Morning Brew: August 19th, 2007

The second I heard Harper skipped the ceremony I thought it was a real disgraceful call. Really, why does he always have to be such a dick?

A young male tried to stop the attack on the TTC driver before Irena Fodorova - who has "law-enforcement training" - managed to get the attacker away.

Good attempt to troll with the comment, though.

I've edited the comment because I failed to realize that not all the men sat on their hands. :)

I hope they only torpedoed it because it was by the lake. Mississauga needs more high-density housing.

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).

I hear those durians are up to trouble...best to watch out! In singapore, it was illegal to open one on the subway - $5,000 fine if you did....ruh roh!

guy lafleur: What constitution? People who engage in dangerous and sociopathic behaviour like this should be punished harshly.

re Chr?tien: spelling. Secondly, in hindsight he was a hell of a lot better of a PM than Harper.

Charter S11(d): 'Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.'

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.

I think that it is fairly common for police to seize property that has been used in an alleged crime. For example if I waved a knife around in a crowd, I would expect the police to take the knife.

Licenses are revoked preemptively in a lot of cases as well. It is a public safety measure.

Just to add to the above - we have speeding and dangerous driving laws on the book that punish people who speed. The streetracing law is politically motivated overkill. Opposition to it shouldn't be seen as support of speeders, just support of our rights. I'm not trying to be uppity here, but the violation of our rights this law allows for is absurd.

i agree with guy! i also think that impounding a person's vehicle when they fail a breathalizer test is also unconstitutional.

We already had laws that dealt with speeding. The street racing law was put in place to deal with a specific problem but it wasn't worded correctly and gave the police the opportunity to misuse it. Along with tasers, radar guns, boots, etc.

Bart - I don't think they impound drunk drivers cars as punishment. They do it because the driver is impaired and can't drive it and they can't leave the car sitting on the side of the road.

I don't know, it's sure as hell stopped pretty much everyone I know from speeding excessively.

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'm sorry, maybe i just don't understand, but i don't see how driving recklessly due to drinking is that much different than driving recklessly due to excessive speeding.

Bart, it's simple. Most of those who are against the law are of the mindset that driving at excessive speeds isn't reckless.

The condo 500m away was that much closer to Long Branch Station and was in Toronto, not Mississauga. Provincial policy statements, among other things, intend to direct growth to within the catchment area of transit stations.

I think most Canadian men would be afraid to interfere when a woman is commiting a crime as they would probably be sued for sexual harassment.

I've always liked Chretien, sure he seemed not to give a crap, but he certainly didn't lick America's bum either.

Thanks for the awesome comment Ryan L.

And if law enforcement issued fines instead of arresting people for drunk driving, I'm sure it would be called a cash grab as well.

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.

Re Ben's comment about Chretien: "In hindsight he was a hell of a lot better of a PM than Harper." You might be right, but good lord... isn't this a bit like debating whether you'd rather be run over by a bus or a truck?

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.

Sorry Ryan L., But I have to disagree. The Charter of Rights is absolute. Just because you feel that a certain group of people should have their rights disqualified because you feel they are reckless does not mean it's right.

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.

Sure Dave, because driving 150+ in a 100 zone can actually be both safe and responsible. At least once we've all installed nitrous oxide injectors. Until then, woe is you.

Dave: Driving at 150 km/h IS automatically reckless, assuming one is doing so in an environment where everyone else is obeying the speed limit and driving at 100 km/h. We're not talking about someone going 10 or 15% over the posted speed limit here - we're talking 50%. Yes, by that logic, someone doing 80 km/h in a school zone is doing the same.

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?

@ Dave

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.

See what I mean Bart?

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.

Going 55km/h is insane? what are you 99?

Ryan, I know it is not ABSOLUTE absolute (I majored in law at university), however, it takes a lot to justify having to strip one of those rights.

There is little difference between someone going 149 and 150, but lines do have to be drawn. And that line is pretty highly drawn.

So you admit it is ARBITRARILY drawn, right?

150 isn't the magic number, you can be charged even when going slower if the conditions warrent a slower speed. 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 accidents (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).

Uma and Neil,

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?

Dave, you aren't arguing from any firm statistics, or understanding of statistics.

Ben - I'm not advocating stripping right either, what's your point?

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.

Kenzie's mad y'all

I think you guys are missing the point here. When the due process of law is being violated, it doesn't matter whether the law is of good intention, full of common sense or even popular with the majority. It is NOT up to Cam Wooley to dish out punishment on the side of the Highway 400. This is Civics 101 material.

All such lines are drawn somewhat arbitrarily. For that matter, the legal blood alcohol level is pretty arbitrary too. So?

Any line chosen is going to be arbitrary, so clearly we mustn't enforce reckless driving at all?

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?