Is Your Property Really Private?

Up here, in the Great Confused North, private property rights and the ability to defend such have recently been cause for discussion. A recent spate of home invasions, several with deadly consequence, have made speaking about the castle doctrine a somewhat common conversation.

Curious though, the media reporting tends toward one of two sections in the criminal code relating to self defence. The discussions have centred on the ridiculousness of what is considered reasonable when using force in the defence of person. s 34 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada In a nutshell, if someone threatens you or a person near you you may take steps that are reasonable to defend yourself. Which sounds quite logical, if you were being threatened by someone yelling, shooting them would be unreasonable. Deadly force requires reasonable understanding that deadly violence is about to be perpetrated on you.

A caveat exists in the legislation, a very serious caveat. One that describes that which is reasonable. s 34 (2) Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) provides determining factors the court must use, while does not excuse other factors, in determining what is reasonable. These are;

• (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.

The hew and cry regarding these limitations has been significant. These restrictions are for acts against the body, i.e. your life or that of another. But what about in defence of property? Well it is convenient that the CCofC was laid out with defence of property as the next section. s 35 (1) Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) details who you may protect your property, or that of another, once again using the term reasonable to qualify the action taken but without the mandating of what the court must consider as reasonable.

In the UK, what is reasonable and necessary is what the person defending themselves in their home subjectively believes them to be. Not what the court objective does. There is a two part test that the courts use, did the defendant subjectively believe there was a threat, was the response grossly disproportionate to that belief.

So back to Canada and the defence of your property. In s 332 (1) in describing property for the purpose of theft the definition is anything whether animate or inanimate. So that could be your horse, or it could be your thoughts by which I mean Intellectual Property. What is curious and I am sure most folks do not even consider this but theft is only considered when it is by another entity be it a person or company. Corporate espionage could be considered under this section.

But is private property true the individuals? The government can take your blood without your consent. Do we really own our health records? Weapons are severely limited in Canada, as is speech in the latest round of internet rules and regulations. You have to pay property taxes that would allow the government to seize said property if the taxes were not paid. How about income taxes. Is not your money which you have earned through your actions and intellect private property? Apparently not.

The government can take your property any time they deem necessary, and the latest court rulings in BC suggest native Canadians can claim your property as theirs and the courts wil support this.

My definition of private property is anything that is of you or by you. Your person, and things like blood, organs and body parts and the information about your body. Your thoughts which include speech and intellectual property. And the results of your labours, money and tangible items bought with that labour. These things all amount to liberty. In my belief system all these things come from our creator.

If these things come from our creator they are not to be taken from us lightly or without the ability to be defended. In Canada we continue to allow ourselves to have these types of property liberated from us in the name of entitlement and safety. Canadians really need to understand what they are giving up. Another opportunity for the populace to be awoken.