Defending your home shouldn’t turn you into a criminal

The law should protect Canadians who defend their families, not leave them facing prosecution

Manitoba NDP MLA Billie Cross landed herself in hot water during a debate over protections for property owners by citing advice given to retail workers: “they want to steal, let them steal.”

Speaking during an Oct. 29 debate on Bill 210, Cross argued that property was replaceable and insurance existed, making confrontation over theft an unnecessary risk. The bill concerns civil lawsuits by criminal trespassers against people who own or control property; it would not change the Criminal Code rules governing self-defence.

Cross subsequently acknowledged expressing herself poorly, apologized for the confusion and said theft was wrong and should have consequences. That clarification matters. It would be unfair to suggest she endorses stealing.

But relying on insurance still misses the point. These crimes are not just about physical property or losing money. A home intrusion violates personal safety in the one place people should expect it most.

Avoiding violent escalation is understandable. Advising retail employees against chasing shoplifters is sensible. But a homeowner facing an intruder may be trying to protect a spouse, child or elderly parent. Advice about recovering merchandise cannot answer every question about defending a family.

Elevating a stand-down mentality into a guiding principle risks abandoning people when they most need protection. While homeowners should not have a blank cheque to act with impunity, Canadians do not outsource their moral right of self-defence to the police. We can discourage reckless vigilantism without tolerating lawlessness.

The seven Noahide laws offer a moral framework for addressing these questions. Rooted in Jewish tradition and understood to apply to all humanity, they prohibit theft and murder and require legitimate courts of justice. These principles condemn property crime while holding human life sacred.

The Jewish legal tradition also directly addresses the danger posed by a burglar. In his Laws of Theft, chapter 9, Maimonides explains the presumption that a burglar entering a home is prepared to kill its owner if confronted. On that basis, the burglar is treated as a rodef, or pursuer threatening life, and lethal defence is permitted.

This is a presumption of danger, not a requirement that the homeowner first establish the intruder’s murderous intentions. But Maimonides also sets limits: killing is forbidden when it is clear the thief will not kill, or when the thief has turned away and no longer poses that threat. He distinguishes home burglary from theft in places such as fields, where owners are generally absent and the presumption is that the thief seeks property alone.

The broader law of the pursuer also requires someone rescuing another person to use a non-lethal means when it can stop the attack. Preserving innocent life does not erase the obligation to avoid unnecessary killing.

These are religious legal teachings, not Canadian law. I draw from them a moral principle that Canadian policymakers should take seriously: people confronting a burglar in their home should not be expected to presume harmless intentions while their own safety remains uncertain.

Canadian law already recognizes self-defence and defence of property. Section 34 of the Criminal Code requires reasonable grounds to believe force is being used or threatened, a defensive purpose and a reasonable response. Section 35 separately addresses reasonable acts in defence of property. Courts assessing self-defence must consider the threat, available alternatives and proportionality, among other circumstances.

Those protections should be strengthened. The danger created by a forced entry into an occupied home should weigh firmly in favour of the person defending against it. That does not mean every trespasser presents a mortal threat or that any response is justified. It means recognizing that the intruder has created a potentially deadly encounter whose outcome the homeowner cannot know in advance.

This concern runs particularly deep in rural areas, where distance can leave residents waiting for police. Citizens need practical security: officers with the resources to respond, a justice system that deters theft and strong protection when they must defend themselves before help arrives.

Insurance is no substitute. Farm equipment may sustain a family’s livelihood. A small business may represent decades of work. Replacing stolen possessions cannot restore everything taken from people whose homes have been invaded.

Nor can an insurance cheque erase the memory of an intruder entering the place where your children sleep. Treating these crimes primarily as financial losses understates the violation and the fear.

Canadian lawmakers should not let concerns about importing American gun culture prevent them from strengthening self-defence protections. We need a balanced solution: condemn theft, protect innocent life and ensure that courts and police uphold justice.

That means stronger protection for people defending themselves against the danger an intruder creates, with firm limits against excessive force and revenge. Canadians should not have to surrender their sense of security and settle for the promise of an insurance payout.

Joseph Quesnel is the founding director of the Canadian Foundation for Universal Ethics Education, a federally incorporated non-profit dedicated to promoting universal Noahide ethics in Canada. A seasoned journalist and public policy analyst with more than 20 years of experience, he has provided expert testimony to both the Senate and the House of Commons.