Lighter charges for killing men and boys in Canada : "the killing of a woman or girl, will be considered first-degree murder even if the crime was not planned or deliberate"

mrsheepLOL · 2025-12-11T07:59:49+00:00

We're literally breaking human rights rules now

Current_Finding_4066 · 2025-12-11T07:54:48+00:00

Finally they openly admitted men's live is not considered as sacred or valued.

WhyDidntITextBack · 2025-12-11T08:22:44+00:00

We have reached a new level of female supremacy. This new law could simply have been made gender-neutral. But many people genuinely want killing men to become a less serious crime and men’s lives to have less value. What’s worse, men are, as usual, passive. They should protest against such extreme misandry, but they don’t… By the way, we have also seen that the political right, although in some respects slightly better for men than the left, is not our ally. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni openly supported the femicide law.

Chikaze · 2025-12-11T08:53:06+00:00

I guess in Canada people are not equal under the law.

Ghoosemosey · 2025-12-11T12:31:48+00:00

Never voting liberal again.

"Cases of femicide, the killing of a woman or girl, will be considered first-degree murder even if the crime was not planned or deliberate if it can be proved that the victims were subject to a pattern of abuse or coercive control."

WHY NOT EVERY VICTIM LIKE THIS???? Why make it explicit point not to protect men murdered in this exact same way. Really disgusting

Longjumping_Shine874 · 2025-12-11T11:26:48+00:00

I really dont think women are as oppressed as they make it out to be,

Short_King_13 · 2025-12-11T08:42:15+00:00

Jose Mourinho - I prefer not to speak, if I speak, I am big trouble.

Many_Dragonfly4154 · 2025-12-11T08:37:24+00:00

Surprise surprise, the LPC still believes in female supremacy.

Wheekie · 2025-12-11T09:36:30+00:00

I'm tired of legislative enshittification boss.

Francis_Dollar_Hide · 2025-12-11T15:11:31+00:00

You know which children they don’t protect? The ones that are assaulted by female teachers.

Nymanator · 2025-12-11T17:23:07+00:00

Speaking as a Canadian, abso-fucking-lutely not.

Time to get angry and get active. I'll be writing letters and emails to whoever I have to in order to oppose this blatant discrimination.

Morden013 · 2025-12-11T09:11:53+00:00

Are there no men in those debates / legislations procedures / making decisions? Who allows this shit to be added into the law? What about equality no matter what gender, race, religion...etc?

SarcasticallyCandour · 2025-12-11T14:51:07+00:00

In the UK women get automatic lighter sentences. Evem judges are quoted as saying things like "if you were a man I'd be sending you to prison".

So female offenders get lighter sentences, now female victims get better protections.

jessi387 · 2025-12-11T15:58:25+00:00

I hate this country.

Codename-18 · 2025-12-11T08:31:47+00:00

So if she crosses the road in a foggy night in the middle of nowhere and you slam your brakes but still end up running her over it's still first degree murder?

Current_Finding_4066 · 2025-12-11T08:02:47+00:00

Why they don't make sure legal process is finished in a reasonable amount of time? It is cruel to innocent to be involved in it for years!

Rural_Dictionary939 · 2025-12-11T08:13:59+00:00

I looked at the article, and apparently the murder of a woman or girl will be considered femicide if there was a pattern of domestic violence and/or intimate partner abuse beforehand.

In other words, the definition of femicide will be very broad. In the US, about a third of murders of women are by intimate partners, so if in Canada this proportion is the same, then more than a third of murders with female victims could be considered femicide (more than a third, due to domestic violence other than by intimate partners).

This bill is effectively going to increase sentences for murders of women and girls in many cases simply because they're female.

I would be okay with femicide being classified as a distinct form of homicide, as long as it was limited in scope to murders of women because they're women, and if androcide was also classified as a distinct form of homicide, too.

LCH44 · 2025-12-11T15:35:15+00:00

lol women are more violent and initiate violence more often

EnormousPurpleGarden · 2025-12-11T13:36:51+00:00

This probably violates s. 28 of the Charter because it would cause s. 7 to apply differently based on gender.

rabel111 · 2025-12-11T20:17:16+00:00

Changing laws to make men the official enemies of the state. Canada will get what they pay for. Men and boys

boys growing up in a systems that treats them as subhuman. See where that gets your social cohesion and inclusion.

bulimic_squid · 2025-12-11T20:18:52+00:00

'the protecting victims act' is a VERY telling bit of language use.

PYR0CHA0S · 2025-12-11T12:22:08+00:00

Instead of calling them Canucks we can just call them CAcucks.

OpTicSkYHaWk · 2025-12-11T11:06:23+00:00

Feminists.....?

Arav_Goel · 2025-12-11T17:40:24+00:00

Bruh I thought only India has super sexist laws in favour of women and men have like half the rights as women, but it appears it's the same trend everywhere. We men really need to start seriously questioning our legal and judicial systems to have equal rights. Our lives are automatically considered inferior to womens' lives practically in every non-Islamic countries

pearl_harbour1941 · 2025-12-11T16:27:39+00:00

"Define a woman"

Canada: "errrrrr......."

tilldeathdoiparty · 2025-12-12T22:30:14+00:00

Liberals don’t have a majority, this won’t get far

Weary-Welder-8806 · 2025-12-13T12:53:51+00:00

Did you call and write to your member of Parliament to protest against this misandrist legislation? If you don't speak up, who will?

