My letter to my elected representative

[Angus Argyle]

I will accept full liability for my own lack effort to write my own letter.

Thanks....

[NiteshadeTA]

A Reply:

Subject: RE: The HTA and how it stomps on the charter of rights

Dear : I am sorry that the Attorney General's Office has not responded to your query regarding the Constitutionality of the Highway Traffic Act amendments with regard to street racing. As you may know, Hamilton has experienced the horrific and tragic consequences of street racing on more than one occasion. MPP Horwath has supported families and community initiatives that led to the passage of this Bill. As a result of my follow-up upon receiving your email below, the Ministry of the Attorney General assures me that a response to your query is
forthcoming. Terry Frisken, Constituency Assistant

[NiteshadeTA]

My reply:

Ms. Frisken,

While the city of Hamilton (among other cities) and it's residents may or may not have been the victim of street racers, the racers themselves are entitled under The Charter certain fundamental rights. Why would Andrea Horwath support a provincial bill, that so blatantly disregards a person's rights and freedom's under federal legislation?

I should note, I have NOT been charged or affected by this legislation. I am a motorcycle racer, having raced in the 408racing/CMRC events. I race on proper, safe, private tracks. I attend track days to get my fast paced riding done. I agree that stern measures are needed to help curb the reckless speeding on Ontario's highways, as the proper environment is at a track. However I must state that even the speeder's/racer's are entitled to their rights. They are entitled to a fair trial before being penalized. I am sure Andrea Horwath must agree that we should not tread over Canada's Charter of Rights in order to enforce a provincial traffic act. Or perhaps she thinks we should?

I've attached a picture of where our policing system is going because of moves our government is making. You may say it is an exaggeration. I say it is where we stand now as the police now are able to penalize you on the street by taking your license and vehicle away from you, regardless of if you committed this offence or not.

I await your response.



Image attached to email:

(borrowed the idea from another forum poster - thanks)

[Yamaha_Gurl]

Oh Nites, you are too funny! Come out to the Christmas party this Friday!

[Rob MacLennan]

The street racing "problem" has been critically overblown by media, politicians, and police talking heads. There is no such problem. Given our population density, actual street racing incidents are virtually unheard-of. There are far more important things, even in traffic enforcement, for our police to be attending to.

[eastcoast_gsx]

The street racing "problem" has been critically overblown by media, politicians, and police talking heads. There is no such problem. Given our population density, actual street racing incidents are virtually unheard-of. There are far more important things, even in traffic enforcement, for our police to be attending to.

Rob, why do you insist on making sence, things dont get accomplished this way.

[Rob MacLennan]

Rob, why do you insist on making sence, things dont get accomplished this way.

The "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!" folks believe that I juggle flaming babies while chewing on a white rhino burger, all while peeing on the flag. Being reasonable helps to reinforce my image.

[djltoronto]

Thanks NiteshadeTA for your initial write up.

I copied it (for the most part) and added a few of my own words...
And this is what I got in return.

Seems as though the point about people not being perfect, and the possibility of the officer making a mistake are not even touched.

And the fact the he (his office) replied via letter-mail instead of email just makes it that much more difficult to follow up with.

[Brian P]

It's good of you folks to keep the pressure up ... but honestly, I think as far as the elected officials go, it seems like beating one's head against the wall. I'm not sure if it's because they don't grasp the meaning of "constitutional rights", or if they realize they've screwed up and don't dare admit it. One thing's for sure; having gone down this road, what politician would dare reverse course voluntarily? It would be seen as "backing down", or being anti-safety, etc., and that could never happen.

I suspect that this law and regulation is only going to get changed if the courts say it's got to get changed. The police will only stop using biased and unfair enforcement policies if they get sued for negligence or malicious prosecution as a direct result.

[TBSS_guy]

Here's mine...

As a concerned constituent in your riding, I would like request that you motion to have the new “Street racing law” (bill 203) amended or repealed immediately.
Although I am not a lawyer, in my opinion this law clearly violates some very important rights that we have as Canadians, including the supposition that we are innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial and the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. I feel that this law puts entirely too much power in the hands of Ontario's police forces based almost entirely on the opinion of the officer, with little or no actual physical proof of wrongdoing required.

The fact that there are no mechanisms to reimburse innocent people for impound fees and lost wages, remove suspensions from drivers abstracts or to make them whole for the substantial insurance increases that are inevitable with a suspension of their license is unconscionable. A simple case of mistaken identity can easily cost an innocent driver of upwards of $10,000 in impound, lawyer and increased insurance fees. Please note, this amount reflects strictly the irreversible indirect costs of this charge being levied, not the actual fine for the offence itself. This bill is clearly ill-conceived as people who are unjustly charged with this offence will suffer, what currently amounts to be, irreparable financial penalties, regardless of guilt or innocence.

