City
Morning Brew: August 19th, 2007
Photo: "Monument to Multiculturalism by Francesco Perilli" by Shaun Merritt, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.
Your Toronto morning news roundup for Tuesday August 19th, 2008:
Toronto's Chinatown BIA has hired a security guard company to patrol the streets and crack down on petty crime in the neighbourhood. It'll be a 3-week trial run at first, and if all goes well there will be less drug dealing and durian stealing.
A crazed woman wielding a hammer boarded a TTC bus yesterday and attacked and bloodied the female driver before being restrained by a couple of intervening tough and assertive female passengers. Police arrived within minutes, and made the arrest. Men on the bus sat on their hands and wondered "what the heck is up with chicks these days." Edit: My mistake. One man did try but failed to stop the attacker before the other women intervened.
The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has said no to a 21-storey condo development at Mississauga's lake front. Apparently tall buildings can only be erected in areas where other tall buildings already exist. But the previously approved and erected 16-storey building just 500m from the proposed site isn't tall?
--
Gas is as cheap as it has been in a long time, and is expected to drop even more in the near future. Now at around $1.23/L, some people are likely upset about their decision to have a staycation rather than a vacation this summer. For context, driving from Toronto to P.E.I. and back costs about $450 (at an average cost of $1.28/L) in a car with reasonable fuel efficiency.
A staggering 505 people have been charged under the street racing laws so far in Toronto alone. Doing more than 50km/hr over the posted speed limit in the city is insane, but apparently it happens often, despite the harsh, arguably Draconian laws.
And former Prime Minister Jean Chretien has come out of the woodwork to show his (golf) balls and wag the finger at current Prime Minister Stephen Harper for having missed a huge opportunity by not going to the Olympics in China. He went on and didn't fall very short of saying that Canada isn't as tough as Harper thinks we are, and that he shouldn't make like such a tough guy.
Discussion
34 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Good attempt to troll with the comment, though.
I heard the street racing law is being challenged, should be before the courts in Oct/Nov(?), so I guess we'll see then. I'm hoping for some sort of class action lawsuit against the government after it's overturned.
Having to pay back all of those preemptive impound fees would be a nice lesson to the legislature about responsible government (eg. don't pass laws that violate the constitution because fantino said scary things).
re Chr?tien: spelling. Secondly, in hindsight he was a hell of a lot better of a PM than Harper.
A law that impounds the vehicle and suspends the drivers license on the spot renders a punishment before any haering. The person charged is presumed guilty and the cop is the judge, jury and executioner.
Licenses are revoked preemptively in a lot of cases as well. It is a public safety measure.
While we as Canadians have some rights, we don't have absolute rights. Our right to free speech ends when it interferes with other people's rights. You can't go around promoting genocide, or falsely tarnish someone else's reputation or promote hate speech.
"[the freedom of speech is] subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"
The same thing applies in many other sections of our constitution.
Your rights don't supercede the rights and safety of everyone else.
Section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms
"9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."
Being caught red-handed going 150 km/h is hardly arbitrary. It is not against your rights to be detained for breaking a law before being having a trial in which you would be proven guilty.
"8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
Again the charter of rights and freedoms has that lovely little clause "unreasonable". Your property can and will be seized if it's reasonable to do so. Being a danger to other people can easily be considered reasonable.
Having your license suspended and your car impounded isn't against your rights as a Canadian. You are not being tried as guilty on the spot, you are having your property seized for being a danger to other people. You by all means have the right to a trial afterwards, but you do not have the right to continue to endanger other people because your definition of 'reasonable' or 'arbitrary' differ from someone who respects the law.
I've always liked Chretien, sure he seemed not to give a crap, but he certainly didn't lick America's bum either.
If we are going to compare drunk drivers to excessive speeders, it should also be pointed out that people who get behind of the wheel of their car drunk aren't always full aware of their actions. The alcohol affects their judgement and they do something stupid.
Excessive speeders make the choice to go 150 km/h+ without drugs or alcohol clouding their judgement (generally). I have no pity for them.
I'm confident that Canada will eventually have a PM that we don't have to worry about embarrassing us on the global stage. Unfortunately, that PM isn't going to come from our current crop of party leaders.
