The Act goes into force April 1, 2003
27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence
(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and
(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).
|
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. |
|
|
Extent of justification |
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F). |
|
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if (a) he uses the force (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm; (b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and (c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. R.S., c. C-34, s. 35. |
|
|
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. R.S., c. C-34, s. 36. |
|
|
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it. |
|
|
Extent of justification |
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent. R.S., c. C-34, s. 37. |
Does it depend on whether or not the "good" student is the richest, most influential, and has the most powerful weapons? As long as you're the "good" guy can you break the law?
In a time when school administration and guidance are limited in resources due to lack of funding, is it time for students to uphold justice themselves? Should students act unilaterally? Is this not the way adults now deal with similar situations? Isn't this what we learn in film, TV, provincial politics, and international politics? Aren't rules of law like Magna Carta, the United Nations Charter, and tradition in Parliament irrelevant in an expedient society?
I definitely believe that a student should defend him/herself from an attack using any means possible, including lethal force. Since it isn't a good idea to carry weapons, more young people should learn martial arts such as tae kwon do, judo, kickboxing and aikido.
In this deal of the "good" students, we need to describe what are "good" students like the Mississauga person said. If the process of bullying continues for too long the students should take actions into there own hands. We also need to see what are the "bullies?" because what if the "good" kids are the "bullies"? We can't see everyone at the same time so how do we know if the "good" kids aren't the bullies and the "bullies" aren't the good kids. We have to look at all aspects of this. We will never be able to stop bullying completely but we should still try but teachers and the police or authority take the wrong actions. way wrong actions. They are also one minded because they blame us teenagers for everything we do and think we are all dope addicts and do not try to do the best to defend out "RIGHTS". we have rights too. why dont you so called "authority" so something about our rights and try to protect them. We know you don't do enough and we try to talk up but the authority never listens because we are just teenagers. We know lots and probably more than you authority. You don't give us a chance. You are the future generation. If you treat us like shit, we will treat you like shit when we are in your ages. and hopefully we don't forget what its like to be teenagers like most authority out there. Thank you. i am a 17 year old student that attends High School in Devon. i know about the things that go on.
I believe that youth should be allowed to act pre-emptively against bullies. "If" there is a past history of bullying. I also believe that it is wrong for some schools (like mine) to suspend or expel all students found fighting. without making any exceptions for bullying or assault. that would mean that one student who doesn't care if they are expelled attacks another who needs to stay in school should they both be punished because the second fights back. should they really have to just stand there and take it just to avoid trouble. personally I think that's the fastest way to get yourself killed.
What would happen to u if u are cut fighting someone? what should the person that is being bullied do?