This bill was touted as a crack-down on street racing but in reality this bill contains a laundry list of completely un-related offences that now potentially carry criminal charges and/or unbelievably steep fines. The bill is written in such a vague manner that police can now levy extremely serious and costly charges for what, realistically, are minor offences. Please note, I am not referring to actual street racing when I refer to minor offences, I am referring to the multitude of other infractions included in this bill. The criteria to qualify for the aforementioned offences are not clearly spelled out in the bill and therefore are completely at the discretion of the police.

Again, please do not misconstrue this, I do not condone street racing but this law is extremely unjust and must be fixed immediately.
As we all know, to err is human and that everyone makes mistakes. The police are clearly no exception to this. That there is absolutely no mechanism to rectify a mistake by police is simply unforgivable. That there is no appeal process is not only embarrassing to the Canadian people but also clearly violates the rights of those charged.

Furthermore, it seems that the police are charging anyone and everyone they can under the full extent of this new law in order to strike fear into the public, without any respect given to the severity of the punishment. An un-signalled/improper lane change, as much as they infuriate me, is not worthy of a $2000 - $10,000 fine and what amounts to $10,000 - $20,000 in indirect costs. This heavy handed approach to legislation and law enforcement can potentially ruin people financially.

It seems to me that officers being authorized to mete out this type of punishment without any appeal even being possible creates an environment that is dangerously close to a police state. With this new law the police now chase down speeders instead of reading their license plates and waiting for them at home, even if it needlessly endangers the public. The potential for abuse of power is too great to allow this law to stand, so I must ask you to start the process of having it repealed.

Please let me know what your thoughts are on this matter as well as what actions you will take to have this bill amended or repealed. I have not yet, but will be passing this letter on to friends and family in hopes of gaining enough support to effect change, and would appreciate your support and any advice that you may have.

Thanks in advance,

[Rob MacLennan]

Djltoronto, that's just a politely worded PFO that indicates no interest in your enquiry; a complete lack of comprehension. I've received many of them, myself. To translate it into simple terms, the letter says,"I know you don't like that people's rights are being violated, but we know best."

If you follow up with this, I would suggest hitting these points:

- If these 'unlawful' drivers are worthy of being taken off the road, then when does it stop? An impaired driver is a demonstrable risk should he immediately get behind the wheel. Can you demonstrate that this is so with a speeder?

- Many of these 'dangerous activities' are only so by the curbside judgement of an officer. This is insufficient for an immediate levy of punishment.

- Why is it necessary to expand police powers, when statistics indicate auto injuries are on the down-swing and there were already HTA and CRIMINAL charges on the books to adequately cover the described behaviour?

[djltoronto]

Djltoronto, that's just a politely worded PFO that indicates no interest in your enquiry; a complete lack of comprehension. I've received many of them, myself. To translate it into simple terms, the letter says,"I know you don't like that people's rights are being violated, but we know best."

Tell me about it.

If you follow up with this, I would suggest hitting these points:

- If these 'unlawful' drivers are worthy of being taken off the road, then when does it stop? An impaired driver is a demonstrable risk should he immediately get behind the wheel. Can you demonstrate that this is so with a speeder?

- Many of these 'dangerous activities' are only so by the curbside judgement of an officer. This is insufficient for an immediate levy of punishment.

- Why is it necessary to expand police powers, when statistics indicate auto injuries are on the down-swing and there were already HTA and CRIMINAL charges on the books to adequately cover the described behaviour?

I very much want to reply... but haven't yet. I need to put something together that makes so much logical sense, that any monkey can plainly understand that I totally agree with the concept of making the streets more safe, but at the same time do not support bill 203 because of its numerous ambiguous loose definitions (or total lack of definition).

I think we need to come up with something that a politician can use to convince the greater public that even though they don't support bill 203, they are still motivated by making the roads more safe.

I'm sure all the politicians are afraid to challenge this bill, even if they don't agree with it, because they know there will be repercussions - the public will view them as "soft" - "Incapable of fixing the issue" (was there really an issue to begin with?)

Thanks for the comments, and I will definately include them in my reply.

Wouldn't it be great if one of these politicians got charged under this new bill, for something like and unsafe lane change Now that might help the cause.

[K4GSXXXR]

I am willing to give up my lunch money of $10 if you guys want to put a full page add about this law in a newspaper. Any publicity is a good publicity.

