Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:09 pm    Post subject: Do the new Impaired Driving laws go to far ? Reply with quote

( there is concern from lawyers that certain parts of the new impaired driving laws go too far . we've heard concerns about the police being able to ask for a breath sample without even seeing you act impaired or drinking .

now its being revealed there is a 2 hour provision , so they could potential ask for a sample even if your already home or in a bar/ restaurant

its not unreasonable to think if the police gave breath tests to a lot of the people at a pub on Friday night some might fail , but that doesn't mean they planned to drive home . often people leave there cars overnight at friends homes or parking lots and take a taxi .

I'm also left wondering exactly how these new provisions became law in the first place , clearly groups like MADD have too much influence , everyone wants to stop impaired driving but we need to respect people's legal rights at the same time and not needless give people criminal records )



January 9, 2019 8:42 pm Updated: January 9, 2019 11:14 pm

Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home

By Sean O’Shea
Consumer Reporter Global News


News: Lawyers warn of possible breath tests by police at bars, home
x


WATCH ABOVE: There is growing concern about sweeping new police powers when it comes to impaired driving and where breath tests can be conducted. Sean O'Shea reports.


It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension.

You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road.

“It’s ridiculous, it’s basically criminalizing you having a drink at your kitchen table,” Paul Doroshenko, a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer who specializes in impaired driving cases, told Global News.


“If you start to drink after you get home, the police show up at your door, they can arrest you, detain you, take you back to the (police station) and you can be convicted because your blood alcohol concentration was over 80 milligrams (per 100 millilitres of blood) in the two hours after you drove.”

Changes to Section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada took effect in December giving police greater powers to seek breath samples from drivers who might be driving while impaired.

Under the new law, police officers no longer need to have a “reasonable suspicion” the driver had consumed alcohol. Now, an officer can demand a sample from drivers for any reason at any time.

While many Canadians have heard about that part of the new legislation, lawyers said the two-hour provision has gone unreported.

“The public has completely missed this one,” said Joseph Neuberger, a Toronto criminal defence lawyer.

He described a scenario in which someone has gone home and watches a hockey game, enjoys a few beers, and gets a knock on the door from police, who received a tip about someone in the house who was driving a vehicle suspiciously.

“The person answers the door and they say, ‘Sir, we’ve had a complaint about your driving, we need you to provide a sample,” said Neuberger, noting if the person failed to provide the sample it would likely lead to arrest.

“It’s a serious erosion of civil liberties,” said Toronto criminal defence lawyer Michael Engel, whose practice focuses almost exclusively on impaired driving cases.

Engel said someone could be unjustly prosecuted. If a disgruntled business associate or spouse called police with a complaint and an officer went to investigate at the persons’ home or place of business, police could demand a breath sample.

“Husbands or wives in the course of separations would drop the dime on their partner,” Engel said, describing the potential for the law’s abuse by those calling police out of spite, for example.

“It casts the net too wide. It’s going to potentially criminalize innocent behavior.”

In an instance where someone was drinking in a public place, Doroshenko said it would be hard for someone to prove they weren’t impaired when they were driving earlier.

“If [the police] come and find you at the restaurant they can take you out of the restaurant despite the fact you’ve been drinking at the restaurant, maybe you weren’t going to drive away,” he said, arguing the rules are excessive.

“It is profoundly stupid, so most people assume it can’t be. But that’s what the law is now, you will see it happen — I guarantee it.”

The federal government brought in the revised law in an effort to reduce fatalities on roads.

“Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada,” said Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould in December.

“I believe these reforms will result in fewer road deaths and fewer Canadian families devastated by the effects of an impaired driver. This is one of the most significant changes to the laws related to impaired driving in more than 40 years and is another way that we are modernizing the criminal justice system.”

While criminal lawyers predict the new law will be challenged, likely through appeal courts and even to the Supreme Court of Canada, they expect that process will take several years. In the meantime, they say drivers are vulnerable to unfair arrests and prosecution.

