Arguments Against this Resolution:

This resolution as a whole: This resolution as a whole is poorly written, with a mass amount of errors, including the lack of females mentioned anywhere, as well as the objectification of people as possessions. This can be used as an argument against the competency of the minister (IAN). The clauses in the resolution are subject to wide-spread abuse. It legalizes murder, under the circumstance that the person murdering deems it necessary at the time of which they are, indeed, murdering. This resolution is filled with loopholes, which can be used as an argument against the competency of the minister (IAN). This resolution deals with the Criminal Code of Canada. Though it is a tabled document, very few delegates have actually read this document, nor are they supplied with sufficient copies to read. Therefore, delegates are debating this resolution without knowing what it is actually doing. Most of the arguments below actually deal with things that are addressed in the original criminal code, but not at all addressed in this resolution, which replaces parts of the code entirely.

Action Clause 1: 34(1) replaces the current criminal code of canada section, which currently reads: "34. (1) Everyone 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." The current code is better than the one proposed by the honourable minister because it PREVENTS death. Murder is not justified under any circumstance. Quote Whereas Clause reading "Canadians are guaranteed the right to life..."

34(2) is an extension of the new section 34, which allows a person to kill under the circumstance that it is deemed necessary.

i)

The biggest problem with this, on a personal level, is human error. In the midst of a fight, human judgment is often clouded and cannot be trusted in making life-or-death decisions.

Moreover, you can deem it necessary to kill someone when interacted with. There is no safety check or fail-safe. This can be abused, and put in a much larger scale.

Action Clause 2: 1) This clause requires clarification. Does it replace the whole of the current section, or does it simply fit itself in where it seems applicable. It needs to be clearly worded. (COMPETNECY) Action Clause 3: 2) This action clause allows you to, in essence, beat anyone who takes something of your possession. Example: I go to Brandon Cuza's house and take a piece of chocolate. Brandon decides he wants his chocolate back. This resolution lets us literally fight to the death over anything we own.

Action Clause 4: 3) Firstly, this clause should actually be two clauses. Therefore, its flawed already. Next, this clause, concerning section 40, defines any possessions or people as a "Castle". This objectifies other people, and is flawed in the premise that only one person may have control, or "reign" over this castle.

2) The subsection concerning section 41 of the criminal code. Section 41(1) - allows any person to remove a person from their property using force as necessary (again the issue of human error) Section 41(2) - Classifies trespassing as an assault, and therefore the person who controls this "castle" may use any level of force, even lethal, to remove the trespasser. This also allows the use of firearms and any other form of weaponry to be used to defend the "Castle" and the people therein. Section 41(3) - This section allows people to leave their property under the protection of someone else. Therefore, this allows the person being granted access to the property, to have the same right to kill as the original owner. 3) Clause 4 as a whole allows brutal force to be used to harm AND KILL any who oppose the owner. These laws can easily be manipulated and abused beyond reason.