More guilty before proven innocent...

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Yet again we are letting our rights slide away on the slippery slope...

I have never and will never drive drunk. I also never speed at 50km/h or more, or stunt ride, or race, or what-have-you, but:

First they brought in the instant guilty assumption for drunk drivers... automatically suspension of their licenses and impounding their cars before any trial takes place... we put up with it.

Now it is the racing law... weave in and out of traffic, speed too much, etc, and you are hit with an automatic license suspension and your vehicle is impounded... again, without a trial.

So why do we continually put up with this erosion of our rights? I, for one, am not at all worried about being busted for the above crimes, but that isn't the point...

What is next? What else will they decide that we can be guilty of before proving out innocence... more than a year after the alleged offense and long after the damage is done (money lost, possible jobs lost, reputation tarnished, etc)?

[jennie]

Yet again we are letting our rights slide away on the slippery slope...

I have never and will never drive drunk. I also never speed at 50km/h or more, or stunt ride, or race, or what-have-you, but:

First they brought in the instant guilty assumption for drunk drivers... automatically suspension of their licenses and impounding their cars before any trial takes place... we put up with it.

Now it is the racing law... weave in and out of traffic, speed too much, etc, and you are hit with an automatic license suspension and your vehicle is impounded... again, without a trial.

So why do we continually put up with this erosion of our rights? I, for one, am not at all worried about being busted for the above crimes, but that isn't the point...

What is next? What else will they decide that we can be guilty of before proving out innocence... more than a year after the alleged offense and long after the damage is done (money lost, possible jobs lost, reputation tarnished, etc)?

Those are both dangerous offenses that put numerous people's lives at risk.

I am ok with that criteria. If it changes, then we look at it again.

'Slippery slopes' is an over simplification ... a suppressor of thought.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm ok with criteria that is measurable. This instantaneous punishment for say speeding at over 50 km/h is fine. "Weaving" through traffic or following too closely is subjective and doesn't pass the sniff test for me, too much room for the police here I am afraid.

[geoffrey]

How do you know that person was speeding over 50km/h? That's up for the prosecution to prove in court, not up for a cop to decide punishment on the street.

It's unacceptable in a free society for police to determine sentancing.

[jennie]

I'm ok with criteria that is measurable. This instantaneous punishment for say speeding at over 50 km/h is fine. "Weaving" through traffic or following too closely is subjective and doesn't pass the sniff test for me, too much room for the police here I am afraid.

I think it covers incidents where people call in to the police in fear of an accident - erratic driving - whether drunk, racing, or just weaving trying to shave a few seconds. We all know them. The drivers that give us the shivers.

[Shakeyhands]

How do you know that person was speeding over 50km/h? That's up for the prosecution to prove in court, not up for a cop to decide punishment on the street.

It's unacceptable in a free society for police to determine sentencing.

I agree with your last point. As for the first, at least a radar can be something concrete as opposed to a police officers word, though I guess that could be fudged too. Maybe I agree completely.... hmmmm

[Shakeyhands]

I think it covers incidents where people call in to the police in fear of an accident - erratic driving - whether drunk, racing, or just weaving trying to shave a few seconds. We all know them. The drivers that give us the shivers.

Thats even worse! Someone could call the police just in order to get even with someone for any kind of issue, real or imagined (or made up) that they feel like... I'm really rethinking this one... not that it matters... :angry:

[mikedavid00]

So why do we continually put up with this erosion of our rights?

They say that driving is not a 'right', it's a 'privlege'.

And I don't believe you have never driven above the legal limit.

[mikedavid00]

How do you know that person was speeding over 50km/h? That's up for the prosecution to prove in court, not up for a cop to decide punishment on the street.

It's unacceptable in a free society for police to determine sentancing.

They aregue it's not a 'right' to drive.

Like you have right to free speech... err.. wrong country. ummm... wow I don't think we have any rights in this country anymore.

I went to go fishing in my own lakes and couldn't go without getting licences. It was over $50 for two licences. I couldn't believe it. An American was infront of me and he got raped for like $30. He couldn't believe it. Just a 3 day pass for fishing.

These lands are our lands... err.. native.. wait..

wrong country again.

We Canada don't have any land of our own.

Guess we have nothing.

Next you know, natives will be claming Alberta oil belongs to them.

[geoffrey]

I agree with your last point. As for the first, at least a radar can be something concrete as opposed to a police officers word, though I guess that could be fudged too. Maybe I agree completely.... hmmmm

I once convinced a judge that a Sheriff (the hardcore Alberta highway patrol, look out) was incompetent and offered an incorrect radar reading. Threw out a 35km/h over ticket, 145 in a 110. Whether I was "innocent" is irrelevant. I was not guilty. Say I was going 50km/h over. He takes my car and license, and then three months later when I finally see a judge, I'm found 'not guilty.' That would be a huge infringement upon liberty.