“We’re in a brave new world now,” said Engel.


https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impaired-driving-canada-breath-samples/
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( there is also a crazy example in the sun , where a senior was pulled over after leaving the beer store and appears to have committed no crime and no grounds for giving the breath test in the first place .

so exactly why was he given a breath test ? on a Saturday afternoon at a beer store where there is many other people returning empties as well

something about this law seems crazy and just plain wrong , )



MANDEL: Cop pulls over senior for returning too many empties

Michele Mandel

Published:
January 9, 2019


Updated:
January 9, 2019 8:47 PM EST


Filed Under:

Toronto SUN ›
News ›
Toronto & GTA ›

It was just after noon last Saturday and the retired letter carrier had just been at the Streetsville Beer Store to return a month’s worth of empties when a police car flashed him to stop.

“I haven’t been pulled over for 40 or 50 years,” explains Art Lightowler. “I was shaking.”

A stickler for rules, the 70-year-old knew he hadn’t been speeding. He wasn’t on a cellphone because he doesn’t have one. And he certainly hadn’t been drinking.

So why did the imposing 6-foot-5, 250-pound officer ask him to get out of his car?

“He thought I had dropped off an excessive amount of bottles at The Beer Store,” Lightowler explains.

Art Lightowler, 70, was shaking when pulled over and given a breath test because a cop thought he returned too many empties. (Veronica Henri, Toronto Sun)

Over the festive season, he’d accumulated three cases of empty beer bottles and eight wine bottles. “To him that was too much.”

Asked if he’d been drinking, the senior said he’d had a beer at midnight while watching Taken 2. “You need a drink for that movie, ” he quips.

The Peel Regional Police officer insisted he give a breath sample. And if he refused? “I could be fined $2,000 and lose my licence for a year. So I agreed.”

Lightowler passed and was sent on his way. But it took him a while to calm down. “I have semi-high blood pressure as it is and it was kinda scary.”

It was also completely legal. Welcome to the new law that came into effect Dec. 18.

Until last month, police had to have a reasonable suspicion to support a request for a roadside breath sample: Sloppy driving, an admission of recent consumption, the smell of alcohol, slurring words, glassy eyes, or some other sign of impairment. It was a low bar, but one viewed as a fair balance between community safety and individual freedom from arbitrary search.

“That’s all gone,” complains criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger.

Under changes to the Criminal Code passed by the federal Liberals, police across Canada are now allowed to randomly stop and administer roadside alcohol breath tests on any driver even without a reason to suspect that person has been drinking. “The officer does not need any evidentiary basis to make the demand,” Neuberger says. “It really eliminates civil liberties at the side of the road.”

“More scary,” the lawyer adds, “is that up to two hours after driving, a person can still be charged with impaired even if they’re not in their car.”

According to the federal government, the new law was designed to get rid of the “bolus drinking defence,” or “drinking and dashing” where a driver can claim he’d just been drinking before he got into the car and the alcohol hadn’t been absorbed at the time of driving.

Now it’s illegal to be at or over the alcohol limit within two hours of being behind the wheel. And the onus is on you to prove that you weren’t.

You could be sitting at home, watching the game with a few beers and have the police knock on your door because someone complained about your driving, Neuberger says. “Across the board, this government is eroding our rights and it’s dangerous.”

The changes may be heralded by law enforcement and MADD Canada, but lawyers and civil liberty groups argue they go too far.

Michael Lacy, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, says that while everyone wants to deter drinking and driving, the new law is overbroad, unconstitutional and destined to be challenged in court.

Imagine you drive to the bar and plan to Uber home, he says. The police can now stop you on your way out of the tavern and demand a breath test. If you fail, it’s then up to you to prove you weren’t over the legal limit when you drove to the establishment less than two hours earlier and that you always had a plan to get a ride home and weren’t intending to get behind the wheel.

