In an interview Tuesday with the Citizen, Michael Bryant said the prime minister has completely “misstated” the truth about Canada’s laws by linking gun ownership with the right of rural Canadians to use firearms for their own safety if police forces aren’t close enough to respond.
Bryant’s assessment of whether Canadians have the automatic legal right to use a gun to defend themselves was echoed by other legal experts and a spokesman for the Canadian Bar Association.
Those experts threw cold water on the so-called “castle doctrine” that some people say allows Canadians to protect their homes. Moreover, they noted that unlike in the United States, where there is a constitutional right to bear arms, Canadians have no such right.
“It’s not Canadian law,” said Bryant, who was attorney general in the provincial Liberal government from 2003 to 2007.
“It’s vigilantism. People are going to find themselves facing the criminal justice system and being charged with serious crimes if they decide to follow what the prime minister is suggesting.”
Bryant expressed concern that people will assume incorrectly that they have a right to use their gun in self-defence at home.
“Canadians should not listen to the prime minister on this one at all. Resort to common sense. We don’t live in the wild west. We live in a country of law. And we have a criminal law that puts enforcement and protection in the hands of police, not in the hands of citizens.”
“He’s just wrong under criminal law, under constitutional law and it’s just incredibly reckless of him to do that,” said Bryant, who is part of the Coalition for Gun Control.
“People assume that the prime minister does not counsel criminal activity. But that’s exactly what he’s doing here and I would imagine that the police are pretty upset about it.”
The controversy began quietly late last week, when Harper appeared at a public event in Saskatchewan and fielded questions on gun control.
“My wife’s from a rural area,” he said. “Gun ownership wasn’t just for the farm. It was also for a certain level of security when you’re a ways from immediate police assistance.”
The next day, Conservative campaign manager Jenni Byrne sent out an email to supporters.
“As someone who grew up in a rural part of our country, I was proud to hear what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday,” she wrote. “He said that gun ownership is important for safety for those of us who live a ways from immediate police assistance.
“Our Conservative party recognizes that guns play an important role in the livelihoods, recreation and safety of many Canadians. And we’re standing up for responsible gun-owning Canadians.”
In Ottawa on Tuesday, following media reports about the issue, the Prime Minister’s Office released a statement.
“There are views being attributed to the Prime Minister which he does not believe and has never stated,” wrote Rob Nicol, director of communications.
The PMO did not describe the views that are being incorrectly attributed to Harper.
But Nicol said Harper “was very clear that gun ownership in Canada comes with strong legal responsibility, including training, storage, possession and licensing.
“Any criminal misuse of firearms will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said Nicol.
Harper’s comments last week were well-received by the National Firearms Association, but critics say he is stoking fears for his own political benefit as an election campaign approaches.
The political fallout grew on Tuesday, as federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair blasted Harper for trying to divide people on gun control, and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said Canadians don’t want to live in a country with an “abundance of firearms.”
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police declined to comment, as did Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau Tuesday.
The Ontario Provincial Police provided a two-paragraph statement: “The OPP does not make the law, but we do enforce it,” wrote Sgt. Peter Leon.
“The OPP urges everyone who feels their personal safety is threatened to call 911 and have the police service of jurisdiction intervene.”
Carissima Mathen, an associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa, said that it’s important for Canadians to know factual information about how the law is applied.
“I don’t think it’s right to say that we have this firm castle doctrine and that you’re allowed to use deadly force just because you’re defending your home.”
She said that if a homeowner responds to an intruder, a key issue would be whether that person’s actions were “proportional.”
A homeowner could claim self-defence, based on three grounds: he or she believed on “reasonable grounds” that they were about to be assaulted, that they responded in self-defence, and their response was reasonable.
It would be up to the Crown to disprove that claim of self-defence.
Eric Gottardi, chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s criminal justice section, said Americans have moved closer to the notion that a person’s home is their castle. Not so in Canada.
“The idea that you could use guns to threaten or indeed shoot at somebody in defence of your property — whether it’s a tractor or your home itself — is really at odds with the basic fundamentals of our Canadian law.”
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com/
Author: Mark Kennedy
No comments:
Post a Comment