge. Secondly and even more important is that the Crown could simply reject all such cases. Even in cases dealing with real criminals the Crown does not always agree to pursue the cases. I do not excuse the cops in this case, but I wish to point out that we need to go much higher to get to the root of the problem. Based on this case and other similar cases of self-defence, one must assume that the Crown, police Commissioners and the State itself seek to use these example in order to intimidate and to prevent others from defending themselves. This smacks of the worst of totalitarian regimes, especially when at the same time people can no longer depend on the official law enforcement to protect them or their property. We are looking more and more like a banana republic.
Posted by: Alain | 2011-01-21 7:48:49 PM
Here south of the 49th parallel, arson is a "forcible felony" and one may use deadly force, including use of a firearm, to prevent the burning of one's residence and to protect the lives of those who reside inside. It is an outrage that Canadians may not use firearms to protect their homes and loved ones from thugs. Mr Thomson should demand a jury trial; if I were on that jury, I would acquit him in a heartbeat!
Watch the videos at: http://www.proudtobecanadian.caindex/weblog/comments/get_off_my_lawn_punks_before_i_get-arrested_this_is_canada_eh_please_awa#When:17:14:34Z Caution: Foul Language!
Posted by: Mike 71 | 2011-01-22 11:59:05 AM
A really good article:
While in the US, Utah at my uncle's home, I was astounded to see a loaded shot gun sticking out of an umbrella holder in his hall way.
I asked why as this was a bit of a cultural shock to me. He said it was his nigger gun. Shocked I said "Nigger?" and he replied "Yup, and it doesn't matter what color they are, White or otherwise.
With a second relative driving from Utah to Nevada we were flagged by a highway patrol car. This uncle took his .38 out and put it on his dash as he rolled down his window.
The patrol guy in his stetson glanced at the pistol and asked for ID. Uncle asked the patrolman for ID before showing his.
All passed without incident and I was totally astounded. Uncle tells me "Any dam fool can buy a uniform!"
In the US, in Texas, not sure of other states, one can carry fused dynamite in their hip pocket, no problem.
In Canada if you take baking soda into your basement to blow up your house you can be charged with being in possession of an explosive.
It doesn't have to work in Canada, the intention is enough to do harm.
All in all, I'm pretty happy where I live under the rules we have.
Posted by: cyberclark | 2011-01-22 1:05:17 PM
Cyberclark- Just because your kin are bigots doesn't mean the whole country is bad. If these stories are actually true, the reason your uncle put his 38 on the dash is so the cop was aware he was armed. Cops don't like concealed weapons.
Posted by: dp | 2011-01-22 1:41:36 PM
The law in most states is that when you are packing and stopped by police you have to disclose to the officer that you have a conceal carry permit for that state, except in Alaska where you don't need one!
Posted by: John Chittick | 2011-01-22 4:43:23 PM
The undermining of self defense in Canada started under judges placed by the Liberals(supported by the NDP). The Conservatives were guilty of not challenging these leftist judges. Stansfield, Clark, and Mulroney were nothing more than liberals in PC clothing. What Canadians need are real conservatives who will stand up for the rights of Canadians to arm and protect themselves.
In the U.S., at least 34 states have some version of the Castle Doctrine. In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself or your neighbor's life and property. A 65 year old man shot down two men robbing his neighbor. The man had told the two criminals to freeze. They came at him and were killed for their trouble. Another incident in Houston had three criminals robbing a family run jewelry store. The criminals opened fire and the store owner responded. The store owner was seriously wounded but he killed all three attackers. He was entirely within his rights and doesn't have to fear prosecution like in Canada. The question is what would happen to the two victims if these incidents took place in Canada? The second question is why haven't Canadians raised hell over this? The Castle Doctrine exist in most states because Americans fought for it. Concealed Carry exists because the American masses fought for it. The death penalty exists here because the American people want it and fought the elites(read up on the conflict with the California Supreme COurt in the 1970's) for it. Why won't Canadians fight for their rights?
