Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
valo, I think Tiger is one of the people you alluded to in your initial post. No sense continuing on that track without being branded as 'pro-drunk driving.'
|
It's tough because drunk driving really is a legitimate public policy issue. But in a free society you can't address an issue like that through the institution of draconian laws that do away with the presumption of innocence, require accused persons to provide evidence against themselves and limit the kinds of evidence they can lead in their own defence, all of which Canadian impaired law has basically done.
Impounding vehicles and imposing a fine, on a non-reviewable basis at a police officer's discretion is a particularly alarming step to take.
And to clarify, it would be totally different if the Criminal Code contemplated a "between .05 and .08" offence, and prescribed penalties in law accordingly--and required the Crown to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as they do with every other offence in the Code. But that isn't what's happening here.
What we have is provinces (who cannot validly enact criminal laws) creating rules under their respective Highway Traffic Acts that impose criminal penalties without the benefit of a hearing. That's not acceptable in a free society, and if the judiciary isn't willing to stop it, then the people in office who are eroding our civil liberties in this manner need to hear about it from their constituents.