Intelligent_nosch00l · 2025-12-13T16:20:06+00:00

I've checked AI by this topic, (Asked ChatGPT what the Femicide is) and it (chatgpt) said it's regardless of the sex of the victim. So ChatGPT is misandrist, I know it was said on this subReddit, but I want to share it.

ChoiceDare7991 · 2025-12-13T21:44:11+00:00

Canadian here. Women as a bloc, and the politicians trying to woo them, taught me growing up that not only did women not need me, but that they probably didn’t want me anyway and were better off without. Maybe it made me better off, I don’t know. Either way, I go my own way. I will never “respect” (worship) the collective political juggernaut known as “women”. I will respect certain individual women, most of them at that, but otherwise MGTOW is likely all I’ll ever be, and I’m not happy or sad, more so just a husk. It’s simple logic though: Why go where you’re not wanted?

Acrobatic_Computer · 2025-12-15T14:07:37+00:00

Reading the full text it seems like:

(b) provide that, in the following circumstances, murder — known as femicide when committed against a female person — is murder in the first degree:

The changes to murder charges themselves are facially neutral, but then, weirdly, are asymmetrically classified based on the victim's sex (i.e. there is no case where something is considered androcide, even if, with the sexes reversed, it would be considered femicide).

This also focuses only on murder in the case of IPV for sex trafficking, even though that has nothing to do with what "femicide" is commonly understood to mean. If it were only on the basis of hate then that'd make sense, but domestic violence doesn't have anything to do with targeting of the other person's on the basis of immutable characteristics, but rather targeting on the basis of their relationship to you. A bisexual person who kills a male and female partner would have committed femicide in one instance, but not in the other.

Defining the category like this seems to create the absurd situation where, if someone declared "I hate the Jews but would never kill a woman on purpose", and throws a pipe bomb into the male section of an Orthodox synagogue, and a piece of shrapnel kills a single woman, that is femicide since the murder was motivated by hate.

This clearly has political implications, as we're going to start hearing, if this passes, about the rate of femicide as a political talking point. As far as sexism goes, it does seem to be a clear attempt at a carve-out of escalating crimes based on the sex that is the victim, rather than on the severity of the crime, just by targeting the few instances where murder is more commonly of women than of men.

The definition of coercive control given also seems to target ways men tend to control women, but not ways women tend to control men (for example, threats of making false accusations don't seem to be included).

As far as the direct criminal implications, honestly, this seems worse:

(d) remove from the criminal harassment offence the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety and replace it with a requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that someone’s safety is threatened;

The main issue here is that this is already subjective, and depending on how the reasonable person standard is treated in Canada, this could mean that harassment's definition is less contextual and more based on the interpretation by the judge/jury/others.

Separately:

(i) provide that victims of certain offences, such as offences in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner, are entitled to testimonial aids;

This seems like a strange carve out for IPV, but without better context is hard to say. Also without specific knowledge of testimonial aids in Canada, hard to say what the deal is, in the US I generally am in favor of the concept, but do have concerns about it prejudicing a jury.

Fresh_Excitement8027 · 2025-12-15T19:40:35+00:00

I haven't got time to read the article, but this has to be fake or exaggerated, right? Please? Otherwise.. what are you people doing in Canada? Are you just going to roll over and let stuff like this happen?

Living-Intention1802 · 2025-12-18T18:14:02+00:00

This kind of thing is inevitable when you have a democracy with 51% female 49% male. The women vote for these type of politicians that treat men with complete disrespect, men don’t have enough votes to overcome it.

If there’s ever another world war, the majority of men in these countries will not go to war and potentially die to preserve a country where they’re given this inferior status.

MerlynTrump · 2025-12-19T19:02:41+00:00

Does "table" mean something different in Canada? In the U.S. tabling means that you don't vote on the bill, you leave it waiting for a later date

Lumpy_Tangelo_9981 · 2025-12-11T18:42:27+00:00

"Men's rights is winning"

gardengirldavi · 2025-12-14T19:57:30+00:00

Have you ever… by chance…. looked up the statistics of how many men murder women vs how many women murder men???? I’m going to go out on a limb and say you never once considered that factor, did you?

No_Individual501 · 2025-12-11T08:19:40+00:00

The law doesn’t mean anything. It’s a piece of paper that people choose to use or not. Is a prosecutor going to prosecute a woman that shares “intimate photos” of a man without consent? Of course not. Doordash girl was only prosecuted because she lied to the police.

DJ_Chaps · 2025-12-11T13:53:03+00:00

Not that I'm cheering the legislation, but I'm curious why OP chose to be so selective in his title. This will only really be a thing in intimate partner violence scenarios.

Title	Lighter charges for killing men and boys in Canada : "the killing of a woman or girl, will be considered first-degree murder even if the crime was not planned or deliberate"
Author	jamminnummeruno
Upvotes	844
Comments	120
Date	December 11, 2025 7:39 AM UTC (7 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1pjrqeu/lighter_charges_for_killing_men_and_boys_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/lighter-charges-for-killing-men-and-boys-in-canada.1568555 https://theredarchive.com/post/1568555

Comments