Lacy is also concerned about who the police may target with their new power to randomly stop drivers and demand breath tests: “It’s going to be vulnerable communities, young black kids who are driving and other racialized communities who are going to be more affected by this.”

And some unsuspecting seniors as well.

“I felt violated,” says Lightowler. “What do we have now, a police state?”


https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-cop-pulls-over-senior-for-returning-too-many-empty-beer-bottles
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Selley: Canadians, prepare to be breathalyzed

The Liberals, even more than the Conservatives, seem determined to crack down on the least impaired drivers

Chris Selley

January 10, 2019
6:36 PM EST

Last Updated
January 11, 2019
6:03 AM EST

Filed under
Full Comment

Global News published a neat sign-of-the-times story on Tuesday: Art, last name withheld, 70 years old and from Streetsville, Ont., reports recently being pulled over by the local constabulary and ordered to provide a breathalyzer sample on pain of arrest. The officer’s stated reason, by Art’s account: at the Beer Store Art had just returned for refund what the officer considered “an excessive amount of bottles.”

Art was sober as a judge, but he cries foul: “They shouldn’t have that right to pull a person over unless there is a good sign the person is doing something wrong.”

Art sounds like a reasonable guy. I imagine a fair number of readers agree with Art, and would be surprised to learn that the simple act of recycling could be grounds for police to jam a doohickey in their mouths. In fact, though, thanks to Bill C-46, which recently came into effect, cops no longer need any reasonable grounds to suspect impairment before demanding a breathalyzer test. So long as they pull you over legally, you’re fair game — and police have virtually unlimited legal powers to pull you over.

What C-46 might well be doing, however, is emboldening a certain kind of police officer to further test the limits of what constitutes both legitimate suspicion of impairment and a legal traffic stop

-
Global chalks Art’s situation up to C-46, but I’m not sure that’s right. An officer suspecting impairment always had the power to stop and breathalyze. The basis for this officer’s suspicion happened to be ridiculous, but presumably that would be a matter for a judge.

What C-46 might well be doing, however, is emboldening a certain kind of police officer to further test the limits of what constitutes both legitimate suspicion of impairment and a legal traffic stop.

There was certainly no shortage of voices warning the Liberals — the “party of the Charter” as Paul Martin famously called them — that they were straying into dangerous moral and constitutional territory.


Thanks to Bill C-46, cops no longer need any reasonable grounds to suspect impairment before demanding a breathalyzer test. Zach Laing/Airdrie Echo/Postmedia Network

“Let’s just cut to the chase here,” criminal lawyer Michael Spratt told the Commons committee reviewing the bill prior to its passage. “There will be nothing random with this breath testing.… Visible minorities are pulled over by the police more often for no reason. That’s what is going to happen here.”

Indeed. It is 100 per cent guaranteed. And everyone from the justice minister to the pro-C-46 Toronto Star editorial board will pretend to be shocked by it.

Then there’s Section 320.14 of C-46, which establishes the offence of being impaired by alcohol or drugs within two hours of having operated a vehicle. Some lawyers predict folks like Art will soon get knocks at the door from officers demanding a breath sample on grounds someone (legitimately or maliciously) reported them driving erratically, or get tapped on the shoulder at the bar they drove to before downing six pints, never mind if they intended to cab it home.


Presumably Art’s high-priced lawyer will be able to handle this. Presumably yours will as well

True enough, the Criminal Code lets Art off the hook if he consumed all that alcohol after driving — but it also lobs the burden of proof into Art’s court. Art must have “had no reasonable expectation that (he) would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood,” and he must provide evidence that his blood-alcohol content “is consistent” with his having been under the legal limit while operating the vehicle.

Presumably Art’s high-priced lawyer will be able to handle this. Presumably yours will as well.

