Tories Ready to Trample on Rights to Catch a Few Drunk Drivers
March 11, 2010 · By Greg Farries
Is this what the Conservatives mean when they say they’re tough on crime?
The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on legalizing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced “remarkable results” in catching drunk drivers in other countries.
In a rare move, the federal government has posted on its website a discussion paper, weighing the benefits of random testing, seeking feedback by the end of April.
Empowering police to conduct random breath tests would replace Canada’s 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving. That law dictates that breathalyzer tests can only be administered when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.
What’s next, random house searches?
Imagine the “remarkable results” in crime prevention that could be attained if we gave up all of our rights to the state.
Make sure to tell Justice Minister Rob Nicholson just what you think of this ill-advised legislation – (613) 957-4222, webadmin@justice.gc.ca
For a full explanation of these proposals see, Modernizing the Transportation Provisions of the Criminal Code – Discussion Paper
Once again HARPER THE HYPOCRITE proves he is a LIBERAL in blue
So Greg, isn’t the purpose of posting that Discussion Paper to solicit feedback from Canadians?
It seems like a general consult with Canada to me, where your complaint (valid imho) can certainly be addressed.
Let me be perfectly honest. I both disagree and agree with this idea. I disagree because of privacy rights, but I also agree insofar that many drunk drivers do not exhibit outward signs of intoxication before and while driving until it’s too late. There are convincing pros and cons whether we like it or not.
I also have to say that I’m thrilled that the Government is soliciting public input on potential policy/bills. It’s imperative that we take advantage of the initiative and mobilize people to participate.
I don’t think you need a public discussion on the merits of random searches/testing. The idea is so toxic to our human rights/privacy that it should have NEVER made it this far.
I was nearly killed by a drunk driver was I was four – he hit me as I was riding on a carrier on the back of my mother’s bike. I spent 6 weeks in traction with a broken femur.
Believe me, I understand the consequences of drunk driving.
However, even with my past, I can NOT advocate the fascist policy of random searches or testing of otherwise innocent individuals.
Thats exactly the point Shawn. Lets find some ways to improve things.
75,000 people are injured by drunk drivers and 1,200 people die EVERY YEAR.
What about their rights?
If random stops aren’t the answer then how about installing alchohol monitors in ALL vehicles or lifetime driving bans to get those idiots off the road.
I, for one, fully support this initive… I’ve got nothing to hide!
How on earth can anyone be against this? What, are we saying that drinking and driving is now a protected “Charter Right”?
While I may be inconvienced on occasion, I have nothing whatsoever to worry about, so I willingly surrender my “right to privacy” on this one… because I don’t drink and drive. Nor do I transport illegal drugs or weapons on my passenger seat, so there’s no worry of getting arrested for those during my random stop.
Seriously, what’s the downside? You can’t just say “Privacy”, because I don’t think our rights to “Privacy” exend to criminal activity that puts the lives of others in immediate danger. If there weren’t so many morons who haven’t gotten the point yet, I could perhaps stand with you in opposition to this one… but since we still have hundreds of drunk driving charges every year, we need to step things up a notch.
Just sent a note of support to the Minister too.
How incredibly short-sighted,
Wired published a great article recently, The Eternal Value of Privacy and the author summed the argument up like this:
Your willingness to submit to a higher authority in an attempt to solve an unsolvable problem is encouraging to those people and organizations who are willing to take all of your rights away to solve all of societies problems.
Again Greg, it’s a case of the Silent Majority vs the Vocal Minority. It doesn’t take much to get a small object moving, but it takes monumental effort to get giant ones rolling. The Silent Majority is often prodded into action only when something so intolerable happens that they just can’t remain silent on the issue.
I fully support personal responsibility versus nanny-statism and I continue to believe that people must be allowed to make their own choices, but also that they must be fully accountable for those decisions. That requires, as you noted, the protection from abuses of power by those IN power, even if you’re doing nothing wrong.
Those people who fear and reject personal responsibility are more than happy to make someone else, such as the government, responsible for it, because then they themselves can not be held responsible, even if they screw up.
Take a second before you so easily give up your right to privacy and reason.
Do you think that this country will be run by the “conservatives” forever? What if the liberal or (god forbid) the coalition got into power?
How long do you think it would take before they decided on random home inspections for who knows what? Smart thermostats? Gun confiscations?
This is a really bad idea that they are doing just to be seen as supportive of MADD. I would like to know how accurate Madd’s figures are and I also want to see the financials and salaries of those employed by Madd.
Christian Conservative on March 11th, 2010 12:03 pm [#]
I, for one, fully support this initive… I’ve got nothing to hide!
How on earth can anyone be against this? What, are we saying that drinking and driving is now a protected “Charter Right”?
————————
It’s simple: allow this, and the next steps will be random searches of your person, followed by arbitrary searches of your home. And they’ll use the same old, “hey, what have you got to hide?” tactic to justify it.
That’s where we cross the line from free country to police state…
Sorry for being so late to the party, and thanks, Greg, for bringing this up. It’s a pretty wretched idea, and it saddens me that the CPC thought it was a good idea to bring this up.
Sean, though I will agree with your general point that discussion and public consultation are good things, I reject the notion that it was appropriate here. This idea so tramples the concept of individual liberty – is such an affront to liberal democracy – that no political party should just put it out there to see if there is any support. Some trial balloons should shot down before they even leave the ground.