need help writing a petition

[eastcoast_gsx]

appreciate that......gimme a couple of days and it'll be up

I'm going to ask GTAMC if they'll spam it out on their membership email when it goes online....no better way to get the word out than zapping out to thousands with a keystroke

will approach Paul as well when it's up

thank you sir

If possible, you should disable an addition of comments. This can turn ugly real fast.

Basically, if you agree with the petition text sign away... if not... go away.

Comments can get dirty and throw it off real fast.

[82Seca750]

If possible, you should disable an addition of comments. This can turn ugly real fast.

Basically, if you agree with the petition text sign away... if not... go away.

Comments can get dirty and throw it off real fast.

great point....

[Rob MacLennan]

An EXCELLENT point.

Like the man said, "God please protect me from my friends and I will take care of my enemies."

[Avi Singh]

it's law....it is aimed at everyone

if you sign the petition, you are one of the "we" who want to see things revised...no?

had the help of an Officer friend from another site and I still need to revise, as DUI is the exception to all other CCC driving offences......car is not seized (obviously impounded for the night if drunk-face doesn't have anyone to drive it home)...but licence is bye bye for 90 days if your blood shows 80mg+

Point taken. I was trying to look at it from the political point of view though... and they might not look at it that way... they were the one's that wrote the legislation. By personalizing it, a politician might look at it and say "see they are un happy with the law.... that means it's working." Flawed logic I realize but then again, they are politicians.

[newbieracer]

Point taken. I was trying to look at it from the political point of view though... and they might not look at it that way... they were the one's that wrote the legislation. By personalizing it, a politician might look at it and say "see they are un happy with the law.... that means it's working." Flawed logic I realize but then again, they are politicians.

Just shooting **** in the dark but at the first Instance of the word "we" Why not make it "we the undersigned" and it takes out that dilema. Again, just a thought from someone with 0 political experiance.

[sinbin]

alright....so I gave "the petition" a whirl

comments?

not going to post it on an online petition site until we all agree that it's accurate and says what we want it too

Petition to Revise Ontario Street Racing Legislation

The purpose of this petition is to inform the Ontario Government that Ontario citizens consider penalties levied by the recently implemented "street racing" legislation unlawful and consequently in need of redress.

Most notably, the 7-day car seizure and license suspension penalty levied roadside by a Police Officer, with no recourse for the accused regardless of the Judge's court ruling is unacceptable as it violates our Charter Right to Due Process as demonstrated below:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Since the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, upfront penalties implemented, with no recourse for the accused clearly violates that right.

The penalties are described in the HTA section 172, and the legislation is also known as the "street racing" legislation, or "Bill 203" (the bill in which the legislation was proposed).

According to the Legislation the following penalties are compulsory and immediately imposed, before a court hearing:

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle

(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and

(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment

(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.


The penalties outlined above, clearly violate our Charter Right to Due Process, and are unlawful as citizens accused of this offense, are penalized with no recourse to damages incurred if found guilty of the offense by the court.

The driving behaviors described for penalty in HTA 172 are not Criminal Code of Canada offenses, they are alleged traffic infractions. Under CCOC allegations, any accused is arrested and detained until a Court decides upon appropriate, if any, driving or vehicle restrictions. HTA Section 172 provides no such opportunity, for an alleged traffic infraction.

This inconsistency provides citizens of this Province more rights when being accused of a criminal offense in comparison to a non-criminal traffic infraction. This oversight by the elected officials requires immediate legal redress to stop the violation of the Charter Right to Due Process (as referred to above).

The 7-day vehicle seizure and license suspension has been positioned by our elected officials in a variety of conflicting descriptions as this law was initially implemented as a means to stop "street racing", but continues to punish thousands of citizens who are not behaving in this manner. The initial justification of the seizure and suspension was deemed a "safety" concern, but now with 7+ months passed since the law has been enforced, and the nearly 5000 charged, the seizure and suspension is now justified as a "deterrence". Given the violation of the Charter Right to Due Process the enforcement of this law causes, the accountability of the elected officials responsible for endorsing it, requires further attention. The data gathered to date requires further analysis to prove or disprove whether "street racing" is being reduced as a result of this law (HTA 172).

Laws are in place to deter bad/illegal behavior. Rights are in place to insure that no citizen is wrongly penalized. The "street racing" legislation (HTA 172) and it's penalties, the 7-day seizure and license suspension levied roadside by a Police Officer with no recourse for the accused regardless of the Judge's ruling is a clear violation of the citizen's Charter Right to Due Process.

HTA 172 needs to be revised to remove this upfront penalty and restore the Civil Right to Due Process to the citizens of the Province of Ontario.
1. Legal inadequacy through disproportionate penalties when compared to similar criminal violations
2. Lack of data to prove it's effectiveness
3. Demonstrated violation of the Charter Right to Due Process

With a few suggestions and changes. Great work and keep us updated.

[taxnatural]

awesome tell me where and when to sign....I'll get everyone i know to sign

[Brian P]

awesome tell me where and when to sign....I'll get everyone i know to sign

Ummmm ... read post #1 in the number one sticky thread at the top of the list of threads in this forum section!!

[SteveT]

Just my 2 pennies.
Perhaps consider removing the words feel and replace with more factual stance e.g. We THINK based on the information (provide source for information, use a Govt. stat)...20 died of street racing since 1989 vs. 50+ that died in 200x from illegal handguns.

Something that demonstrates that this is NOT the problem they make it out to be and point out the more IMPORTANT problems by using THEIR stats.

best of luck and thanks for your efforts.

[Wind Shear]

Petition to Revise Ontario Street Racing Legislation

The purpose of this petition is to inform the Ontario Government that Ontario citizens consider penalties levied by the recently implemented "street racing" legislation unlawful and consequently in need of redress.

Most notably, the 7-day car seizure and license suspension penalty levied roadside by a Police Officer, with no recourse for the accused regardless of the Judge's court ruling is unacceptable as it violates our Charter Right to Due Process as demonstrated below:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Since the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, upfront penalties implemented, with no recourse for the accused clearly violates that right.

The penalties are described in the HTA section 172, and the legislation is also known as the "street racing" legislation, or "Bill 203" (the bill in which the legislation was proposed).

According to the Legislation the following penalties are compulsory and immediately imposed, before a court hearing:

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle

(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and

(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment

(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.


The penalties outlined above clearly violate our Charter Right to Due Process, and are unlawful as citizens accused of this offense are penalized with no recourse to damages incurred if found [innocent] of the offense by the court.

The driving behaviors described for penalty in HTA 172 are not Criminal Code of Canada offenses, they are alleged traffic infractions. Under CCOC [motor vehicle] allegations, any accused is arrested and detained until a Court decides upon appropriate, if any, driving or vehicle restrictions. HTA Section 172 provides no such opportunity, for an alleged traffic infraction.

This inconsistency provides citizens of this Province more rights when being accused of a criminal offense in comparison to a non-criminal traffic infraction. This oversight by the elected officials requires immediate legal redress to stop the violation of the Charter Right to Due Process (as referred to above).

The 7-day vehicle seizure and license suspension has been positioned by our elected officials in a variety of conflicting descriptions as (consider cutting - vague, unclear)
[T]his law was initially implemented as a means to stop "street racing", but continues to punish thousands of citizens who are not behaving in this manner. The initial justification of the seizure and suspension was deemed a "safety" concern, but now with 7+ months passed since the law has been enforced, and the nearly 5000 charged, the seizure and suspension is now justified as a "deterrence". Given the violation of the Charter Right to Due Process the enforcement of this law causes, the accountability of the elected officials responsible for endorsing it requires further attention. The data gathered to date requires further analysis to prove or disprove whether "street racing" is being reduced as a result of this law (HTA 172).

Laws are in place to deter bad/illegal behavior. Rights are in place to [e]nsure that no citizen is wrongly penalized. The "street racing" legislation (HTA 172) and it's penalties, the 7-day seizure and license suspension levied roadside by a Police Officer with no recourse for the accused regardless of the Judge's ruling is a clear violation of the citizen's Charter Right to Due Process.

HTA 172 needs to be revised to remove this upfront penalty and restore the Civil Right to Due Process to the citizens of the Province of Ontario.
1. Legal inadequacy through disproportionate penalties when compared to similar criminal violations
2. Lack of data to prove it's effectiveness
3. Demonstrated violation of the Charter Right to Due Process

Prefer this version, just made a few admittedly pedantic changes.

[restless]

hmmm sounds a lot like http://www.petitiononline.com/civil013/petition.html

[Rob MacLennan]

Which is the petition that he eventually wrote. That's why it's in a stickied thread at the top of this forum