Meanwhile, over at TVOntario’s The Agenda, Const. Andy Pattenden of York Regional Police expressed his dismay that as many impaired driving charges as his force is laying, they’re only catching a fraction of the number of impaired drivers. He lamented that the numbers don’t seem to be going down, even after the highly publicized case of Marco Muzzo, the billionaire’s failson who stumbled off a private jet from his Miami bachelor party and promptly T-boned a minivan, killing three children under 10 and their grandfather.

Muzzo blew at more than three times the legal limit. Yet Pattenden somehow found his way to arguing we ought to lower the limit to zero.

I wouldn’t put it past this government, which seems determined to crack down on the least-impaired drivers. But those drivers are simply not a useful place to devote resources. In 2014, according to Traffic Injury Research Foundation statistics, 864 fatally injured drivers were tested for alcohol consumption. Of the 283 who tested positive, three-quarters were over the legal limit; more than half were over twice the legal limit.

Those ratios have stayed relatively constant even as the raw numbers of traffic deaths, alcohol-related and otherwise, have declined hugely. The most drunk drivers remain, unambiguously, the greatest menace. They are the easiest to catch. And when we catch them, we continue to coddle them outrageously. Muzzo’s 10-year sentence, at least, is no joke — but the fact he’ll get his driver’s licence back is a sick one.

We don’t have to choose, of course. We could crack down on very drunk drivers and also dispense with various frivolous freedoms in pursuit of not-dangerous people who had a beer with lunch or a glass of wine at dinner. But for God’s sake, why would we do that to ourselves?


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-canadians-prepare-to-be-breathalyzed
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6638
Reputation: 307.3Reputation: 307.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put that together with the low standards of our courts -- if you are dubious about the system's performance with the Michael Bryant case, wait until you see what Magistrates Courts are like.

This will encourage more thuggishness from the police.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Put that together with the low standards of our courts -- if you are dubious about the system's performance with the Michael Bryant case, wait until you see what Magistrates Courts are like.

This will encourage more thuggishness from the police.




something about these changes doesn't make sense , I can't get my mind around the concept of the police needing to give someone a breathalizer test without having reasonable grounds to suspect impairment


why would the police ever need to give someone a breath test if they hadn't at the very least some reason to suspect impairment . this law essentially allows for the police to pull someone over and demand a breath test without even having the weakest grounds to suspect impairment


even with illegal drugs the police need to get warrants or have reasonable grounds to suspect the person has drugs before they can search a vehicle . they can't just walk around and demand entry into private vehicles without reason .


so something about this law does not make sense , also the 2 hour limit would seem questionable . its well documented that over the course of a couple hours a persons blood alcohol could rise or drop .

it would seem reasonable that someone could enter a pub have a couple beers and possibly be over the limit at that time but if they have food and water after and wait a couple hours to go home they'd likely pass a breath test , so if the police suddenly were to test these people hours before they actually plan to drive home , some might fail , when they would of otherwise passed


it just seems like these laws target people who pose a low risk and might of only consumed small amounts of alcohol with there meal or after work . not necessary the people we think of when we envision impaired drivers


it also creates uncharted water for the bar and restaurant industry , I've never once in my life seen the police come in to such places and administer a breathalizer test . but under this law such an act would be legal ? are we going to see the police come in and harass people who are doing nothing more than having a couple beers


and how do the servers now determine impairment ? based on the new 2 hour limit . anyone who's had more than a couple drinks is at risk of "legally being impaired " under such laws , for businesses it creates some big questions around the number of drinks to now serve customers


it seems that the government is allowing a radical organization ( MADD ) to create unfair rules and take away the fun for people who are being responsible


something about harassing seniors who return too many beer bottles seems insane in my view
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

REPORT: Canadians Outraged Over Trudeau Government’s Disturbing ‘Impaired-Driving’ Law Giving Authorities Power To Demand Breathalyzers In Our Own Homes Hours After Driving

News SpencerFernandoJanuary 10, 20198

Trudeau Liberals Justice System


o4.5K
Shares


A serious infringement on the freedom and liberties of the Canadian People.