The bottom line, the distinction and delay between charge, conviction and sentancing is essiential. It allows the proper checks and balances. I wouldn't mind if some of the street racers lost their cars, but they are entitled due process before the courts before any action is taken.

They aregue it's not a 'right' to drive.

But I do have a right to due process. A cop stealing your car isn't exactly due process.

Punishment without a trial is absolutely absurd and undemocratic.

[jennie]

I once convinced a judge that a Sheriff (the hardcore Alberta highway patrol, look out) was incompetent and offered an incorrect radar reading. Threw out a 35km/h over ticket, 145 in a 110. Whether I was "innocent" is irrelevant. I was not guilty. Say I was going 50km/h over. He takes my car and license, and then three months later when I finally see a judge, I'm found 'not guilty.' That would be a huge infringement upon liberty.

The bottom line, the distinction and delay between charge, conviction and sentancing is essiential. It allows the proper checks and balances. I wouldn't mind if some of the street racers lost their cars, but they are entitled due process before the courts before any action is taken.

But I do have a right to due process. A cop stealing your car isn't exactly due process.

Punishment without a trial is absolutely absurd and undemocratic.

You have the right to appeal.

Those are dangerous offenses.

[ScottSA]

'Slippery slopes' is an over simplification ... a suppressor of thought.

Actually, no. Claiming something is an oversimplification is liberalese for "I'm about to try to snow you." It's an old trick that I first ran into with Reg Alcock in 93, in a debate that he answered every criticism with a blithe "it's more complicated than that." No it's not grannyrants. Talk about "suppressors of thought."

[mikedavid00]

But I do have a right to due process. A cop stealing your car isn't exactly due process.

Punishment without a trial is absolutely absurd and undemocratic.

Canada is not a democratic country.

My brother got 2 T4 slips and only mailed in 1 for a tax return.

He got some money back.

The next year, CRA wanted their money.

They decided to also double his payment back becase they basically found him guilty before trial. He told CRA that he only recieved one t4 slip in the mail becuase he moved to Toronto.

They didn't care. They said that he got charged double the fee because they feel that he tried to cheat it. They basically found him guilty without trial.

He had to pay it. $3800 to our gov't. That wasn't very fun.

If he takes it to court, they will re-emburst us but first we have to go through tax fairness center. There is no way to call them or contact them. They call you if they feel like it. And they have not.

Combine that with property taxes, and there's almost $8000 a year alone in taxes. Those are just lump sums. Those aren't even income, sales tax, gas tax etc.

Canada is a corrupt, morally corrupt, and 'third world like' country.

I spend taxes to give the money back to immigrants and gov't unionized jobs.

[Canadian Blue]

Canada is not a democratic country.

According to who?

Combine that with property taxes, and there's almost $8000 a year alone in taxes. Those are just lump sums. Those aren't even income, sales tax, gas tax etc.

So we're not a democracy because of taxes?

Canada is a corrupt, morally corrupt, and 'third world like' country.

Oddly enough this third world country has very good quality of life.

I spend taxes to give the money back to immigrants and gov't unionized jobs.

No, you spend taxes for things like National Defence, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Health Care, etc.

However I love how all of the problems you face in life can be traced back to immigrants.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[mikedavid00]

According to who?

So we're not a democracy because of taxes?

Oddly enough this third world country has very good quality of life.

No, you spend taxes for things like National Defence, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Health Care, etc.

However I love how all of the problems you face in life can be traced back to immigrants.

It's not democratic. A minority of people in Canada determine the rules for the majority. That is not democracy.

This country does not have a good quality of life when you are living in 400 sq ft hobble and waiting 5 hours in emergency becuase your own healthcare system is leaving you to die (In Ontario Tory was ambushed by someone who was in that situation).

[Canadian Blue]

It's not democratic. A minority of people in Canada determine the rules for the majority. That is not democracy.

Isn't the whole point of MMP to alleviate that kind of situation?

This country does not have a good quality of life when you are living in 400 sq ft hobble

Your living there why exactly?

and waiting 5 hours in emergency becuase your own healthcare system is leaving you to die (In Ontario Tory was ambushed by someone who was in that situation).

I believe it's called triage. Those who need immediate healthcare recieve it while those with a cold wait. Their was a stroke in the family and I can tell you that we got immediate medical attention, and so far we have no complaints about the current system. Either way it beats having to lose the entire family business in order to pay medical bills.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[guyser]

I believe it's called triage. Those who need immediate healthcare recieve it while those with a cold wait. Their was a stroke in the family and I can tell you that we got immediate medical attention, and so far we have no complaints about the current system. Either way it beats having to lose the entire family business in order to pay medical bills.

It has been explained before , and they would not listen then , nor will they now.

And should one ask "where are all these people dying, as in who, give us specifics ", the sound of crickets is overwhelming.

But is does sound good.............to them. Just not true .