The reason why drunk drivers are automatically suspended is and have their cars impounded is a reasonable "violation" of the law - a. because they are totally incapable of operating a vehicle safely at the time b. because you can't leave the vehicle at the side of the road. c. concrete evidence of their drunkeness is disappearing VERY quickly (breath-a-lyzers - forgive the error in spelling if it's wrong - aren't necessarily accurate a blood test is actually the hardcore proof cops need and the alcohol is being cleansed out as the arrest happens).
There is no evidence that drivers who speed excessively are incapable of driving safely. A person going 139 or 149 kmh is not very different from someone going 150, correct? Why does one get a fine (which can be fought in court) and the other fine, automatic suspension, and vehicle impound without a court date? The decision - the speed limit here - is arbitrary.
The law is a prima facie violation of the Charter, and it SHOULD be challenged. I would love to see the government explain it's rational for it (as opposed to tossing due process out the window without question).
Driving at 150 kmh ISN'T automatically reckless. Sorry, but for your people who feel that somehow it's reckless no matter what, I challenge you to provide evidence on how many car accidents happen at speeds of 150 kmh vs 100 kmh vs 80 kmh. It's about CONTEXT. 80 kmh can also be incredibly reckless - if you're doing it in a 40 kmh zone. However, somehow doing 80 in this context doesn't get your licence suspended or car impounded. Who's the bigger criminal? The guy doing 150 on an empty stretch of highway or the one doing 80 a school zone?
The law is arbitrary, foolish, and draconian.
While I (and probably many other people) would argue that the idiot speeding in a school zone should be treated the same as the idiot doing 150 km/h on the highway, the government might argue here that it's all about context and maximum harm - the school zone speeder might harm or kill one or two pedestrians. Tragic as that would be, the highway speeder stands a far greater chance of causing a chain-reaction crash on a busy stretch, and taking out far more innocent people.
Also, wouldn't a cop who impounds the car of someone doing 150 km/h on the 401 be doing so, in your words: "a. because they are totally incapable of operating a vehicle safely at the time b. because you can't leave the vehicle at the side of the road."? And, couldn't the cop reasonably argue that the speeder c. might not be able to see well enough to drive, considering s/he can't see the posted speed limit and d. may or may not have a medical condition which is responsible for such a flagrant violation of the law?
It *is* about context, but out of the 505 people they've caught, just how many do you think were driving 50 above the limit on empty roads?
I'm betting most of them were not on empty roads and were driving around people who were closer to the speed limit, and thus endangering them.
Also, from your example, if you drove 90 in a 40 zone, your car would be impounded then anyway. I know you said 80, but I think the point is that they needed to pick a number to use. Theoretically, they could have made it 40 over and not 50... It's still reckless.
The charter of rights isn't absolute. Read it for yourself. You don't have the right to endanger people's lives any more than you have no right to publish hate speech.
The issue is whether driving at those speeds is dangerous.
From the US Department of transportation:
"the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles travelling slower than the average speed, and for those travelling above the average speed."
"the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed."
From New South Wales (Sorry, can't find a related Canadian study. Don't have time to google since I'm at work, so wikipedia will have to do):
"In NSW speeding [in relation to conditions] is a factor in about 40 per cent of road deaths. This means around 200 people die each year from speeding in NSW. Speeding was a factor in the deaths of 1049 people over the five years 2002?2006. In addition to those killed, more than 4700 people are injured in speed-related crashes each year.
The cost of speeding is not only a human one. Speed-related crashes cost the community around $780 million each year."
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/index.html
I think it's fairly well documented that excess speed is incredibly dangerous.
And while you're right. There is little difference between someone going 149 and 150, but lines do have to be drawn. And that line is pretty highly drawn. We don't have the capability to seize 1/15th of a car for when someone is going 145. These laws also apply to slower speed areas. If someone is going 80 km/h in a 30 km/h school zone, they'll also be charged under the new laws. 150 isn't the magic number, you can be charged even when going slower if the conditions warrent a slower speed.
<i>There is little difference between someone going 149 and 150, but lines do have to be drawn. And that line is pretty highly drawn.</i>
So you admit it is ARBITRARILY drawn, right?
<i>150 isn't the magic number, you can be charged even when going slower if the conditions warrent a slower speed.</i> Not a magic number? You mean, it was arbitrarily chosen?