Changes to Canada’s impaired-driving laws passed by the Trudeau Liberals are causing massive outrage throughout the country, as Canadians see how the draconian new rules infringe on our civil liberties.

The Trudeau Liberals have changed Section 253 of the criminal code.

Now, police are allowed to demand breath samples from drivers for any reason, without needing a “reasonable suspicion” that someone has been drinking.

Here’s part of a Global News article describing the disturbing changes:


“It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension. You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road. “It’s ridiculous, it’s basically criminalizing you having a drink at your kitchen table,” Paul Doroshenko, a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer who specializes in impaired driving cases, told Global News.”

The changes are absolutely horrendous:


“If you start to drink after you get home, the police show up at your door, they can arrest you, detain you, take you back to the (police station) and you can be convicted because your blood alcohol concentration was over 80 milligrams (per 100 millilitres of blood) in the two hours after you drove.”


And Canadians are outraged. Here’s what people are saying about it:


“So you can stop at the liquor store for a bottle of wine. Get home and have a few glasses of wine and just when you are watching TV a knock on the door from a cop with a breathalyzer. WTF #NannyState“



“Am I missing something? This screams unconstitutional”


“People shouldn’t be bitching and should be doing something. This isn’t a small step at taking away #CivilLiberties , this is very major and very concerning. This opens the door to any and all random searches. They can now come to your “home” without reason or cause.”


“How is this not a Charter violation? This feels like the start of a police state. It’s one thing if that person did a hit and run and they pull this out, but it also allows for them to use it on someone that angered them in their persinal life.”


“I cant wait for someone to tail the bloody politicians who approved this at some restaurant having a sip of win for dinner to their own private residence. This isnt the Canada i want to be proud to call home”


“So now it’s a reverse onus, and unconstitutional under presumption of innocence. Can’t wait for the SCC to strike this one down.”


“I do not D&D but I do occasionally drink while at home, this is a HUGE overreach on our personal privacy & civil liberties.”


“Umm… since when did our legal system operate on the principle of “GUILTY until proven innocent”?”



Horrible government overreach

Almost nobody in the country is defending this horrible government overreach, and there is widespread expectation that it will be struck down.

The very fact that the political class was willing to support such horrendous legislation shows the total disregard they have for our rights and our freedoms, and is why we must always be vigilant in defending our liberties as Canadians.

The government cannot be trusted.

Spencer Fernando

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/01/10/report-canadians-outraged-over-trudeau-governments-disturbing-impaired-driving-law-giving-authorities-power-to-demand-breathalyzers-in-our-own-homes-hours-after-driving/
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1479
Reputation: 129.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This appears as something everyone is in agreement with. And for good reason.

This law was not thought through very well, and IIRC the Senate had issues with it but were chastised as supporting drunk driving by their views. So...bad on them.

However, our court will likely come to the rescue once it reaches the SC. Especially on the issue of 2 hrs later at home. How that got through is anyones guess.

That said, know this.....
1) Police have always been able to just pull you over to check on your licence and insurance. We are not the US.
2) Police carry a beer cap in their pocket and drop it in vehicles they pull over. "Oh...beer cap, everyone out of the car" and then they search it.
3) even with illegal drugs the police need to get warrants or have reasonable grounds to suspect the person has drugs before they can search a vehicle - Not quite true because if the Cop can see in plain view they can just go in to the car. Called the plain view doctrine. Otherwise your scenario exists.

Now the somewhat weird view .

I think the laws would be better served by adopting the Swedish viewpoint. Drive and blow 0.02 and you are impaired. And I might go one further and say make it 0.00 . Yup, drink and you cannot drive.

What that does is take the guesswork out of anyones hands. It makes it simple. That said, this is a very large country and getting a ride is hard in lots of places without any transit. I get that.

