After the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) passed at its convention last week a resolution to lobby the federal government for relaxed self-defence laws, it did not take long for denouncement to follow.
Within hours, the Province, the federal government, the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN), the lawyer for the family of a First Nations man gunned down on a farm near Biggar last year, and countless others had weighed in. The reaction was not positive. And rightfully not. This thing is a travesty from start to finish.
I’m not even sure where to start because there is so much wrong with it, but let’s start with the resolution itself, which read:
“WHEREAS crime has increased substantially in rural communities and whereas individuals do not have sufficient rights to protect themselves and property; BE IT RESOLVED that SARM lobby the Federal Government [sic] to expand the rights and justification for an individual to defend or protect himself, herself, and person[s] under their care and their property.”
The premise is based on a claim, that crime has increased substantially, for which no evidence is given and which, in fact, is not true. Based on that faulty premise, it makes another equally unsubstantiated and equally untrue claim that individuals do not have sufficient rights to protect themselves and their property.
It is not shocking, nor even surprising, that one misguided rural municipality (Kindersley) would bring such a resolution to the table, but for it to pass by 93 per cent is disturbing.
That is not to say crime is not a problem in rural areas nor do I wish to dismiss genuine concern on the part of rural residents as illegitimate, but what this resolution is looking for is not the answer to either those concerns or to the underlying problem.
What they are asking for here is basically legalized vigilantism.
Dealing with the latter claim in the resolution first, the Criminal Code is very clear on a person’s rights in this regard. Section 34 states: A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.”
The key here, of course, is “reasonable in the circumstances.” That means if I am threatening to punch you in the nose, you don’t get to shoot me in the head.
But this is not about self-defence, it is about protecting property. Even those of us who live in cities can understand how frustrating it must be to know that if you do happen to witness a property crime in progress that, unless you just happen to be very lucky, police are unlikely to respond in a timely fashion. But the answer is not allowing people to take the law into their own hands, particularly not if it involves using unreasonable force.
In any event, this thing is never going anywhere anyway. Gord Wyant, Saskatchewan’s justice minister immediately responded that the Province would not support legislation that would allow people to “take law enforcement into their own hands.”
Ralph Goodale, Canada’s public safety minister quickly echoed that sentiment. And rightfully so, policing needs to be left to professionals.
So, all this has really done is stir up racial tensions and that raises the question of whether bringing the resolution was intentionally provocative or sublimely naïve.
I am leaning toward the latter because this was not the only poorly conceived crime resolution SARM passed last week.
They also passed a resolution that calls on the SARM board to “lobby the provincial government to implement a province-wide plan with zero tolerance on the sale and use of all illicit drugs and implement much higher fines and longer mandatory jail sentences for anyone caught selling drugs in Saskatchewan.”
Illicit drugs are federal jurisdiction. The provincial Crown does not even prosecute drug cases. I suppose they could mean to lobby the provincial government to lobby the federal government, but I’m afraid that even if the Province was game, which I’m sure it is not, that this is as much a non-starter with the feds as the other one.