Posted by: Jacob | 2011-01-22 8:20:10 PM
Well Jacob, in Canada we don't have the same primary system Americans do. Most candidates for public office are chosen by the party leader. Thus many come pre-neutered before the election even begins. If the party leader doesn't sign the nomination papers they can't be a candidate. No matter if the local party association overwhelmingly supports that candidate.
The schools are not very good at teaching math, science, literature or history, but are very adept at teaching obedience. For instance, children are not taught to defend themselves against bullies, but instead to call for the teacher to resolve the dispute.
I was taught this myself in school. My father told me to ignore the teachers, and that so long as I fought in self defence, he would do everything to defend me against the teachers. But he was an immigrant from a dictatorship and understood you had to fight bullies before they became powerful.
There is a deference to authority here that would disgust most Americans. It certainly disgusts me. Wasn't always the case. Canadians used to shoot straight with the best of them. The Castle Doctrine is old English common law being given the force of modern statute. We have the same common law tradition in Canada, just enforced with less vigour.
There is a market for conservative / libertarian ideas in Canada, if people had the courage to advocate those ideas effectively.
Posted by: Publius | 2011-01-23 6:45:10 AM
When the Liberals brought in there firearms laws , licensing and registration , its just following its logical course. Government and police are extremely hostile towards private gun ownership.
Posted by: don b | 2011-01-23 1:00:27 PM
don b- Not all cops are against private gun ownership. I see plenty of cops at gun stores, and they seem friendly enough. It's the police chiefs who tow the anti-gun line. They're nothing more than politicians in uniform. They're also influenced by lobbyists.
I read an interesting story about the software company that created and supports the gun registry system being one of the main contributors to Canadian police associations. Let that one soak in for a minute, and things become a little more clear.
Posted by: dp | 2011-01-23 2:48:33 PM
The RIGHT to be armed and own firearms for self defense has already been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (Google Bruce Montague) How did they handle this. Knowing that they would simply HAVE to make a politically incorrect ruling that would overturn many of Canada draconian gun laws, they simply refused to hear the case, and they don't have to give any reason what-so-ever for their decision not to hear it, and sent Bruce back to jail.. How is THAT for democracy. A better understanding of Jury nullification is what this country needs. A jury has total power, they don't have to listen to direction by a judge, and they can acquit anyone of any crime. Currently, in Canada, the criminal controls your rights. The paranoid forget that 99.99% of people are honest, yet governments let the .001% of criminal control what you have, and how you can defend it. THAT'S why a woman can't have pepper spray in her purse to prevent her from being raped. The .001% of criminals may buy it too, and use it against her, so in Leftist thinking, is just so much simpler that she be raped and murdered than EVER having something that can be used to prevent it. Feel safer Now?
Posted by: LaserGuy | 2011-01-24 9:18:43 AM
Actually i agree with you DP somewhat, but with these firearms law, its never enough, its like a disease it wants to grow.
Posted by: don b | 2011-01-24 9:22:15 AM
"Government and police are extremely hostile towards private gun ownership."
to quote don b.
Yes the reason they are is because they can defend themselves in their own homes (they are allowed to have the service revolvers or other guns at home) and will NOT be treated the same way if they kill an intruder but these same Canadian cops do NOT want you to be able to do the same. And its not because they fear criminals will get the guns (criminals will get guns regardless --thats part of being a criminal) but because they FEAR free men and women. Most officers in canada have a dictatorial mentality. Unlike officers in certain states who see themselves in the old school of "law man" which means they are their to help the free man, canadian officers and authorities have a "you serve the state" mentality. It sucks living in Canada and I was born here. I intend on becoming an American as soon as possible. God Bless America.