Lastly, it is something (this law) that will in fairly quick time be unnecessary. We will have driverless vehicles and as such the person drunk can just hop in and tell it to go home.

Makes it easy.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok


anyways I was thinking about how this legal change might affect the bar and restaurant industry , a major employer in Canada when you think about the amount of restaurants out there that serve alcohol


in Ontario I know that its clearly stated in the various liquor acts , that a licensed establishment cannot serve someone to the point of intoxication or impairment , or they can have there liquor license taken away/suspended and face large fines


and with this new 2 hour rule , what exactly constitutes impairment if now the person needs to be legally not impaired within 2 hours of driving and be able to prove there not impaired


big question without a lot of real answers


I also suspect there will be a drop in sales of alcoholic beverages because of this rule , many people will decide its not worth the risk to have anything and others will drastically cut back and only have 1 drink


the restaurants will be forced to offer some non alcoholic options to make up for lost liquor sales ( things like non alcoholic beer , non alcoholic cocktails , high end soda pop and energy drinks )


I also suspect most places enhance screening measures to try and determine if someone is driving , by asking questions when they arrive etc


wouldn't surprise me to see some places even alter policy cause of the new laws , I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lot of places start asking larger groups of 4 - 5 people if they have a designated driver and offer them a free pop ,

some places might even go as far as creating a policy that they only serve drinks to 4 of the 5 group members and that 1 has to commit to being the DD if they drove there . it may not be optional anymore for large groups to have a DD , places will start enforcing it
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6638
Reputation: 307.3Reputation: 307.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baloney. The problem isn't that the law wasn't "well thought through" -- its that the people who thought it through have no respect for the traditions of what used to be thought of as Anglo-Saxon justice. Or the Charter either. This isn't an isolated case. This fits a pattern.

They never changed the sexual assault law in Parliament. They simply changed the definitions of what constitutes a sexual assault. First, it was necessary for a victim to show that she had resisted. They changed the standard to "No means No". which meant if a woman rebuffed an advance, the suitor was guilty of an offense if he didn't back off. And more recently, they changed it again to "Affirmative consent." This means a man must ask permission first. That leads us to Justin Trudeau and Massimo Pancetti style justice.

Ths rule change just gives the coppers a longer leash. If they were putting beer caps in cars before, they will now be bashing down the doors of people they don't like to make dubious busts. Why? Because coppers think in terms of getting bad guys, and once they decide someone is a bad guy, they just go after them, and if they have to dummy up some evidence ... well he got away with enough that it still isn't an injustice. That's how they look at it. They're the hall monitors of your life.

It looks to me like this new standard gives the cops the right to enter your living space without your consent, for one thing.

In this world, policing consists of getting small arrests and then squeezing that person to turn over someone else. In some kinds of policing, that's all they ever do -- blackmail and extortion.

Think of what chain of evidence took a murder investigation to charge Guy Paul Morin? There was none. The evidence that convicted him -- after a third trial -- was created by the forensic investigators. Reflect on this -- the people who concluded that Karla Homolka was a battered wife rose to high levels in the present Attorney General's office.

It's not much different in other parts of the country. The cops decide who's a bad guy, and they look for ways to take them off the street without being caught contriving evidence. If you think the high courts are bad think of the sewers of sophistry that are our magistrates' courts.

This just makes it easier. Don't ever make the mistake of thinking these are good people who didn't think something through. They're way more evil than that.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1479
Reputation: 129.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice rant, fairly irrelevant to this issue, and if not then I could not make the connection.

Sex assault, murder...? Wasn't clear what that has to do with this new law.

"It looks to me like this new standard gives the cops the right to enter your living space without your consent, for one thing. "
...don't answer the door. Then they cant get in.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6638
Reputation: 307.3Reputation: 307.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are all cases of the expansion of state power to make up for the incompetence of civil servants. Which, of course, is everywhere. How much regulation does it take to make up for an organization that hires by race and sex rather than merit? A lot!!!