[NiteshadeTA]

Horwath response:

Subject: RE: The HTA and how it stomps on the charter of rights

Dear Mr. : I am sorry that the Attorney General's Office has not responded to your query regarding the Constitutionality of the Highway Traffic Act amendments with regard to street racing. As you may know, Hamilton has experienced the horrific and tragic consequences of street racing on more than one occasion. MPP Horwath has supported families and community initiatives that led to the passage of this Bill. As a result of my follow-up upon receiving your email below, the Ministry of the Attorney General assures me that a response to your query is
forthcoming. Terry Frisken, Constituency Assistant

[NiteshadeTA]

My reply:
Ms. Frisken,

While the city of Hamilton (among other cities) and it's residents may or may not have been the victim of street racers, the racers themselves are entitled under The Charter certain fundamental rights. Why would Andrea Horwath support a provincial bill, that so blatantly disregards a person's rights and freedom's under federal legislation?

I should note, I have NOT been charged or affected by this legislation.
I am a motorcycle racer, having raced in the 408racing/CMRC events. I race on proper, safe, private tracks. I attend track days to get my fast paced riding done. I agree that stern measures are needed to help curb the reckless speeding on Ontario's highways, as the proper environment is at a track. However I must state that even the speeder's/racer's are entitled to their rights. They are entitled to a fair trial before being penalized.
I am sure Andrea Horwath must agree that we should not tread over Canada's Charter of Rights in order to enforce a provincial traffic act. Or perhaps she thinks we should?

I've attached a picture of where our policing system is going because of moves our government is making. You may say it is an exaggeration. I say it is where we stand now as the police now are able to penalize you on the street by taking your license and vehicle away from you, regardless of if you committed this offence or not.

I await your response.

[NiteshadeTA]

Their response

Dear Mr. : thank you for your most recent email below. The street racing legislation was passed by a majority of the Legislature upon introduction by the governing Liberals. It would require the current Liberal government to have a complete change of mind and to introduce new legislation to void their most recent amendments. The question of the legality of this Bill in regard to our Charter of Rights, will only be determined through a court decision. Sincerely, Terry Frisken, Constituency Assistant

[NiteshadeTA]

my response:

Ah, but the body of the house of commons cannot ignore the illegality of this ammended act. You can also push forward an amendment to the act.

I know the Liberals are in majority, but does that excuse the matter and make the problem go away? Certainly not.

You know it's wrong. You know it violates the Charter of rights.

Why do you do nothing? You can make a motion for an ammendment to the act!

Quit dancing around the issue as it does not shine favorably your way.

I eagerly await your response.

[Rob MacLennan]

my response:

Ah, but the body of the house of commons cannot ignore the illegality of this ammended act. You can also push forward an amendment to the act.

I know the Liberals are in majority, but does that excuse the matter and make the problem go away? Certainly not.

You know it's wrong. You know it violates the Charter of rights.

Why do you do nothing? You can make a motion for an ammendment to the act!

Quit dancing around the issue as it does not shine favorably your way.

I eagerly await your response.

IMHO that's the wrong tack to take. Beating up on your rep will gain you nothing. A little sideways shaming isn't bad though.

The response was an attempt to lay it on the Liberal's doorstep. Attack it on that front, because we know that ALL parties voted for it. Use the fact that your elected rep is supposed to be your advocate, whether or not he's a member of the ruling party, as a crowbar to leverage co-operation.

Starting an argument with a subordinate won't give your cause any traction. Piss off the non-elected functionary and your concerns will never reach the elected official.

[djltoronto]

I am willing to give up my lunch money of $10 if you guys want to put a full page add about this law in a newspaper. Any publicity is a good publicity.

Nice offer... but if anyone goes forward with something like this. THINK ABOUT IT long and hard, as readers can interpret things very differently.

It would have to be written very well, so as to avoid confusion with defending street racers.



BIll 203 went into royal assent on June 4th 2007, and was voted on unanimously by all parties. (this is my understanding).

I vaguely remember reading how at this time (June 4th), several definitions of things like stunting were not yet defined? (anyone have any info on this). This seems like a logical path to pursue if this is correct.

These details would greatly help me with my response!

Thanks in advance

[Brian P]

It's true that the definitions of "stunting" were not voted on by the legislature. What the legislature voted on was a clause that said something to the effect of "the Lieutenant-General may make regulations defining ...", thus giving permission to the bureaucrats to define it in whatever way they wished. It really doesn't matter. The above e-mail correspondence confirms what I've suspected since the outset. The Legislature doesn't care whether this legislation violates consitutional rights. They're leaving it to the courts to sort out later (at our expense).

No politician is going to back down on something safety-related. "Think of the children ..."