Terry Burton‘s satire-that-is-too-close-to-being-true:
A Recent Case in Ontario
An Ontario man recently had the unthinkable happen: he defended his home. Unfortunately for him, this occurred in Canada, where the laws surrounding self-defence have taken a dive off the deep end of “wokeness”. The police, after deep reflection (and a healthy dose of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training), chose to charge the homeowner and not the intruder. Why?
Let’s break down the madness.
How a Home Invasion Might Go in 2025 Canada:
Homeowner (middle-class taxpayer, not currently oppressed):
“Hello, sir. You appear to have broken into my home and possess a 7-inch knife. May I inquire about your intentions?”Intruder (career criminal with a social media following):
“I’m just here to grab some electronics, steal your monies, and stab someone if they resist my incursion. It depends on my mood. Don’t profile me.”Homeowner:
“Of course. My apologies. Would you like a latte while you loot my home? Oat milk? Almond? I don’t want to assume.”Intruder:
“You’re a colonialist bigot for offering me food.”Homeowner:
“Understood. Legally, I’m only allowed to resist you in proportion to your level of violence — yet to be ascertained, as determined by a tribunal of academics who’ve never been in a fist fight. That means if you punch me, I can … maybe glare at you. Anything more, and I’m the criminal.”But what if the homeowner fights back?
In this case, the homeowner managed to grab a knife and defend himself. The intruder was injured — tragically — during this altercation. So naturally, the police arrived and did what any reasonable, DEI officer was instructed s/he must do:
They charged the homeowner.
The intruder? Off to the hospital, flowers sent courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer, and full support from victim services (taxpayer funded). (Yes, really.)
Reasons Police and Prosecutors Declined to Charge the Intruder (some say over-the-top satirical conjecture by the author):
- Mental illness – A catch-all excuse for immunity.
- Homelessness – Makes all actions justifiable, including assault.
- Drug addiction – A disease, not a crime, apparently.
- Identifies as female – We must respect self-identification, even during felonies.
- Arrested 55 times, 20 for B&Es – Systemic failure, so we shouldn’t blame him again.
- Member of a marginalized group – Intersectionality shields all.
- Single-parent upbringing – Automatically voids criminal responsibility.
- Not yet a citizen – A conviction could hinder his application; we, the state machinery that is, must protect him.
- Linked to child porn – But not convicted, so hands off.
- Terrorist affiliations – Political beliefs are personal.
- Anti-Semitic – But it’s culturally complex, they say.
- Illegally entered Canada – A paperwork issue, not a crime.
- Gun and drug trafficking – He’s an entrepreneur, really.
- Anti-Christian – Expressing a valid worldview.
- Anti–Rule of Law – Which now appears to be mainstream.
The Verdict?
The homeowner is:
- Charged with attempted murder.
- Convicted of using “excessive force”.
- Sued in civil court by the intruder.
- Ordered to surrender his house and retirement savings.
The intruder is:
- Awarded the home he broke into.
- Given legal permission to rent the house back to the homeowner’s family.
- Allowed to visit the property at will.
- Celebrated in local media for “surviving trauma”.
What Happened to Common Sense?
It died somewhere between Bill C-18, Bill C-63, and the idea that your lived experience matters more than actual law. In a country where, in some jurisdictions, whistling at night is outlawed, but breaking into homes is a misunderstood cry for help, we’ve lost the thread entirely.
When defending your family is labelled aggression, and violating someone’s home is rebranded asocial protest, Canada ceases to be a democracy and becomes a farce.