Nobody but an idiot would think that these things just happen because the consequences haven't been thought out in a legal environment that includes the charter.

They are imposed despite the consequences. After the people why collaborated to create false evidence to destroy Jian Ghomeshi were revealed, what happened? They changed legal procedures to strip the defence of another one of its traditional rights and implemented a set of compulsory classes to teach judges that emails seeking return encounters with men accused of rape are typical reactions to rape and cannot be exonerating.

This in a judiciary that only the loonies think has "independence".
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1479
Reputation: 129.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
They are all cases of the expansion of state power to make up for the incompetence of civil servants.

Civil servants are the reason for new DUI laws and sex assault laws?

WOW. Nobody but you thinks that. Have fun on that island.
Quote:

How much regulation does it take to make up for an organization that hires by race and sex rather than merit? A lot!!!

LOL....new DUI and assault laws are enshrined because of civil servants.
Another WOW !
Quote:


They are imposed despite the consequences. After the people why collaborated to create false evidence to destroy Jian Ghomeshi were revealed, what happened?

He was exonerated. As in found not guilty. Did you think otherwise, and I suspect you do...WOW !
Quote:
They changed legal procedures to strip the defence of another one of its traditional rights and implemented a set of compulsory classes to teach judges that emails seeking return encounters with men accused of rape are typical reactions to rape and cannot be exonerating.

What change in legal procedures occurred?
Quote:

This in a judiciary that only the loonies think has "independence".

It smacked down the sitting govt a couple of years ago. That seemed to denote independence.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10351
Reputation: 328.9Reputation: 328.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Baloney. The problem isn't that the law wasn't "well thought through" -- its that the people who thought it through have no respect for the traditions of what used to be thought of as Anglo-Saxon justice. Or the Charter either. This isn't an isolated case. This fits a pattern.

They never changed the sexual assault law in Parliament. They simply changed the definitions of what constitutes a sexual assault. First, it was necessary for a victim to show that she had resisted. They changed the standard to "No means No". which meant if a woman rebuffed an advance, the suitor was guilty of an offense if he didn't back off. And more recently, they changed it again to "Affirmative consent." This means a man must ask permission first. That leads us to Justin Trudeau and Massimo Pancetti style justice.

Ths rule change just gives the coppers a longer leash. If they were putting beer caps in cars before, they will now be bashing down the doors of people they don't like to make dubious busts. Why? Because coppers think in terms of getting bad guys, and once they decide someone is a bad guy, they just go after them, and if they have to dummy up some evidence ... well he got away with enough that it still isn't an injustice. That's how they look at it. They're the hall monitors of your life.

It looks to me like this new standard gives the cops the right to enter your living space without your consent, for one thing.

In this world, policing consists of getting small arrests and then squeezing that person to turn over someone else. In some kinds of policing, that's all they ever do -- blackmail and extortion.

Think of what chain of evidence took a murder investigation to charge Guy Paul Morin? There was none. The evidence that convicted him -- after a third trial -- was created by the forensic investigators. Reflect on this -- the people who concluded that Karla Homolka was a battered wife rose to high levels in the present Attorney General's office.

It's not much different in other parts of the country. The cops decide who's a bad guy, and they look for ways to take them off the street without being caught contriving evidence. If you think the high courts are bad think of the sewers of sophistry that are our magistrates' courts.

This just makes it easier. Don't ever make the mistake of thinking these are good people who didn't think something through. They're way more evil than that.