Posted by: V is for Victory | 2011-03-09 7:07:04 PM
I think its time for me to post something I wrote concerning Britain's gun madness. I emigrated from the UK to Canada in 1994, while i can own a handgun here, in britain it is strictly illegal. So here are the facts:
As many people here know, banning guns does not stop the criminals from carrying them. So how has Britain fared since former prime minister Tony Blair's all out macho "total ban" on handguns in 1997? Before Blair decided to disarm millions of law abiding citizens, the country had three mass shooting that unarmed police officers could not stop. In April 2010, in picturesque Cumbria, a popular tourist destination in northern England, a cab driver by the name of Derrick Bird drove around for 35 miles, casually gunning people down with his 12 gauge shotgun and .22 rifle. He managed to kill 12 innocent people and wound 25 others.
The big problem here was, NOT ONE person could stop Derrick Bird. Not the police, not the public. Why? Because they were unarmed. Nobody had a gun or access to one that could be used to stop this slaughter. After Bird finished his shooting spree, he casually walked into a secluded area and shot himself. In one instance, Bird was in plain sight of two police officers who were scooting people out of the way and shouting at others to “take cover.” They could not stop him. Their batons and cans of pepper spray weren’t quite a match for Bird’s guns.
So, just how many of the tens of thousands of UK citizens who owned handguns went on shooting sprees before they were stripped of their weapons in 1997? Only three. Yes, they were three too many, but enough for Tony Blair's socialist government to disarm an entire nation of all handguns and rifles over .22 calibre. Ten years later in 2006, there were an estimated FOUR MIILION illegal guns circulating in the UK. Criminals between the ages of 15-24 can get access to Mac-10 sub-machine guns, Beretta pistols and replica weapons converted to fire live ammo. Also on the rise is the number of victims shot: Again, going back seven years, 440 people were seriously wounded by firearms in 2003/4, up five per cent from 2002. In the first six months of 2009, the number of shootings in London had almost doubled from 123 to 236 compared with the same period in 2008, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across London alone.
Since 1996, gun crime has increased overall in the UK by 92%. Now we have huge areas of London, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool controlled by gangs armed with machine guns, fighting it out over turf and the drugs trade. Teenagers packing illegal handguns battle each other in “respect” shootings. In the meantime, coppers walk around unarmed while the rest of the country is left to cower in homes behind locked doors, burglar alarms and barred windows.
Although Canada is not free from armed criminals, at least the situation here is a lot saner. All police officers here are armed and Canada has considerably less violent crime than the UK. There are over 3.8 million gun owners here who didn’t kill anyone yesterday. But the answer in the UK is to have every police station or district manned by a select number of armed officers who can react quickly and independently when another mass shooting happens. And it will given time.
For those "ban all guns" groupies who continue to believe that disarming law abiding citizens will somehow keep us all safe, they should listen to the number of 911 recording on YouTube by terrified women who were calling for help when stalkers, rapists and burglars were in the act of breaking into their homes. The police were too far away to get to the scene in time. All the women in question are all alive today because they had access to a gun in the house and were able to put a bullet in their attackers. In Canada, they would have been charged. Dead criminals are a much better solution, or rather criminals who are afraid to break into someone house, knowing that the owner coulder be armed and willing to shoot an intuder.
When a citizenry is unarmed and therefore stripped of its ability to protect itself from violent criminals, then that citizenry is no longer free. Britons tofday are certainly not free, as the UK is now the most heavily watched country in the world with close circuit cctv cameras in every high street. Apparently its to keep us safe. I say its has a lot more to do with population control.
In closing, here is a newspaper report from the UK (with photos) of an armoured car guard who was attacked and badly wounded by three hooded men armed with machetes. In the UK, armoured car personnel are not allowed to possess ANY KIND of defensive weapon, not even a baton or pepper spray. They get a crash helmet and a stab vest. That's it.
See here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-517540/Caught-camera-Dramatic-moment-security-guard-fought-machete-wielding-gang.html
Posted by: Bill Gibbons | 2011-06-02 7:28:50 PM
Here is another incident in the UK where ONE man armed with a machete held THIRTY unarmed police officers at bay.
Scroll down to watch the video.
Posted by: Bill Gibbons | 2011-06-02 7:31:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.