While I appreciate the effort you put into getting statistics - they don't apply here. In fact, they prove how silly this thing is. The speed related <i>accidents</i> (not outright vicious activity, which I will get to later) increase 32 times when speeding 20 kmh over the posted speed limits on regular streets, NOT highways. So if this is true, THEN perhaps we should be cracking down on speeders who are going 20 kmh over the speed limit on our streets, not highways.
Secondly, if you believe so much in the need to use a canon to swat flies (by running roughshod over the Charter), then why do we let vicious murders walk the street. By your thinking, those who are a serious threat to society should be locked up before any trial occurs on suspicion of guilt. Abu Garhib, Gitmo, and various secret holding cells are A-OK by your stance.
Speeding CAN be dangerous, but it's not a serious enough issue to warrant a disregard to our fundamental rights and freedoms. Speeding is a TRAFFIC violation, not a violation of the criminal code.
Speeding and hate speech do not compare. Hate speech can cause violence, persecution, etc. on an indentifiable group of people. It is also a CRIMINAL offence. Not a traffic violation and as such is under a different class of rules.
And do you understand why hate speech is not allowed? I mean, do you truly understand the Charter? The reason it is not allowed is because by allowing it, it violates the rights of the group being persecuted. The only way to protect them is to limit the freedom of speech of the hateful group, not entirely, but just enough to provide balance.
Now, please present your Charter argument explaining how limiting the freedom listed in Section 11 of the Charter can more effectively protect the rights of other citizens in ways more effective than the current criminal code and highway traffic act.
Please avoid referring to arbitrarily set speed limits and the "fact" that the likelihood of people dying increases as speed increases (I'd point out that more people are killed doing 120 than 150, because more people do this speed).
You present valid points, but as you say context is important - however, the law isn't taking context into consideration. And Uma, as you say, yes, a lot may have been doing that speed in the wrong context (if there is a right one??), but others may have been doing that in an empty road, you seem to suggest they are not as much as a danger as the larger group, yet they are treated the same.
Neil, I support your stance that the law should work on percentages, however that is NOT the case. It uses an arbitrarily set limit without consideration of the context. Doing 149 kmh on a soaking wet highway in the middle of the night with hundreds of cars on the road doesn't warrant a more stiff penalty than the person traveling on an empty highway in perfect driving conditions doing 1 kmh over that. Why is one being more unfairly treated than the other when the former is clearly more dangerous than the later?
I'm asking for proof that this is truly necessary and that the highway traffic act and criminal code aren't enough that we have to ignore innocence until proven guilty.
Claiming that the choice of 50 km/h is invalid because it is an arbitrary number is ridiculous.
To claim that the 50km/h over doesn't effectively take into account accidents on city streets is also kind of ridiculous. The alternative would be to enforce a percentage based system. Go 50% over and you get your car impounded. Sound fair? So go 150 in a 100 zone and you get your car impounded, but go 60 in a 30 zone and you also get it impounded. Of course if we did that, then you'd likely be complaining that the 60 in a 30 zone seizure is completely unreasonable. I'd also have to repeat myself with the FACT that crashes at higher speeds are exponentially more likely to be fatal. Are you really going to suggest that you support having your car seized for going 60km/h in a 30 zone over the potential for a fender bender?
Not that any of this matters anyways, because like you pointed out, other crime exists somewhere in this city, so we shouldn't enforce any other laws until we can eradicate that other crime. It's important that we invest 100% of our police resources in solving murders, because for some reason that is what always seems to come up when issues over laws arise on this comment boards.
And Dave I wasn't comparing hate speech with reckless driving. I was simply using it as an example as your rights as an individual versus the rights of you as a member of society. Your argument that this somehow violates chapter 11 of the charter of rights is invalid. It doesn't apply, as you are not being sentenced by the officer in question. You are having your vehicle seized due to the dangerous situation you've put yourself and other people in. You can have your day in court and if found innocent, obviously be given back your car and license.
You don't hear about this happening of course because we're not talking about a police officer making a debatable judgment as to whether you've committed an offense. (Donny, this is directed at you) We're talking about a precise measurement of your crime in progress that the officer enforces. It used to be the case that you could plead your sentence down to a lesser one. Is this more fair? A judge -ARBITRARILY- deciding whether you should suffer the fines for a 150+km/h charge or one of 140km/h?