I love this guy...nice way to kick off 2010
http://www.wheels.ca/Columns/article/783601
The OPP and a law twice-tossed
Jan 02, 2010
Has the Ontario Provincial Police not heard that in our judicial system the legislature passes laws, the courts (if they so choose) rule on their constitutionality, and the police – supposedly, servants to the legislature, the courts and the people – enforce them accordingly?
Not, apparently, these days.
Justice Peter West ruled recently in a Newmarket court that Ontario's stunt driving law, which automatically imposes various levels of punishment on anyone accused of violating it (not convicted; only accused) is unconstitutional.
As the
Star reported, West ruled that an accused driver's Charter rights are "clearly infringed" by potential jail time because this law, as it exists, doesn't permit the person to put forward a defence.
He described the law as an "absolute liability," which means those accused can't argue they took precautions or they didn't realize how fast they were driving.
A street-racing charge automatically leads to a conviction, which can carry a minimum fine of $2,000, immediate suspension and vehicle impoundment, and a maximum jail sentence of six months.
West really had no choice but to toss this law. The Charter of Rights, part of our Constitution, is quite clear: you cannot face a charge that can lead to jail without having the ability to defend yourself.
Would you want it any other way?
The way this law is written, the police officer lays the charge, passes judgement and metes out the punishment, all with you having no chance to state your defence, and that my friends is just not on.
Inspector David Ross has said the OPP will continue to lay charges and impound cars, in defiance of the Constitution, because, as he told the
Star: "It has been an effective tool in combatting speeding and reducing collisions and deaths on the highway."
What the
hell?
We shouldn't be surprised, because that was the police's reaction when Justice Geoffrey Griffin ruled likewise in a Napanee court this past September.
The attorney general's office has appealed Justice West's ruling and it will go to Court of Appeal this month.
The OPP didn't like either ruling, so its officers are ignoring them. So far, more than 15,000 Ontario drivers have been charged, almost all with exceeding 50 km/h over the posted limit.
I repeat, and I wish I had a bigger type face:
WHAT THE HELL?
Who's in charge here? Sadly, I guess we know.
Too many people are buying the OPP's spurious statistic that traffic deaths have dropped since the "stunt driving" law was passed.
Nonsense.
First, traffic deaths on a vehicle-per-kilometre-travelled basis have been dropping more or less continually for 70 years. This recent drop is, to at least some degree, part of an ongoing trend.
We would need more data — much more than the one year's worth of data for this law so far — to determine how large that degree is.
Second, supporters are failing to differentiate between correlation and causality. Just because two events coincide, doesn't mean one caused the other. The classic case is the correlation between high-fashion female skirt length and the stock market.
The number of traffic deaths is affected by a large number of factors, including — and this is a big one, according to several studies — economic downturns.
Anyone seen one of those around here recently?
Third, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation's own statistics show that a fast-shrinking percentage of fatal car crashes occur at ultra-high speeds.
Yeah, they are spectacular when they happen, but nailing these high-fliers just doesn't have the potential to reduce high-speed fatal crashes very much because there just aren't very many of them.
In fact, by any statistical measure, our safest roads are always our fastest roads: the 400-series highways.
Speed kills? No, it does not.
Simple as that.
The worst thing though is: even if this law
did save lives, are we prepared to give up our Constitution for it?
The police have all sorts of laws to charge speeders, tail-gaters, lane-changers, impaired drivers and seat belt
refusniks (the latter two being the only issues that really show up as statistically important).
And now, even hand-held cell-phoners and texters.
This so-called stunt driving law ("so-called" because it has nothing at all to do with "stunt driving" or "street racing," neither of which has any place on our highways and for which the cops already have plenty of legislative weaponry) is simply a power grab by the World's Biggest Street Gang.
"To Serve and Protect?"
Sorry. I am beginning to have serious doubts about either.
jim@jimkenzie.com
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by 82Seca750
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks