Actually you are incorrect: the Supreme Court determined that random spot checks were a Charter violation.
Ultimately it will be the Courts that will rule on this law as well, should it pass.
MADD With Power
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Actually you are incorrect: the Supreme Court determined that random spot checks were a Charter violation.
Ultimately it will be the Courts that will rule on this law as well, should it pass.
Rights are not a balancing act. You either have a right, or you don't. If the government removes your right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, then it is gone, and what you're left with is simply whatever freedom they grant you, from search and seizure. And admit it, it started with compulsory check stops, now it's bumping up to testing. It won't stop there. You can justify a lot for the sake of public safety.
Can you direct me to the decision where they declared Ride checks to be a charter violation?
If you are referring to a case that involved section 1 of the charter, remember that section 1 is also part of the charter, so it would not violate the charter.
Rights are always a balancing act because we all have rights and those rights constantly bump into one another.
By the way it is written, the charter rights are not cut and dry. You are not protected from any specific type of search and seizure, just when it is "unreasonable". If something is determined reasonable, it doesn't mean that all protection from unreasonable search and seizure goes out the window, it just means that in that instance that particular issue was determined to be reasonable.
R. v. Ladouceur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you stated, it is a balancing act between civil rights and public safety.
In my opinion the police are already amply resourced to protect Canadians from drunk drivers. They should make do with the extensive powers already available to them and not seek to further violate the basic rights of Canadians. Charges for impairment are up, and deaths from impaired driving the lowest in decades, which means to me that the current approach is effective.
Impaired driving charges in Canada rise 2% - Canada - CBC News
The litmus test for which, in Canada, up until recently, was that police needed to note a behaviour that gave them REASON for a search. "Incase you're breaking the law", is not an observed reason.
My comments be might heard from a different point of view here.
My brother was for all intent and purpose killed by a drunk driver.
My Grandson will never be the same again, he was struck by a
drunk driver in a playground around area. the man who hit him
was drunk, with a suspended licence and returning to work drunk.
Two cases in this family of the results of drunk drivers.
Having said that. I believe this is a bad piece of proposed legislation.
The reason illegal search without cause. When we can simply
confront people without cause in any state it leads to terrible things
down the road and the saying still holds true the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.
Despite family tragedy I still believe our rights and due process in a
democracy are more important to the welfare of the society. Some
always ask the question What if the tragedy came to your family.
Well in our family it came twice and still democracy is more important
for the nation as a whole. I think people who injure or kill others should
pay big time. I think people should have a reasonable sense of security
in public that are not going to be bullied by the state. PUnish those who
are guilty don't punish everyone for crimes real or imagined.
My brother was for all intent and purpose killed by a drunk driver.
My Grandson will never be the same again, he was struck by a
drunk driver in a playground around area. the man who hit him
was drunk, with a suspended licence and returning to work drunk.
Two cases in this family of the results of drunk drivers.
Having said that. I believe this is a bad piece of proposed legislation.
The reason illegal search without cause. When we can simply
confront people without cause in any state it leads to terrible things
down the road and the saying still holds true the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.
Despite family tragedy I still believe our rights and due process in a
democracy are more important to the welfare of the society. Some
always ask the question What if the tragedy came to your family.
Well in our family it came twice and still democracy is more important
for the nation as a whole. I think people who injure or kill others should
pay big time. I think people should have a reasonable sense of security
in public that are not going to be bullied by the state. PUnish those who
are guilty don't punish everyone for crimes real or imagined.
It is great to see that they are making headway on the problem, but there are still 121 too many deaths and 839 too many injuries resulting from people getting behind the wheel while drunk. If we can further reduce that number with reasonable measures, I do not think that is a bad thing.
petros they could build that capability into cars right now they have for chronic
misbehavior already and in factory it wouldn't cost much more to do.
misbehavior already and in factory it wouldn't cost much more to do.
The Ride program has been around for like 35 years, so it isn't that recent. That was challenged against section 9 though, freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. I really don't know if being told to quickly blow into a device even counts as a search in this context, or if it would have any merit being challenged against section 8.
If they really want to enforce no drunk driving effectively, make every car have a breathalizer installed and require a pass on it before the car starts or the driver's door is opened. No exceptions. No worrying about drunk drivers. No need for RIDE programs or random searches. Of course, it will cost a bit more. But with the money saved on insurance payouts, perhaps this can be funded by the insurance industry.
The current system will only work when starting but todays cars could have the capability to assess your driving and call the cops on you.
That would be could a call from you would make it a bonifi search would it not.
I think we have to ensure the roads are safe but taking away the foundations
of the charter of rights to do it is a violation of trust in the society itself.
Who once said if you trade liberty for security you end up with neither.
I think we have to ensure the roads are safe but taking away the foundations
of the charter of rights to do it is a violation of trust in the society itself.
Who once said if you trade liberty for security you end up with neither.
No I don't agree with that. Current measures are demonstrably effective. The police already have ample resource sand powers to reduce drinking and driving. I don't think the absolute elimination of drinking and driving is a realistic public policy goal.
Current measures have had a positive effect, but that doesn't meant that there are not other reasonable measures that can have an even greater effect.
LOL, from the wayback when machine:
Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada - Canada - CBC News
It wasn't that long ago that the Conservatives recommended this exactly. In fact it was a Parliamentary committee that recommended the changes.
Alberta Premier Allison Redford even agreed with the Federal Conservatives at the time:
Justice minister pushes for random breath testing
Seems like the NDP are trying to steal an issue first raised by Conservatives, and make some political hay. They first raised the issue about a year ago:
Sun News : NDP urges government action on random roadside breathalyzer tests
Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada - Canada - CBC News
It wasn't that long ago that the Conservatives recommended this exactly. In fact it was a Parliamentary committee that recommended the changes.
Alberta Premier Allison Redford even agreed with the Federal Conservatives at the time:
Justice minister pushes for random breath testing
Seems like the NDP are trying to steal an issue first raised by Conservatives, and make some political hay. They first raised the issue about a year ago:
Sun News : NDP urges government action on random roadside breathalyzer tests
As you mentioned earlier, it's all about the balance between individual rights and public security. You and I clearly draw that line in different places. I might have agreed with you a few years ago, but I find these days, especially with the growing spy scandal, that government is a little to "in-yer-face" for my liking.
There is a question of balance for sure, but I don't think that broad anti government sentiments are all that helpful in determining something like this. Spying and Ride checks are completely different issues.
If instead of doing their little chat with you to see if they think you are drunk, they just quickly tell you to blow into the device, I don't know if that is really all that much different in terms of intrusiveness. It seems to me like the improvement in accuracy would be much greater than whatever burden one might think this puts on them.
I don't have "broad anti-government sentiments" and I don't think misrepresenting my position is that helpful either. I have specific and recent concerns regarding the balance between individual liberties and public safety.
As stated earlier, clearly we don't agree on where those lines should be drawn. Therefore you support the bill, and I don't. I think the police have enough auhtority and reousrces to do their job as it is, and the declining rate of drinking and driving is evidence of that.