Hey! Look how much we care about drunk driving!!

In what I’m sure is completely coincidental timing, coming as it does as Canadians express their outrage over former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer (loving husband to boot-throwing, PEI hating, airport security staff berating Conservative minister Helena Guergis) walking into a courtroom facing charges of driving under the influence and possession of cocaine, and walking out with a $500 fine for careless driving, comes this bit of justice-related diversion from Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson:

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on imposing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced "remarkable results" in catching more drunk drivers in other countries.

The Justice Department is inviting public input on the idea of random sobriety tests and federal officials plan to meet this month and next with provincial ministers and other experts to measure support.

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, which dictates that breathalyzer tests can only be administered when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

You know, my first thought was that this was an attempt to distract from the latest drama of everyone’s favourite Conservative power couple, but on second thought, if it is, it’s a pretty poor one. After all, it only serves to draw attention back to the Jaffer case.

Would this proposed change -- which as I’ve written before is a really bad idea, a completely draconian invasion of privacy, unlikely to do much to prevent drunk driving, and could quite possibly be unconstitutional – have made any difference in the Jaffer case? Not with the facts as they’re known at the moment. (We could use more facts, though.) The police apparently did perform a breathalyzer in this case, which Jaffer is alleged to have failed. If there was a problem with the admissibility of that search, that may have led to the plea bargain, we don’t know right now.

The whole point of this proposal though would be to subject many more people to random searches to see if they happen to be drinking and driving – and maybe have a look around their car for other fun stuff at the same time. If the Jaffer case shows anything though it’s not that the problem is getting them pulled over, it’s what happens after that, and as the case is turned over to the justice system.

Everything in law-making is a balancing act, security vs. personal liberty. And if you’re asking me to sacrifice a great deal of my personal liberty for a marginally greater likelihood of seeing people given meaningless $500 fines, then I’d say no, and try coming up with a plan that isn’t completely stupid, please.

Personally, I think the problem isn't the laws. It's a lack of resources to enforce them. Invest in police, and invest in a justice system so they have the resources to actually try cases. Too often, prosecutors feel pushed into plea bargains to keep their clearance rates up, because they don't have the time to deal with the backlog of cases. There's also the fact prosecutors are judged on their win/loss records, leaving them leery of pursuing borderline cases.

If you really want to get tough on crime, let's start there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Musing on Van Loan's honour killing musings

When I read Peter Van Loan's musings this morning that maybe, but maybe not, that he'd consider, but he's not sure it's necessary but maybe, there should be harsher sentances for so-called honour killings...

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan opened the door to tougher penalties for honour killings yesterday, saying it is a crime Canadian society cannot accept.

“This notion that it is appropriate to kill a family member because of your disapproval of their lifestyle or choices like that is simply unacceptable in our society. I have a very serious problem with that.”

... I can't help but think of the arguments that his conservative brethren use to argue against hate crime legislation: murder is murder, period. They tend to argue strongly that crimes based on race, ethnicity or sexual orientation should be treated any differently than any other murder.

So I find Van Loan's musings on "honour killings" to be interesting. I'll refrain from speculating on the reasons for his public musings, although I certainly have my suspicions. I'll be interested though to see the reaction of the conservative blogsphere.

Why own feelings on this? While I do agree generally that a murder is a murder, there are cases where hate crimes legislation should clearly be applied. But is should be used sparingly, because it is a difficult thing to prove, what was in a killer's mind.

Should we extend the hate crimes concept to include honour killings? I do find them abhorrent; although, of course, all murder os abhorent. I think the challenge would be in defining the term, and when and how it would be applied. I'd want to consider the legislation and its implementation before coming down either way.

Without ruling it out though, and while I'm not convinved this is a burning crisis in Canada, I think there may be other, non-judicial ways of preventing this kind of cultural violence before it occurs. Perhaps we should be exploring them too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BC's new pre-trial centre: The very definition of NIMBYism

I've really only been following this story through Twitter updates from CNKW and CBCBC, but it seems to be the very definition of NIMBYism run amok.

The issue: The Lower Mainland needs a new pre-trial detention centre. The justice system and current infrastructure is strained. The priovincial government is trying to invest resources to alleviate that strain. Doing so would benefit the community: less delays before trial and more resources mean less need for plea-bargians and fewer cases thrown-out by judges because it took too long to bring to trial.

Everyone wants this to happen. Everyone wants action on crime, and more resources for the justice system. Part of that is a new pre-trial centre and everyone wants one built, and NOW. The only problem? They want it built in someone else's community.

Apparently they wanted to put it in Burnaby, but the community balked. Fine, said the government. Here's a list of 60 potential sites all over Metro Vancouver, they told the mayors. You guys decide amongst yourselves. Anyone surprised they haven't been able to?

One of the proposed locations is 520 E. Kent Ave., near the Fraser River in south Vancouver.

Members of that community successfully chased a Wal-Mart out of the area in 2005 — and they're vowing to make sure the jail doesn't land there either.

"It just shows that this place has, for so long, been used as a catch-all for everything nobody else wants," said Louise Seto, a member of the group that fought to keep big box stores out the neighbourhood.

"Look at the choices that we've been given. We haven't been given any positive choices for our community at all in terms of the use of our industrial land."

Another possibility is a piece of the Agricultural Land Reserve on Barnston Island in Surrey.

"It certainly shows a disdain for the ability for us to feed ourselves and to maintain agriculture and agricultural land in British Columbia," said Harold Steeves, a Richmond City councillor and the agriculture chair for Metro Vancouver.

"They're building highways through the farmland, they're putting ports on the farmland and now they're talking about putting prisons on the farmland."

The mayors have until Sept. 1 to decide where the 360-bed pretrial centre will end up.

Maybe they should just put it on the moon.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper government vetoes Marc Emery plea deal

The Conservative government’s actions in this case, nixing a deal between Marc Emery and U.S. prosecutors that would have seen him serve five years behind bars on money-laundering and drug charges, is puzzling.

It was good enough for U.S. prosecutors, but not our government? With the way U.S. authorities have been hounding Emery you can't say they've been soft on crime. It also speaks to an troubling politicization of the justice system under the Conservatives, from “get-tough” policies that don’t work, stalling their own legislation for political advantage, and picking and choosing which death-row Canadians we’ll bother fighting for.

Prince of Pot's deal with U.S. shot down by Ottawa
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008

A tentative deal between Marc Emery, Vancouver's Prince of Pot, and the U.S. government over money-laundering and drug charges has been nixed by Ottawa.

Emery says the Conservative administration has refused to go along with a proposal that would have seen him spend five years behind bars for selling marijuana seeds through the mail.

Under the defunct pact, Emery was to plead guilty on both sides of the border and accept a sentence of 10 years imprisonment on the understanding he would serve half, mostly in Canada.

"All that was required for this deal was a rubber stamp from the federal government," Emery told me late Thursday. "They have, instead, rejected the deal without explanation . . . it is clearly political."
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers