the new Attorney General

[82Seca750]

anyone tried corresponding with Chris Bentley yet - re: the apparent rights violations with the roadside punishments on Bill 203?

check out this piece on him in the Star

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/289152

I'd be interested to hear his input on 203....considering his past

might be a refreshing change from that ****** Bryant

[donut]

i happen to live in his riding, and have written him several times regarding Bill 203 and have yet to receive a response of any kind.

i guess that's what he thinks of it.

[Brian P]

I strongly suspect that the politicians/bureaucrats (including him) know full well what they've done, and don't want to admit that there was anything wrong with it. To do so would be a political nightmare. If they make any admission that Bill 203 violated constitutional rights, lawyers would have a field day with it INSTANTLY. Hence ... the lack of any response.

They're leaving it to the courts to sort out.

Don't let that stop you from sending letters. If the courts strike down some or all of the objectionable parts of Bill 203, all those letters might dissuade the politicians from appealing the ruling, or from re-writing the legislation afterward to circumvent whatever the courts tell them to do.

[82Seca750]

I strongly suspect that the politicians/bureaucrats (including him) know full well what they've done, and don't want to admit that there was anything wrong with it. To do so would be a political nightmare. If they make any admission that Bill 203 violated constitutional rights, lawyers would have a field day with it INSTANTLY. Hence ... the lack of any response.

They're leaving it to the courts to sort out.

Don't let that stop you from sending letters. If the courts strike down some or all of the objectionable parts of Bill 203, all those letters might dissuade the politicians from appealing the ruling, or from re-writing the legislation afterward to circumvent whatever the courts tell them to do.

oh I'm with ya.......and I'm gonna send Mr. Bentley a letter/email (a very polite one....which is not my style).....and I'm not going to stop sending letters until this thing is severely revised or completely toasted

funny thing though.....I've posted in another thread that certain folks that have been charged under 203 have been getting their court-dates remanded, and one dude charged made mention that the crown suggested there were constitutional issues with 203

I'm just wondering.....is Bentley instructing/inspiring/influencing the Crown's???? Does he have that kinda influence? Did he smartly instruct all involved that everyone charged under 203 go with a non-existent slap-on-the-wrist cause he knows the backlash under rights violations could be real ugly?

I dunno.....but I can tell ya, some folks I know on the coppers' side of the fence are not cheerleading about 203

[donut]

His response to my email, took him about a month and 4 emails from me to respond.

Bentley_Chris-MPP-CO to me
show details 1:10 PM (5 minutes ago) Reply



Hi:

Thank you for your email.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Those who exceed the speed limit by many kph endanger not only themselves, but every other user of the road. Nobody can be certain what traffic is, or is not, around the next corner, or behind the next building. The past several years have seen many instances where one person's decision about what they thought they should, or should not, do, cost the life or health of someone else, someone who had no say in the speeder's decision. Every driver has a responsibility not only for their own safety, but also for the safety of other users of the road. Government must take action to protect other users from the few, and the few from themselves, when the few take action that so clearly places everyone's health and safety at risk.

Thank you again for writing.

Chris Bentley

CHRIS BENTLEY MPP
London West
Constituency Office
11 Base Line Road East
Unit 8
London ON
N6C 5Z8

[Muchacho]

His reply is not incorrect.

I think that the purpose of the law is clear as per his letter. However, our problem with the law is that it was written with violations to our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If the law was amended so that violations to our rights did not occur, we would not be having such spirited discussions about it.

[82Seca750]

His reply is not incorrect.

I think that the purpose of the law is clear as per his letter. However, our problem with the law is that it was written with violations to our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If the law was amended so that violations to our rights did not occur, we would not be having such spirited discussions about it.

bingo......and when I write to Mr. Bentley......my questions will be with regard to the people currently charged and their court cases......and how he was raised in an environment that challenged those charges, and the circumstances that questionably violated their rights......and the sort of pantload excuse that we are supposed to put up with, that these new laws don't voilate the rights of the folks that he used to protect

not too impressed with his canned email response though

[Muchacho]

If you would have written a letter about the violation of rights his response would have been different.

From his response, I think he understood your letters to mean that laws targeting speeders should be removed.

[Rob MacLennan]

His reply is not incorrect.

I think that the purpose of the law is clear as per his letter. However, our problem with the law is that it was written with violations to our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If the law was amended so that violations to our rights did not occur, we would not be having such spirited discussions about it.

His reply is blatant obfuscation. He ignores the number of new offences that have nothing to do with speed, but will result in the impoundment of your vehicle. He ignores the violation of Charter rights. His is more enlightening for what it doesn't say, than what it does.

[Muchacho]

His reply is blatant obfuscation. He ignores the number of new offences that have nothing to do with speed, but will result in the impoundment of your vehicle. He ignores the violation of Charter rights. His is more enlightening for what it doesn't say, than what it does.

It may seem like obfuscation, but it depends on what the question that he was asked. Did he answer that question?

Again, it is more constructive to approach this as a violation of charter rights than argue it in any other indirect way.

[Rob MacLennan]

It may seem like obfuscation, but it depends on what the question that he was asked. Did he answer that question?

Again, it is more constructive to approach this as a violation of charter rights than argue it in any other indirect way.

Given the way that the conversation regarding this law has been going here for several months, I would presume that the original question had something to do with the Charter rights breaches involved. But we can answer that question by simply asking Donut to let us know what he asked about.

I have received responses from many MPPs and officials. In every case the response has been formulaic, evasive, and aimed at pushing the individual's own agenda rather than answering my very clearly phrased questions.

[donut]

It may seem like obfuscation, but it depends on what the question that he was asked. Did he answer that question?

Again, it is more constructive to approach this as a violation of charter rights than argue it in any other indirect way.

no, he did not answer a single question i asked nor did he address a single point i had raised. my letter was written in the efforts bringing light to the rights violations resulting from the new Bill.

i replied to that email saying that i had no qualms with the reasons BEHIND the passing of Bill 203 and that my concerns were with the actual writing and implementation of said Bill. He has since replied, thanking me for my input and that my comments will be forwarded to his colleagues.

[Muchacho]

Well, if you asked clear questions then I don't think that anyone would be surprised by some evasive political answer.

The good thing is that they are trying to evade your question, that means that you are one the right track.

We have to raise awareness and get some articles in the newspapers. We should also ask for opinions from university law profesors and other experts and publish them in the media.

The only thing is not to get carried away and talk about the injustice of police officers interpreting and following the law left and right. The central issue here is a violation of charter rights by the law that was legislated.

[Rob MacLennan]

Well, if you asked clear questions then I don't think that anyone would be surprised by some evasive political answer.

The good thing is that they are trying to evade your question, that means that you are one the right track.

We have to raise awareness and get some articles in the newspapers. We should also ask for opinions from university law profesors and other experts and publish them in the media.

The only thing is not to get carried away and talk about the injustice of police officers interpreting and following the law left and right. The central issue here is a violation of charter rights by the law that was legislated.

I wouldn't call that "being on the right track." Obfuscation is the politicians tool, when he doesn't want to answer the hard questions and thinks that he can get away with not doing so. Cornering him into answering those questions would be moving along the right track.