Same goes with bc2000 and his constant "oh look who is getting treatment in the US" posts. As if Americans never come to canada for treatment. It happens, but again, it doesnt make for dramatic posts.

[FTA Lawyer]

It has been explained before , and they would not listen then , nor will they now.

And should one ask "where are all these people dying, as in who, give us specifics ", the sound of crickets is overwhelming.

But is does sound good.............to them. Just not true .

Same goes with bc2000 and his constant "oh look who is getting treatment in the US" posts. As if Americans never come to canada for treatment. It happens, but again, it doesnt make for dramatic posts.

Sorry to be rude, but WTF does this have to do with automatic administrative punishments for driving offences?

As may come as no surprise, I agree with the argument that this is taking us down a slippery slope. Alberta's provincial law regarding prostitution is doing the same thing...immediate seizure of the car you are driving at the time you are accused of communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Even if it's not your car!!!

Careful who you lend your wheels to in this Province...

FTA

[guyser]

Sorry to be rude, but WTF does this have to do with automatic administrative punishments for driving offences?

FTA

Absolutely nothing ! Got off on a tangent and didnt even realize that I was responding to the tangent.

Carry on.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

FTA... what can be done to fight automatic punishments such as this that put too much power in the police hands?

Is the only way to fight it is to get busted somehow while not actually doing the crime (maybe asking a prostitute for directions or something)... and then fighting it in court? Or is there some lobby group to join? Or how?

[Rue]

Yet again we are letting our rights slide away on the slippery slope...

Now it is the racing law... weave in and out of traffic, speed too much, etc, and you are hit with an automatic license suspension and your vehicle is impounded... again, without a trial.

What is next? What else will they decide that we can be guilty of before proving out innocence... more than a year after the alleged offense and long after the damage is done (money lost, possible jobs lost, reputation tarnished, etc)?

Reverse onus clauses. In Civil law countries across Europe you are guilty and must prove innocence but in common law countries our criminal laws do the opposite.

The provinces however are allowed to pass summary laws that sound like criminal laws and act like criminal laws but technically are not since they don't replace them. As long as such laws simply complement or supplament criminal laws, provinces can pass them.

So they do and this is why they pass reverse onus summary offences-because they can.

Politically it makes them look tough on crime. Its a political device to make the government of the day sound tough.

Yes there are huge issues involved with reverse onus. As a lawyer they make me nervous. I don't like them,

All I can tell you is the rational for them is they are used where it is felt there is little room for the assumption that what the oerson was caught doing was wrong and that the need to protect the public over-rides the need to protect the individual.

I am not saying I agree with it just explaining it.

Can such reverse onus clauses be used to abuse the innocent? That is the question. Do they set a precedet to do this with other laws thereby eroding the cornerstone of our democractic principles of fairness? That is another question.

Its a complicated question.

You do it once, the tendency for politicians is to keep doing it in other areas and before you know it presto you could have a police state, true.

What we do know is the current Highway Traffic Act with its harsh measures for speeding and drunk driving is in direct response to what is perceived by politicians as a popular demand from the public and one that can get them votes not to mention it takes peoples' minds off the fact that the criminal legal system has collapsed and has no money or buildings to place any criminals.

Oh why worry about that when we can take cars away. In that sense it makes people feel safe. Problem is that same shmuk they take the car from starts driving around in another without his license. Not sure how you stop that short of cutting his head off.

[Keepitsimple]

I agree with the law. I think it's a reasonable "infringement" on rights for the protection of society. The spirit of the law is to get an obvious dangerous driver off the road and punish them enough that they will alter their idiotic ways. The only real criticism I've heard is that a cop might be lying or possible, just mistaken. I'm sure that almost all of these cases will be plainly visible to the public and many will be initiated by a call from the public. I think part of the process will entail the police getting witness statements to buttress the inevitable trial - although I would imagine a guilty plea might save the accused a few bucks and speed the process (pardon the pun). As with any law, if it doesn't work well, it will be fixed or done away with. Let's face it - we've all seen these idiots once in a while - not the speeders that stick to the passing lane and at least stay out of your way - it's the guys/gals that weave in and out at breakneck speed that you have to watch out for and sometimes hit your brakes. It goes back to childhood - take away their toys - and save a life.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA... what can be done to fight automatic punishments such as this that put too much power in the police hands?

Is the only way to fight it is to get busted somehow while not actually doing the crime (maybe asking a prostitute for directions or something)... and then fighting it in court? Or is there some lobby group to join? Or how?

You can lobby government, but let's face it...that's not going to work for the average person. Look how long it has taken a national organization like MADD to get anywhere with toughening drunk driving laws.

The quickest and most abrupt way to fight such a law is to make a Charter challenge as an accused. If you are found to be correct (i.e. the law is unconstitutional), the judge can strike the law down with the stroke of a pen. Problem here is, you have to be in jeopardy of being convicted for an offence (and not to mention actually losing your car in the interim) to make this work, and most people do not like to take such risks.

FTA