I kind of agree , doubtful the people making this law weren't aware of the obvious violations of unreasonable search and seizure , and other possible charter violations relating to this law
( even people who do drugs have more rights than someone behind the wheel of there own private vehicle as things stand now )


they simply didn't care cause they felt the " cause " of reducing impaired driving was greater than people's rights and freedoms


ok everyone agree's that impaired driving is a problem but harassing people with breathalizer tests or face a criminal record for refusing them . is really over the top and seems to target the wrong people


I'm not sure how this mess will be figured out , its certain to face legal challenges but those could take years to make there way thru the courts . in the meantime , how many average Canadians are going to have to endure unfair breathalizer tests and criminal charges over this law


another case of what were the people in Ottawa thinking ?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6638
Reputation: 307.3Reputation: 307.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why else, except they aren't able to control the public enough to satisfy themselves? Why the big push to get more prosecutions for sex crimes that were never sex crimes before?

Are they really so bad that they haven't 'thought it through'? Preposterous.

The Ghomeshi case is illustrative. He was exonerated, says the twirp. The system works.

I ask the fairminded people out there -- which is closer to the truth? (A) that an innocent man was charged and let go, exonerated so he could once again take up his life unharmed;
or (B) the courts facilitated a feminist effort to destroy a man for reasons of revenge and the general hatred women have for men who spurn them, leaving him unemployable?

There are more cases than that, and the number of them grows all the time. Gregory Allen Elliott was run through years of legal procedures defending himself in a potentially precedent-setting case of sexual harassment by twitter. He lost his job and his house in the process. Legal fees over $50,000. The women walked away irritated that they hadn't prevailed.

People can decide for themselves. This act gives the police a lot of powers that trangress the procedure protections we used to have -- like search warrants. Sure, the cops often backdated those, etc. but this only makes it worse.

If someone who wants a civil discussion wants these questions answered, they can address them to me. There's no point in talking to someone who treats anything you say as a lie and uses mockery where reason would be appropriate.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6638
Reputation: 307.3Reputation: 307.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


ok everyone agree's that impaired driving is a problem but harassing people with breathalizer tests or face a criminal record for refusing them . is really over the top and seems to target the wrong people


I'm not sure how this mess will be figured out , its certain to face legal challenges but those could take years to make there way thru the courts . in the meantime , how many average Canadians are going to have to endure unfair breathalizer tests and criminal charges over this law


another case of what were the people in Ottawa thinking?


Is impaired driving such a big problem? First of all, they moved the goalposts on drunkenness once again. In the beginning, the law was made tough to deter drinking and driving. The test? Walking a straight line, touching one's nose, etc -- actual on-the-spot tests of coordination, etc. Then it evolved. Drunkenness became a number on a machine. It was set to go off at the level where there was the start of genuine impairment due to alcohol, much lower than previously (when drunk driving was a problem). But that number has been lowered again! A glass of white wine drunk an hour before leaving the reception can now be defined as "impaired".

What was it like before marijuan? Let me tell you ... I went to a big dance at the Brant Inn in the early 60ies. No alcohol officially. But the Inn served ice cubes, tonic water, water, ginger ale, potato chips, etc and every male in the place came with a 26-er of hard alcohol. Trust me, everyone who left that dance at 1 am was drunk as a lord, and several of them staggering drunk ... and they drove! That's what drinking in Ontario was like in the 1950ies.

How many people did the coppers pick up at the Christmas drinking season? Only a tad above 1000 in the whole of the year in the whole of the GTA. (That's millions of person/days, for the idiot's information). Over the Christmas-New Years drinking season, they only arrested 170! They say that was over the 'holiday season' -- say 15 days -- which would be about 11 a day! At a standard of impairment that is almost absurdly low.

Before marijuana, you could stop 20 cars and get 11 impaired drivers in the Christmas season. OK, maybe you'd have to stop a few more, the cops would have to see you weaving to stop you. They normally laid a "impaired driving" charge only after a drunk got in an accident. RIDE patrols came later.

I am older than you guys and I remember when drinking and driving was a genuine problem when there were half a dozen people being killed every 'holiday season' ... that plan was a success. This is overkill. Why can't the coppers be satisfied with this? Is it because trying to stop the real crime is too dangerous?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Do the new Impaired Driving laws go to far ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB