The Homeowner Versus the Intruder–What Rights?

DISCLAIMER: While this piece is clearly meant as satire, one must always be vigilant by avoiding (or even giving the remotest appearance) anything considered discriminatory or using language that might be seen as targeting groups based on: race, national or ethnic origin, language, place of origin, ancestry, colour, religion or creed, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, family affiliation, pregnancy, disfigurement, civil status, receipt of public assistance, genetic characteristics, disability (physical and mental), social condition, source of income, political beliefs, a conviction for which a pardon has been granted, citizenship, or immigration status.

Note: Most of these aforementioned Human Rights, or some version thereof, are contained within the various Canadian Provincial and Territorial Human Rights Codes. For reference, such materials are easily found in the January 2018 publication from the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion/Centre Canadian pour la diversite et l’inclusion.

Satire must, it appears in Canada today— embrace, reflect, and piggyback the growing legal persecution in the United Kingdom of “unacceptable” language and speech. Satire and speech, it appears is now being effectively corralled and restrictions are growing, may only critique institutions and policies in a very superficial and ultra-sensitive manner. Written language and speech may not meander into personal or identity-based criticism and/or “attacks”—that type of satire is no longer acceptable in the chic Canada of today, unless you are a targeted white privileged male, a devout and/or outspoken Christian, or Jew, than they are fair game, so to speak. The proof being what isn’t prosecuted is found acceptable and promoted in the growing double standard Canadian justice system.

Caveat: This, again, is meant as satire and not all descriptions of the recent Ontario home invasion incident are exact nor reflective of the police investigation and findings—it’s still an ongoing police investigation and judicial consideration.

Welcome to Canada, Where Self-Defence Is a Crime and Breaking In Is a Protected Lifestyle Choice

You might think what follows is over-the-top satire. You’d be wrong.

In the great nation of Canada—land of the free-range moose, maple syrup, EV mandates, elbows up/down, beaver hats, cod moratoriums, hockey, and government-funded feelings—defending your home against a knife-wielding intruder might land you in jail while the attacker gets an apology, a check, and perhaps your living room as a safe space.

That’s not exaggeration. That’s policy.

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 incurision. 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):

1. Mental illness – A catch-all excuse for immunity.
2. Homelessness – Makes all actions justifiable, including assault.
3. Drug addiction – A disease, not a crime, apparently.
4. Identifies as female – We must respect self-identification, even during felonies.
5. Arrested 55 times, 20 for B&Es – Systemic failure, so we shouldn’t blame him again.
6. Member of a marginalized group – Intersectionality shields all.
7. Single-parent upbringing – Automatically voids criminal responsibility.
8. Not yet a citizen – A conviction could hinder his application; we, the state machinery that is, must protect him.
9. Linked to child porn – But not convicted, so hands off.
10. Terrorist affiliations – Political beliefs are personal.
11. Anti-Semitic – But it’s culturally complex, they say.
12. Illegally entered Canada – A paperwork issue, not a crime.
13. Gun and drug trafficking – He’s an entrepreneur, really.
14. Anti-Christian – Expressing a valid worldview.
15. 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 associal protest, Canada ceases to be a democracy and becomes a farce.

Final Word

This isn’t just satire—it’s a warning. When law becomes ideology, and justice becomes theatre, you no longer live in a nation of laws.

You live in a performance.
And if you’re cast as the villain, defending your own home might just be your greatest crime.

Author: Terry Burton, A retired Canadian Businessman